I was floored by the promise I heard about made to our Caucus in Portland from an attorney, Richard Schwartz, claiming that he could get a 9-0 vote by the Justices of the US Supreme Court in favor guaranteeing lifetime medical eligibility for longshore pensioners, for a fee of five million dollars.
A letter from this attorney to the members of the ILWU Summary Plan Description Committee and presidents of “cooperating” ILWU locals on this topic, which I retyped at the end of this post, contains nothing of substance, but it is a worthy subject for scrutiny for its poor quality and because the discussion around the issue took up two days’ worth of delegates’ salaries, meals, and hotel bills.
For starters, I couldn’t help overlook the telephone number of the lawfirm, printed on the stationery – TOLL FREE: 1-800-INJURED.
That’s a con job blowing its horn at full blast, in my book.
Fortunately, nothing was done, in spite of a motion by Vice-President Spinosa to give this fellow a $100,000 “partial retainer” after the 5 million dollar promise failed to get the support of the delegates.
But if the 5 million dollars, up-front, price-tag and the ambulance-chaser telephone number don’t make a plausible case against this scam by themselves, there’s more in that letter to lead me to the conclusion that this whole issue has been a sham from the start.
On the promise of getting a 9-0 victory at the Supreme Court:
The US Supreme Court hears a tiny proportion of those cases which even get before a Federal district judge, the lowest federal court. From there a case MAY go to the Circuit Court of Appeals, if the judges on that panel agree to hear the case. The Supreme Court is at the top of the heap and hears only what it thinks are the most significant cases. Any lawyer who makes a promise even to get a case before the Supreme Court has lost any shred of credibility as far as I am concerned. And then to WIN there? 9-0?? We’re talking about a process that can take years. No one can predict years in advance what a group of nine old conservatives will do, other than to find in favor of property rights, or have a bunch of liberals suddenly been appointed in the last two weeks?
Schwartz makes a number of assertions about the history of the Pension Agreement which are based on little more than unofficial publications and individuals’ recollections, but since I really do not have the chapter and verse of this history at my own command, I will limit my observations to things that I can argue with the knowlege that I do posses. To start with, let me quote from attorney Schwartz’s letter, to comment on how this fellow puts things into words that seem intended to mean something, but don’t make any real sense or are contradictory when looked at more closely. He writes,
“So I am pleased to report to you that those who have claimed that the Right to Lifetime Medical Care never existed could not be more mistaken. This right was first won in strike on a ten-year basis, and then permanently in negotiations. It is part and parcel of the ILWU and its bargaining history with the PMA. We have found no evidence that the ILWU ever bargained away this right. Therefore, we believe it still exists today.”
This stream of words is complete nonsense. I’ll start with the first signal that this attorney is trying to put one over on us: capitalizing the words “Right to Lifetime Medical Care” is an incorrect use of capital letters, which are reserved for names, such as people, cities, countries, or other unique things, such as the Constitution of the United States of America. In short, it is a way of signifying that the person or thing commands universal respect. Often I see such misuse of capital letters in pitches for this money-making scheme or another, whether in junk mail or advertisements. It’s a technique used to transfer the respect we are used to giving things normally written in capital letters to something that isn’t actually eligible for them. By itself, the mistake wouldn’t deserve comment, but in combination with the other bullshit signifiers, it shouldn’t be overlooked.
Then he makes a logical contradiction:
The right (to lifetime medical care) was first “won in strike” on a ten-year basis, and then “permanently” in negotiations. How is it possible to be both permanent and on a ten-year basis? That’s like saying you have a permanent right for the next ten years. This kind of gibberish is an insult to the intelligence of a low order, deserving of an immediate flush, not two days’ worth of jaw exercises. And who ever says, “won in strike”? Doesn’t sound like someone who has been around these parts. In fact, he comes from St. Louis – a long way from maritime labor agreements.
The next sentence, “It (the right to lifetime medical care) is part and parcel of the ILWU and its bargaining history with PMA,” communicates no clear meaning. Of course, no matter what the subject of this sentence was, it couldn’t really mean anything, and is a waste of words. Think about it – what could it possibly mean to be part and parcel of the ILWU, and to be part and parcel of its bargaining history with PMA? The sentence indicates to me that either he doesn’t really comprehend the nature of the relationship between the union and the employers – which is possible, since he works for a personal injury law firm – or that he doesn’t understand a basic rule of sentence composition, or, more likely, he thinks that we are suckers with significant disposable income and might be willing to part with some of it if we can be convinced there might be a light at the end of the tunnel. Or maybe he had a series of really bad teachers, who failed not only to enforce the rules of capitalization, but also to explain the principles of composition. He is an attorney, after all, and should have the language skills at his command to get a case before a US District Court judge, let alone win a 9-0 victory at the Supreme Court. An essential skill to deliver on that promise is the ability to write forcefully. His product is flab. My reasoning is that either his mistakes indicate incompetence, or he is telling us things he thinks some of want to hear, regardless of how absurd they are.
English class is over, so let’s cover some logic:
“We have found no evidence that the ILWU ever bargained away this right. Therefore, we believe that it still exists today.” This is a textbook example of faulty reasoning. He is saying, we didn’t give it away, so we still have it? I never thought we had it in the first place, and I’m third generation around here. Sorry, but if I’m not convinced, I think this is a ludicrous argument to present to our nine skeptical Supreme Court justices, who will quickly determine that, by reading the actual agreements between the ILWU and PMA, there will be a series of expiration dates on the various contracts and pension agreements going back the past six decades. Note that in his letter to the Coast Committee, attorney Schwartz failed to point to a single page number, section or subsection of any of the pension agreements to support the assertion that there is such a thing as a “permanent right to lifetime medical care.” The best he comes up with is heresay from “witnesses,” who aren’t even actually in court yet (and that is another bone to pick I have with his English). But on the strength of this empty logic, he lays before us a proposition to pony up 5 million dollars towards a promised 9-0 Supreme Court victory.
Another glaring contradiction appears in the final paragraph:
“There is nothing to be gained by finger-pointing. Rather, our focus is and will remain on ways to prevent any erosion of the right, to root out the efforts by some in recent years to cast doubt on the right, and to guarantee that the right will be fully observed in the future.”
That sounds threatening, “. . . to root out the efforts by some in recent years to cast doubt.” It contradicts the promise not to finger-point. How do you root something out, without first identifying what has to be rooted out? I think, if I had been a delegate to the Caucus, I would have wanted to know just exactly what this sentence was supposed to mean. After all, there has already been a significant amount of finger-pointing not to mention out-and-out character assassination around this issue. But again, since the meaning is not really crystal clear, his sloppy writing serves to warn us that he is not properly trained.
Seems to me the only one who might get “guaranteed lifetime medical benefits” out of a proposition like this is the attorney clever enough to convince our officers and caucus delegates to give him the fee he wants. Fortunately, that has not occured. However, the issue has served the purpose of distracting our delegates from really important issues.
I’d like to make a final comment about the word at the center of the issue, “eligible.” Most times it appears in connection with this or that murderer coming up for his yearly parole hearing, or in the reading of lengthy prison sentences, followed by “eligible for parole in 25 years.” That doesn’t mean, of course, that a particular inmate will receive parole, just because he may be “eligible” for it. It only means that he can be considered. Other conditions apply. The other common use is the term “eligible bachelor,” which is a man who meets the qualifications for marrying one of the daughters of a rich family. In both cases, the term doesn’t carry with it a guaranteed right or claim of possession. The elligeble prisoner and the eligible bachelor both have more hoops to jump through.
Brian Nelson, Local 34
text of letter retyped below on Summary Plan Description (SPD)
(please excuse any typo’s)
March 28,2000
TO: All Members of ILWU SPD Committee and Presidents of Cooperating ILWU Local Unions
Re: Historical Evidence for Lifetime Medical Care for ILWU Retirees
Dear Clients:
As part of our work for the SPD Committee on the question of Lifetime Medical Care for ILWU retirees, we contracted a researcher to study the history of the Promise of Lifetime Medical Care. I also initerviewed witnesss from the relevant period of ILWU history who were active in the affairs of the International back then and are still available. Our researcher compiled a bibliography from the thousands of pages of documents you provided us. The Coast Labor Relations Committee was very helpful to our investigation. Its members went into the International’s archives and copied for us many documents going gack as far as the 1940’s. Those documents provided further historical evidence to support your case. Locals 18, 19, 8 and 94 supported our work along with members like Dallas Delay.
It is clear from our historical investigation and analysis that the right of ILWU pensioners to enjoy lifetime medical care during their retirement definitely exists. The right was originally won in a strike, formally established through bargaining, made permanent in the 1960 negotiations which allowed the employers to bring high-speed labor-saving machinery onto the docks, and never bargained away.
I am enclosing a Sworn Declaration by Mr. George Kuvakis, Sr. , who was present with Harry Bridges at the 1960 negotiations with the PMA for the “M&M Agreement” (Mechanization and Modernization) which first permitted what was then called “automation.” Mr. Kuvakas testifies that President Bridges confirmed the agreement for the continuation of lifetime medical care with the PMA.
The first agreement for lifetime medical care was voted by the trustees of the Welfare Plan on January 3,1951. It was approved by unaimous vote of the trustees with three employer trustees and one union trustee present. A copy of that first formal approval is enclosed. That approval grew out of the stike won by the Union, but was intended to last only ten years.
The M&M Agreement in 1960 made the right permanent. It was first voted down by the ILWU membership, but approved on a second vote because of the lifetime guarantee that the Union had insisted on bargaining for. The M&M Agreement and its negotiation are described in the 1963 book Men and Machines.
In Men and Machines the Introduction was a joint statement by Harry Bridges and PMA President J. Paul St. Sure in which they summarized the agreements between the ILWU and the PMA. A copy is enclosed for you. The two presidents jointly memorialized their agreement for lifetime medical care. These key words appear in their Introduction at Page 3: “Medical care for the worker and his dependents continues in effect during early as well as regular retirement.” This agreement was some of what Mr. Kuvakas observed being agreed to in the 1960 negotiations. It formed part of the ILWU-PMA plan for what Bridges and St. Sure called a “series of benefits for the workers to protect them against the impact of the machine on their daily work or on their job security.”
Bridges and St. Sure had jointly agreed for early retirement to shrink the work force from the top if automation cut into work opportunity. If necessary, retirement could be compulsory for members with 25 qualifying years’ service. If compulsory, the early retirement pension would be increased.
The guarantee to retirees of lifetime medical care was bargained as part of the protective net the Union required before the PMA could be given the right to automate the docks from Bellingham to San Diego. As Mr. Kuvakas testifies, the job losses would be permanent, the modernizing machinery was not going to be taken away in the future, and the series of benefits was intended to be permanent.
So I am pleased to report to you that those who have claimed that the Right to Lifetime Medical Care never existed could not be more mistaken. This right was first won in strike on a ten-year basis, and then permanently in negotiations. It is part and parcel of the ILWU and its bargaining history with PMA. We have found no evidence that the ILWU ever bargained away this right. Therefore, we believe it still exists today.
As you know, our full opinion letter about all your legal rights and remedies will not be ready until mid- or late April. But you also know that I believe your situation will successfully support litigation to protect, preserve and vindicate the right to lifetime medical care for retirees. The ligation we envision will not seek either actual or punitive damages against anyone. There is nothing to be gained by finger-pointing. Rather, our focus is and will remain on ways to prevent any erosion of the right, to root out the efforts by some in recent years to cast doubt on the right, and to guarantee that the right will be fully observed in lthe future. These can be viable lititgation goals if the ILWU longshoremen are will to commit to a serious court case for a serious cause.
Very truly yours,
Richard E. Schwartz
Special Investigating Counsel for the ILWU SPD Committee and ILWU Locals 8,13,19 and 94
cc: Members of Coast Labor Relations Committee
Jim Spinosa, Vice President, ILWU
Bob McEllrath, Coast Committeeman
Ray Ortiz, Coast Committeeman
