Page 49
Furthermore, this Act provided for the establishment of
the aforementioned Trustees:
one appointed as the representa-
tive of the United Mine Workers; one appointed as a representative of the Employers; and one neutral Trustee, who since the
conception of the Fund has been Josephine Roche.
This neutral
Trustee is to be selected either by agreement of the other two
Trustees, or by a petition by the UMW or the operators to the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia for
the appointment of an impartial umpire.
The Trustee appointed
by the United Mine Workers is, also, designated as the "Chief
Executive Officer and the Chairman of the Trustees of the
Fund. ,,7
The current Trustees and the remainder of the Fund's
formal structure are shown in Chart VI.
For the next few years, the Fund changed noticeably, until
1950.
In that year, the "United Mine Workers of America Welfare
and Retirement Fund of 1950" was established by the National
Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1950.
This was a milestone
in that the amount which operators are to pay into the Fund has
remained the same from the time of that agreement to the present.
The sum of forty cents is still to be collected on each ton of
7National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1968, pp. 3-4.
•
-oche
,"Ir"
,J
.l' .. \ -'
...:J
~J2vi::~
-.'.~,a 1.:~leIOT';S
"._ /T_C:T'~' '1'0----
UFF'IC~'~
II : \.1/1'; T
,~,; D
'dC,3:)~~T ~.lJ
w,
1.
'.'-:"
. . . ,- \ ...... ,...,
1· ....
i ~~~:"'.J: ~,.,)
. I;n ,:) .~::D
,~U ~ TCV'O ~,')
I
.; r"7-,I1-'
J
.'1.md:
~~_,.1 J
Page 51
bituminous coal produced by an operator, who is a signator to
the agreement, for use or for sale.
Also, the sum of eighty
cents is to be levied on each ton of coal, which is acquired
by a signator of the above agreement, on which the forty cent
fee has not been paid.
Under the present contract, the first
payments were to have been made on November 10, 1968, and on
the 10th day of each calendar month thereafter.
If full and
prompt payments are not made, it will be deemed a violation of
the contract. 8
In the early years of the Fund, it was fairly easy for
a miner or his family to collect health benefits; a union
member was simply issued a "Welfare card" which he presented
when he sought medical services.
The lax requirements soon
had to be terminated, however, because the Fund was fast being
drained of its resources by a multitude of questionable claims.
Today a union member must seek health care from only those
clinics and doctors which are recognized by the Fund.
"A
total of 8,158 physicians and 1,559 hospitals and medical,
research and special centers were used by the Fund in the year."
Also, there are ten Area Medical Offices which are located in
8National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1968, pp. 3-5.
----------~--------------
Page 52
the centers of mining population which provide services:
Johnstown,
Pennsylvania; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Beckley, West Virginia;
Charleston, West Virginia; Morgantown, West Virginia; Birmingham,
Alabama; Knoxville, Tennessee; Evansville, Indiana; St. Louis,
Missouri; and Denver, Colorado. 9
Medicare has been of great
importance because it has removed part of the Fund's burden by
providing medical care to pensioners.
Unfortunately, the Fund has also served to alienate as
well as aid some miners.
In 1962, the union began cancelling
the membership and Welfare cards of those miners whose employers
had not kept up with their payments to the Fund.
The miners
were given no hearings, no time to try to influence the mine
owners to pay the forty cents a ton fee.
This act embittered
many of these miners permanently against the union. lO
Annually an audit is made of the Welfare and Retirement
Fund by an independent firm of Certified Public Accountants,
Wayne Kedrick & Company of Washington, D. C.
The results of
this audit are made available to any interested party on request,
and parties, such as members of Congress, certain government
9"Welfare and Retirement Fund:
10Caudill, Cumber lands , p. 392.
Report 1970," p. 8.
Page 53
officials, and signators of the National Bituminous Coal Wage
Agreement receive a copy of the audit immediately upon
publication. 11
Chart VII shows findings of the last audit, for the period
of July 1, 1969, to June 30, 1970.
Exhibit "B" is probably
the most important of the three sections in that it deals with
receipts and expenditures.
The audit showed an unexpended
balance of $151,088,014.37 as of June 30, 1970.
This is greatly
overshodowed, however, by the fact that the Fund is operating
at a deficit; total receipts were $174,232,169.73, while total
expenditures stood at $202,611,355.49.
Chart VIII shows a
comparison of the past two years, 1969 and 1970.
Whereas total
income has increased by $11,020,883, total expenditures have
also increased by over three times that amount, $38,757,862.
The unexpended balance of the Fund decreased $28,379,186 in
one year; although the Fund is still solvent, there is a question
as to whether it can continue to operate at such a deficit for
any length of time.
As recently as 1965, the Fund was operating in the "black."
Although the unexpended balance stood at only $140,248,140.43,
11''We1fare and Retirement Fund:
Report 1970," pp. 15-16.
G'~\.l:T
YII
","",
'
~~.
. _.
_'~T'~ :(.:<~C,~ ~,
::.
'","
'1":;
"f{-t"
J'
rT
~;.
'_'~I
1
~?i
r'r"
1"',
-!-,'- .,.)\ .
',J •
,- T""\
".-
", i..LJ_
C3.sh
In
B:.'.~:
J.,
,:','nv,'r)c()!,' •' " .', ,._
'1(1")'
()' '~,
'lOtf'-l G2.sh
C.' ()'/')r.. , -:
] ~,.,"u~
Un(~:,:')·:n(je,J3~.:cl::mc ~
::f i"w'ld ,June 3D, 1?7CJ --
~i':ro:~',zhibit
rc~J.·':
-
:
~([~""
' 0<
__ .....
11:3 11
~Yl.~
;:-J}O~l(~
" no
'-_:._i;~:l)"llrc-~e=·.~8nt:) 1)~::.is.
~t:t ;r~8;rt, ]~,:::_~
~_)e~n
:~lr'~~):'ll"1>';d
on
:~ c.~~".sh
~8C ~~:L LYt,~~'
/"<
.......
,',
"1'
,
(,"
,
.'
~:-~ ~·j~f- ~)rr
--;,"""1
"
'I
<',
-"r
T(' 1.
"I~
1
,1-
,
1
,-,
, -, 1-'- ~
"
(~
,~
,
:;t(')
,
f_~T.-1
)
.. ";ri,"r?
..,
~
)
,1
..J
C)
..
r'
'7j ,
3
l:!:o~::1.~~~:0
·~n~_~,::~:~t,~7.nn~
··'(3':;·3~_~.r )r"~
t-j"',::,:'l
j,-,~1n
t)-I,
. iC'..tiorl~~_l
.)<~_(~ "C~:··:>·:·'· ',.:.; 0:1" :t95C~,
~
·'""1n (1
Ti~': ~.: i)r.;)0 :.~~ =_ t
~rL"'vi(~'-:;-1:~
"Y'"1
IDtC)rCc:;t n:,:
n
. ¥~
-":13"'~-
-;
>Y~"·I":':'I':.;J~t.:
s
.:=~:.: )C~~3
1',n~ci;).c.lli1i~:l,tions
f::: -~ :,'iJ: '~)
-
.~t
, - 'or""
".:_'
:_
. ·;.e;)Ort
1,..J.... ~O
I'-~
; "
,
('7 J ?C,,~ 1")
-)
r_
,(_.
.,)
Je"efits
??nsi,~n~)
<.;'d~: ._~: ?-~istr;"'t,ion
\d:-,-j n-T_.:~-:·.~""~f"·1.vr)
.~\.()'
I
Cf.~·ic8
::: ~\'~'(1;:~\~0
~.:~-l:.L~J5.t
Herr
'.'~~.J";-r!.t'1r0.,
l-,l~-(-~~::}
~!rJ'
r
1.1
:-~'~L;'~-
Xc ;nt
'"ll : .. ~~iFl::1.~:;D··1
20 9 , 0J.1, J:~~~ .l!9
1?70 --
':'1'• 'I ,-'
,,' J,
, 01'L~. 37
;P
'...:,i",;h."~+
.l~ •
t _ _ '..I
~J
J
:!r"'1!l
'.,1
J
If'T
,"'cD T"I
":~
,
,I
"'11
I;
r.'Tr:D
TTlr:::,~? '~.-~
__rC~T: .F_I,cr ~., 1('6(,) ";'('
:-'"]1
l?)C
oJ
;n:-"
}O, 1.970
Sa.larios
='ri::-!tin~:,
"'n(1
,;"-C.",, ",cn 3r:;:,r,
':";\.1)
-:L ~.0 ';
'-lent
~o:·tC<~G
~'~,~sJ
~:"e,;s
-
'::'~:J~~lS~~~
,--TIel
8"}1C~_ :.2·~le'~:"r:-I~")b
To18·<")hol1e
'~a:":es
St?:Les
\r~~\"~:r~.·"l,~·:r~:.')nt ~-:~~'_i'Jf
:;'(-)rl";r·"',} ~~neY~r;l o:r:~n~'}t
~?8d..;T.~"J
.,~:f=;
C1r1
~·~~l..i_cf
l~~lefits
li.l':1~.d0:<J
..:.";r;-~:"'''':()11:,~_
':!·('.~i
,-.o-.t:.r
7,7 CO.OO
T{1 ;:llT~_~nce
~'·~;"~-.~"tn·i-13.·-:.C8
0
~·:'f:::~ic.'~
I'
>~':;.'3c?1}~.~~n'-~ol· :~:
C-;'f5 C8
1
;}1t
;:-:l}nnS,r~s
t"f·;'·j_co
~~:~)
1 ()::,-,~,~ s t
L' _:It I
'~~()D:JI~~~_
T(:'
'. d . ··.~~·:·:.
''!V~'''',~.t·i_v·~~
]~':1): il'" ,?_~.~ C ~
~:~-,)-;?1 ~8S
~~. '! -: t5.
t
r;
,-)'"
th . ~
?-('r' '~·rp.::"
~-)r~
"-<L8-'·:.·.Fltl~.r~.:- f {_~ . ~ic~(.l
; }Z;" S ~'~~i._ ~~.J~
->~~":··~-:)u~·~ ~C(~
,C
"',
,r
U,'i" ,
I:;
r-o,,' [,J
~/-'
... ).
"0
r
IncT;;:1.se
-,1'
1"rt ,...-., ...'
J
1
).
" i,"
7 ,:''"', 'inI,lii,)
,:
-' ,
7~(\
I -- "
1'7'7
•
.t"
°7
,_
.,,.-,
J_,
"ii ,i
117 7,Q.r:
,~___
I
t'"l.'
.....,,1
\
I,. :U", _):,!-Lf
Iii,J.:1ero:L
'_.~ ,. :·1..<O~~S (
>In'3fj_tG
::~7cr~--::~:o
,)iJ.y"":t:L":lOrS
i1':-"7~
-,. \'-;i~firr:
..i . . . . . J_ ••• .:
'.'
_
_
'.1
U!1i ted 12110 CI:C"' :':-;1" r'~ of
.~c·-:'ort -lor t:-li:; ~r3~.r
'~. .r~ -;r':~C!~,
~T]
··in
r
;
J~I~~a:-'8
,JlxnD 3(),
;:DO _::0-~,ir· ;--i·:::;:nt ~'"\u.:[1d:
1~';70,
:~!.
~3.
Page 58
the total receipts were $145,118,774.36 while total expenditures
were $118,892,434.20.
Part of the blame for this quick rise
in expenditures must be attributed to the increase in pension
benefits which W. A. Boyle pushed through prior to the 1969
presidential election.
As of 1965, pension disbursements were
one-half of what they are today, $62,093,241.52
the present $123,075,695.84.
12
compared to
Nevertheless, Boyle has promised
to further increase the pensions from $150 to $200. 13
Besides the fact that the life of the Fund is dependent
upon fluctuations in coal production, it is also plagued by
the threat of
legal action.
The Association of Disabled
Miners & Widows has sued the union, the Fund, and several operators for $75,000,000.00 in damages.
It is alleged that union
members have been denied benefits to which they were entitled,
with no right to appeal. 14
If the defendants are found to be
liable in this case, it could open a "Pandora's BOX;" any other
union member with a similar complaint could also file suit,
l2United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund:
Report for the Year Ending June 30, 1965, p. 27.
l3"Heir Faces Revolt," p. 110.
l4"Coal's New Prosperity Can't Ease Its Pains," Business
Week, August 23, 1969, p. 65.
Page 59
and stand a reasonably good chance of collecting damages.
The Fund has been a terrific boon to the miner.
It has
provided him and his family with security in an insecure occupation, as well as a chance to successfully meet the rising
cost of insurance and medical care.
The question which now
remains to be answered is, how long can the Fund continue to
function effectively at its present deficit?
A rise in benefits
is always well received in today's inflationary economy, but
where do you draw the line between politics and practicality?
The most valuable contribution that the union leadership can
make to the Fund is a realistic approach to its present
problems.
PART II.
THE UNION AND GOVERNMENT
Federal mine-safety legislation has been
plagued during its whole dismal history by
a combination of factors that have aborted
every effort at real reform: an industry
almost impervious to technological innovation,
especially where health and safety are concerned;
the impressive political power of industry
leaders and their lobbyists on Capitol Hill, in
committee cloakrooms, and among important executive agencies; miners' unions, such as the powerful United Mine Workers, dominated by officials
seemingly committed to perpetuating rather than
improving mine conditions; weak-willed and
understaffed federal regulatory agencies either
unable or unwilling to force the coal industry
to observe health and safety standards; and,
finally, the long-suffering miners themselves,
resigned, as were their fathers, to a lifetime
of abuse, frustration, broken promises, crippling
injury, and all too often death. 1
--Stephen Cupps
LEGISLATION
While the union-management agreement has proved to be a
valuable means of improving the lot of organized labor, it is
not the only alternative available; political channels are
often used.
Laws are made by Congress, signed and enforced
by the President, and, possibly, interpreted by the judiciary.
At all these points, a union must be prepared to protect its
membership either by supporting favorable bills, or by
attempting to halt those bills which it feels would not be
beneficial.
lStephen Cupps, "Death by Runaround," The Nation,
August 31, 1970, p. 146.
Page 61
The United Mine Workers has a separate branch, Labor's
Non-Partisan League, which is responsible for lobbying and all
other political activities in the legislative area.
When
John L. Lewis originated the LNPL in the late 1930's, it was
intended to serve as the base of support for a third party
movement.
This, however, failed to materialize, and it assumed
the role it plays today.
In the October 15, 1970, issue of the United Mine Workers
Journal, the LNPL published the "key" issues which it used to
evaluate the voting records of coal state legislators, as well
as the overall performance of the 9lst Congress, (Chart IX).
The letters in red following the brief explanation of each bill
state the position of the UMW, either for or against.
By making
public such a list of issues, the union hopes to influence the
voters on election day while giving the legislators an idea of
where they stand prior to that time.
These records give an
indication of the type of legislation in which the UMW is
interested.
"Remember:
the legislators you send to Washington are
the men to whom your union must look for help in furthering
':'.~
',r;l
J •• , .......
1.
o :'lJ"
to
1 r- J
L~_~
\
) •
..
')
:
3.
r "If'"" r', " ,
~ '\....:'
J
'-,:'"
-, ~
-)
_,' J"':'"
" "',.T"
~
,
'-Y
,
i1T,r
~")
. '':)17
C-.,
TT
~~
'.)
.._. ,
,
~
"~;~rr
OF
"'1'7 ~ nsi;on 1"
?::'OlJ.ty C~.,
?nblic
"
()J
(,,:'
r
I [~
37 tl:8
'iTt.) to
7I
•
l>;.'_blic
('
! ~l
LI-
91-172.
\ ."
i '.
in
)
,
Tl-:is
10.
:T
11.
JJ10?
76 to 19.
1-
12.
l:.,
» •
I~C1J 3:~
'J
1
.J...
<
•
).
~
;
~.!.
of
'nbJJ,c
T
.,.~
',.'(
-
:'1-230.
2.
I:
'T
vnt"
.
0'"
-,'
~
j
i
9 to
J..'c.
..
'
.~
,I. ,. ~ :
.
:1..',:,
;:.' T
i~.
: '.l :~
nl., 0
7.
".;yn
1
~"I.J
~)1-177 •
.'.,'
I
l'
tl13
.-
.
,.
J
t,
l~·.
~S.
I
17J'~,
the,
-
.,- .
Page 66
your interests.,,2
Chart X shows the voting records of those
coal state Congressmen and Senators who were seeking re-election
in 1970.
The names which are underlined indicate those men
who were endorsed by the union.
for right or
"w"
The legislator's vote, "R"
for wrong, can be seen in conjunction with the
"key" issues enumerated in Chart IX.
Basically, the issues in this November election, it
seems to us are the economic issues that face the
nation. Unemployment across the nation is back up
above 5 percent of the total work force of the nation.
Inflation and the high cost of living certainly are
major issues. And unemployment, inflation and the
high cost of living are matters that the Congress
can do something about. So it is most important
that you support the men for office who will be best
able, in the judgment of your Union, to face up to
these prob1 ms and try to do something constructive
about them. 3
The endorsement of these candidates rested, supposedly,
on their voting records rather than political affiliation or
personal beliefs, but this is hard to accept in all cases.
For example, William Bray, Congressman from Indiana's 6th
District, was endorsed by the UMW, yet he voted correctly on
only one bill, the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act
of 1969.
On the other hand, Congressman Ken Hechler, the
2United Mine Workers Journal, October 15, 1970, p. 5.
3Ibid ., p. 12.
:i.e::;. vote.
t'~';
co
,~j,
veto
'\/,J
c'
'-
i
1-""'~
"
j
.'
-'T~T~}
, .; (~~). ~j 11" 'iT
,
'3 Tel n
1.
2.
:. :~~- :1. G'l"
, I;T 1970
)1-
6.
?
=cn
10 •• 11.
12.
(T
:,:U;1 ( )
,;:-.""'1;,:,. c)towm,:~on
7.
1,
"
T.
'n
.L
--'\
je
T
E~I:)h
·T
'!.i.';,
"
':J:"
A
(D)
")
"
"
n
Ycuart Sy:.-,;.n ::ton (:J)
"
_'~
.A
,>
l~
,,'
L;_·. 1:~C)T . "
,
..
,,
( LJ/
.t.
')T
1'··'1'-...... ·-'
''''','''.
"'j
.,:-.
__ . ___,_'__~_'___
.. __.r~___"J
__
'.__._--'___J_'_"_'_~~'
1.
2.
3.
5.
/
U.
7.
11.
9.
.l_~r_._~_.Yl~'~:_(__._:,:~.__~_:·_.{)_~_·,_s__~(~:))
~')
.1.\.
( J)
•
_c
( "\I
_1
J
19'1O,
()-7.
I?
"' ".,""1,"
'--~~',-'
.-t,
1,·~.
...... -[,.,
_"- >',
-
~
"-1
'J'
.;
).
1.
J!.
'. ) ....:.l
.
1""
. . .
"
:":~
'--
.,
9.
I.
10.
.\L·j3, '.
.
n~i l~~ ~_-icol.~·:
al t")r
. ))
:~'l~)~;;rs
;~u01nnan
John
.1
(;J)
( .)
1-~
)
- ',~
':'om 3 ?vill (0)
.
--: T/' :\
._
~
.~_.
~
,
:
1... .
..1
J. ":)
.'.,
"
:~11arlot-!::,o 'l'.~:d.d
j_ .. ;sljJ~
c.
;:C't T!.
o"'" ., ;:' ".j 1 '" '.,,, c,l-
:0':)
.n
.:.
j.l"·:}l1clr·~
r~chGl
- •••. ~~. _,
1.1
)",u1
' ....
-
_
,',
.,')';1r11"'''
I _ • . \~
-''-I
"j
i.l
C.)
:·1
( . ')I
",
( -~ojI
_ l~
.,
"
John 'i'.
T
V)
C~·~)
::-:mn<:!-th <T. Grav (.J)
,..,
" Vl"
].
v,,:.
,1
r
r'
_'J.y.i_C(~
( UJ
'1 '
.l.
"\
I
y~rs
Ttoce~c ~~. :~ion
iJ~ i i;::l!1 ,'}. 'Jr "_~~r
1.
1-,;
,
....
')
p
i\
",
,., r~"'
"
1.
i
,
'
..
:
()
7.
(l
ve
.."
1(;.
"
(D)
r;,
.
llr:l
j/J8
',;-,:'-_",',r~l','::..
-,'-.
:;;.-.
.~:_tts
,John
J.
\~r!{i "-13
,illi8.::' J.
.\r;'!old
("' I')
N
.)
(~))
,:an'::.J.l
(')
\
.J ;
i
'.~
CL;~n
.;
.John ':c;lchr,,-
'k}"';:bia11
:112.'T:JZ
:nmF:1
Luj 2.:1,
1
~d 7e;r' ;~~[?n
,
( ,I
(_~)
.,
( :' 'I
O'IO
( )
~!
L
_'..8:
:1.1:',;on1" (
~',3.:"S
() )
-\1' " ,1'--::
1.
.\
...
-:-J
~
,~,-,'
"~A
'.J
. ~ •
Ii '
3.
,'.
.I,
.
~i'
..:..
-
..
G•
..
'7
( D)
cl'.;
c)
-'
.
10.
,-,
(-.~)
c.
---.,.-.,
?~~(~d 3.
.1,1".
__xn:rt
-)
Il
".,
I)
.'-
j ...
:-;,
J. E. (Ji~'}::r );':'.Hlen
J 011,'1 J. ~.Jtl';e em (~)
(JiD,) Brae]:
T
en
•
,Joe
VJ.ll:3
.,
,f
,.
(1';)
Burton (
:-,loyc
"r"
(~)
'"",","r
. ·~r .L ~~ . ..:. '
"'-1
( ..' )
')
...n
1.
..
-c: .
7.
'.:.-
"1 (',
~:....'./
,',
" 1118 '>3
t>.e ?"3 3r,'.J.
11,"':1. ~n
;~'=<~1 ~<j_T10
~~~'-"J
C()2~.~_ O:1c:!r,~.tor'J.
~""1'~,"",
Jr. 'r~
~1
O_
',_ -,,',':_,,' '.J
d.'-'_.::"
th_
.=I.ll;J
·-)nfoi~~/
.ct ()." -: ,-\ .,:) to
~?,T""'·V~::··, i·"}
'~~1,r::~~~11'3.~~,-.-:n:·~ 1:1011-
.
Page 74
outspoken representative of West Virginia's 4th District,
failed to gain union endorsement; he voted against the UMW
on only one bill, the Water Carrier Mixed Cargo Bill.
It can
only be believed that the union would prefer to keep out of
office a man who supports legislation beneficial to coal miners,
but who does not always speak patronizingly of the United Mine
Workers.
Of the fifty-five candidates endorsed by the UMW, only
nine were Republicans (16%).
This would seem to give credence
to the old love affair between organized labor and the Democratic Party.
The majority of candidates approved by the union were elected.
Chart XI shows both the candidates who were endorsed and those
who were victorious.
Historically the union has had a tremendous
influence in the coal districts; only men who would support the
UMW, or who could be controlled by them were elected.
That
influence, like union prestige, is on the wane, however, and in
some quarters union endorsement is considered more of a liability
than an asset.
Currently, the United Mine Workers is lobbying for enlarged
payments to men who are disabled by "black lung" under the
Social Security Act.
At the state level, improvements in
-'r
',',r1 '
'j
... ..:.,..)
") )
( "\
,
I
\' I
( TO, '\
\
'I
j
1 • • . '~
_
~
.•... 1,.
,
"
Scott U:)
I 'r) SS ( ",),'I
Hos:: CJ)
8~rrd (:)
!
l'
"
., r1r,
n
",', I-c.'.
- r"
~_
,.",
1
1
,-.l ,.J
'
7
PcVi-....
1"1 (.)
\.
,)
-'"
'V"'"
C'
..c.. '-..'
_I
~~:cv:i.ll
(T) )
(r) ",i
1.
lc,s'ino.ll (D)
:21
')~
---'
','."
6
Ie
nith (D)
.\.~
Slcubitz (:)
1
2
S
7
:::ni.th CJ)
"l , • .!.
·:'.Cl'DJ,lJ,j
("
.:,"md2~1
(D)
,:)\
Stuhblefi,ld (:;)
::o:tcher (D)
Carter (j~)
·!2.ttS C'))
?8;'l:in3 (J)
1
OJ.sen (:;)
')
<.
~'GJ..ch8r
1
Chavez (D)
(D)
_:~lr__;1,·~
-;
(
I:8J.e~1Gr
18
--.:r~c"'~_~
....:' ..::.
19
G(',rncy (D)
Carney CD)
:dr:onclaon (iJ)
Albert (JJ)
Steod CD)
"':i.~~OO:'"
,.
')
(','j)
\".
6
J
"e" ." ron (D)
10
EcD;:.'.de (IS)
11
Ii!
Flood (D)
Hoorh:;ad (J)
(ooney CIJ)
Corb8tt ( ,)
?O
~}.".ydo s (;))
'21
Dcmt (0)
It:
15
_
~;. ~J
'~~r'"
; J.3.:~ \...1
(')\
J j
~d:'.0n d,jon (D)
",
t Co,,)
,LJ
3tc,)d (D)
::)'c' : DITl.'r'~
1_:~ ~";
;? ~='~:'~S~:(~}l \: lIP..
(;c:';'r.
:~;J
1) ~j,.~>"~rl'~.';;D
C".!.:,\; ~ :"([}}:'.. T::Z
::TJ
>~ ~Lr'-::)
3".'1 l_O,-~
r~~2
?5
26
;n
Glark
(.~.)
CD)
:;or·-;cm (D)
Fatton (:l)
:;vins (D)
Hansen (D)
3
5
Page 78
compensation laws are sought, especially for victims of 'black
lung."
Interest has also been shown in aiding states in re-
writing mine safety laws.
The United Mine Workers does not always support legislation in a manner pleasing to its membership, however.
While
the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 was under
consideration as a single unified bill, the union proposed
that it be divided into two separate sections, one for health
and one for safety.
When this idea was defeated, there were
rumors that the union was not supporting the bill as it should.
Any failure to work diligently to secure legislative reform
has been linked with the union-management coalition which is
believed to exist.
If a strong bill were passed, the expenses
of the operators would increase noticeably because new equipment
would have to be purchased, and work time would be lost while
improvements were being made.
This loss of revenue would strike
union as well as management because men would be laid off,
and more importantly the 40¢ royalties would not be pouring
into the Welfare and Retirement Fund.
Union corruption in other areas is fast becoming more fact
than speculation.
On
March 2, 1971, W. A. Boyle, John Owens,
UMW secretary-treasurer, and James Kmetz, director of Labor's
Page 79
Non-Partisan League were indicted by a federal grand jury in
Washington, D. C. on the charges of embezzlement, conspiracy,
and making illegal political contributions.
More specifically,
Boyle was charged in one count with embezzling $5,000,
in another with conspiring to embezzle and to make illegal
political contributions totaling $49,250, and 11 counts
of actually making such contributions. The $5,000 was
part of the $49,250. Kmetz was charged with the same
conspiracy and embezzlement counts and in two counts
of making illegal political contributions. Owens was
also charged in the conspiracy count and gn one count
of making illegal political contribution.
Supposedly the three contributed the $49,250 to individual
candidates who were running for federal office; the money, however, came from the union treasury.
The role of the Labor's
Non-Partisan League, in this instance, was to serve as a funnel
for the making of these illegal and covert contributions.
It
is believed that this was accomplished by depositing the money
into the private accounts of Owens and Kmetz who would in turn
write the checks for the contributions from their accounts.
Chart XII shows the alleged recipients of the controversial
contributions.
"The maximum penalty upon conviction would be
two years in prison and a $10,000 fine on each count of the
Corrupt Practices Act violation and five years in prison and
4The South Bend Tribune, March 2, 1971, p. 1.
iL 1;)()9
in 1968
in
1967
J-:in:"1., C2:,~;~.i?:TI r;o:.'",-5.t·~8 '), ;;1,0:]0
-in 1)6:~
D.
I:.
Go;~r,itt8:J
fer
f01~~er
~e~).
:~_:;r!lC
1 ""68
1
1:'71,
j3.
11a:rs, J)-C"'~io, ;)?;:~O iJ1
Page 81
a $10,000 fine on each of the conspiracy and embezzlement
counts."S
The lobbying of the United Mine Workers is not limited to
campaigning for congressmen and senators.
As might be expected,
the UMW Journal plays an important part in the union's lobbying
activities.
For example, the Journal publishes a column entitled
''What's 'Up' On the Hill" in each issue during the time Congress
is in session.
Also, articles from the Congressional Quarterly,
such as the Congressional Boxscore, are published.
The labor
news service, Press Associates, Inc., provides articles which
the Journal either may edit or publish intact.
The union paper
is distributed to all members of the UMW as a part of their
membership; coal state congressmen and senators are, also,
recipients of the paper.
This type of circulation is an
attempt to both inform and indoctrinate.
Appearing before congressional committees is an important
step in attempting to influence legislation.
The organization
involved, for example the UMW, would attempt to impress upon
the legislators the worth or worthlessness of a particular
bill by providing them with information, sometimes expert,
SThe South Bend Tribune, March 2, 1971, p. 4.
Page 82
sometimes grossly biased.
It is then the job of each individual
congressman or senator to try to obtain a clear picture of the
proposed bill from the evidence presented in the testimony of
every participant.
A committee investigation is occasionally a defensive as
well as offensive tool.
Whereas the latter would provide in-
formation and present a group position, the former would be
of a more investigative nature.
As has been the most recent
experiences of the UMW, the group is asked to answer charges
concerning certain alleged violations of federal law.
The formation of alliances is a common method of lobbying.
The United Mine Workers has in the past aligned itself with
other labor organizations when working for or against a
particularly important piece of legislation.
Nevertheless,
because of the splits that have arisen between various sections
of organized labor, these efforts have lacked coordination,
which usually encourages failure.
Lobbying is not without restrictions, however.
The Federal
Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946 has four basic provisions:
1.
Every person ... who solicits or receives contributions
for the principal purpose of influencing legislation
is required to keep a record of all contributions
and expenditures, including the name and address of
Page 83
2.
3.
4.
each person making a contribution of $500 or more
and to whom an expenditure of $10 or more is made.
Detailed quarterly statements listing this information along with the purposes of the expenditures
are to be filed with the Clerk of the House of
Representatives.
Any person who solicits, collects, or receives
money for the principal purpose of influencing
the passage or defeat of legislation is required
t:o register with the Clerk of the House or the
Secretary of the Senate. Furthermore, he is
expected to provide information, on a quarterly
basis, regarding his employer, his salary and expenses,
his receipts and expenditures, a listing of articles
and editorials he has caused to be published, and
an enumeration of the proposed legislation he is
employed to support or oppose.
Information collected as a result of the Act
shall bg published quarterly in the Congressional
Record.
Although this bill seems to provide adequate checks on excessive
and inappropriate lobbying, enforcement and interpretation have
taken away much of its power.
The United Mine Workers prefers to use the legislative
route to reform, above almost all others.
The very existence
of the Labor's Non-Partisan League would seem to indicate the
great importance it places on working through congressional
channels.
Frustration has often been a companion to the
6William J. Keefe and Morris S. Ogul, The American Legislative Process: Congress and the States (Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), pp. 386-7.
----_.._-_
.. -.
Page 84
lobbyist, however, because compromise often lessens the impact
of the legislation, and enforcement of the final bill must
come from the executive rather than the legislative branch.
The legislative process seldom comes to a
halt when the executive has signed a bill
into law. In many cases, the obstacle course
from bill to law is not even the most important step in the making of public policy.
Much legislation is phrased in general terms
to apply to a diversity of concrete situations.
Law is interpreted and given new dimensions
as it is applied under the direction of the
executive. The need for change ii sometimes
crystallized as laws are applied.
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Without enforcement, a law is useless; without the executive
branch, there would be no enforcement.
Once a bill has been
passed by Congress, an interest broup must look past the
legislature.
Generally an organization's membership is only
interested in the effects of reform, not the methods of
achieving it.
Much of the activity of the executive branch of government
centers around the President.
Today, Congress waits for the
Chief Executive to propose legislation.
After the Farmington,
West Virginia explosion which killed seventy-eight men in
November of 1968, President Johnson asked Congress for a
comprehensive program of mine health and safety.
President
Nixon, too, asked for such legislation; this eventually lead
to the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.
Apart. from proposing legislation, the President, also,
1Keef and Ogu1, Legislative Process, pp. 397-8.
Page 86
has the power to veto bills.
If an organization has failed to
stop a bill in Congress, or if there is some question as to
presidential approval, the lobbyist's primary interest would
swing from the Capitol to the White House.
Once a bill is
vetoed, it is difficult to get the two-thirds vote necessary
to override it, and the bill often dies.
The presidential power of appointment is of vital interest
to the United Mine Workers.
Several Cabinet positions exert
definite influence on the UMW:
the Department of the Interior,
the Department of Labor, the Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, and the Department of Justice.
Lobbyists will work
diligently to secure an appointment for someone friendly to
their cause; an equal amount of time and money will be used
to insure that an appointment they oppose will not gain Senate
confirmation.
The Department of the Interior is probably of the greatest
interest to the
UMW because it controls the Bureau of Mines.
The former director of the Bureau, John F. O'Leary gained the
support of the union, but was forced to resign by President
Nixon on March 1, 1970.
On October 13, 1970, Nixon's second
nominee, E1burt F. Osborn was confirmed by the Senate.
The
union is now looking to him for strict enforcement of the
Page 87
health and safety laws.
2
The Departments of Interior and Justice have recently become
important to the UMW as a result of the election campaign in
1969.
Under the Landrum-Griffin Act, the Corrupt Practices Act,
and others, the internal workings of labor organizations are now
controlled by legislation, which must be enforced by the
executive branch.
Conferences sponsored by various departments have also
become a valuable tool for the exchange of ideas.
For example,
following the Farmington disaster, the Department of the Interior
convened a conference in Washington "to review safety questions
in addition to the evident threats to the health of those who
mine coal."
Representatives from labor, management, the Public
Health Service, the Bureau of Mines, and various universities
were present at the request of Secretary Udall. 3
It is hoped
that conferences of this nature can bring together the diverse
groups concerned with the mining of coal to discuss issues
important to the industry, and then build on those discussions.
2United Mine Workers Journal, October 15, 1970, p. 17.
3"Mine Safety: An Unresolved Issue," Appalachia,
February, 1969, p. 1.
-
Page 88
In the past, the United Mine Workers exerted a strong
influence on the executive branch of the government.
More than
once, John L. Lewis defied a President of the United States
to achieve better conditions for the miners.
Today, personality
and daring are no longer a part of the union; lobbying efforts
in the executive branch are not particularly strong or
particularly effective.
All groups do not use the courts to achieve
their goals. Those who do are generally
disadvantaged in the political system. For
most groups, legislative or executive action
is preferable to a judicial decision because
legislatures and executive agencies can
obtain directly what courts can achieve only
by indirection. Court action may be useful
in protecting group members against harm, but
it is rarely useful in procuring for them
positive governmental action.
THE COURTS
In recent years, the United Mine Workers has spent more
time in court as a defendant, than as plaintiff and lobbyist
combined.
The numerous lawsuits which have been brought
against the union for violations of the Landrum-Griffin Act,
anti-trust legislation, and the Corrupt Practices Act have not
endeared the judiciary to the UMW leadership.
The courts are not as responsive to the desires of interest
groups as are the other two branches of government.
Because of
this, they are not often chosen as the means for achieving reform.
Also, the courts are limited in that they have no control over
the enforcement of their decisions; aside from the penalties
for contempt, compliance falls on the shoulders of the lower
courts, the executive branch, or the individual citizens involved.
lHerbert Jacob, Justice In America (Boston:
Brown and Company, 1965), p. 121.
Little,
Page 90
Much of an organization's work with the judicial branch
is on an i.nformational basis.
The "amicus curiae" brief gives
a group, such as the United Mine Workers, the opportunity to
provide the courts with information while not being a formal
participant in the case.
This serves a much needed function
today, especially when one considers the complexity of many
suits; however, a certain amount of discretion must be used
by the judges in separating the facts from biased opinions.
The injunction has been a major concern of labor for many
years.
In the early days of organized labor, the injunction
was used as a strike breaker.
More recently it has been used
against the UMW to halt the expenditure of union funds by the
present leadership until the 1969 election controversy has
been resolved.
In a
more positive vein, the injunction could
be used to force operators to comply with rules and regulations.
As the interpreters of law, the courts would playa major
role in reform by legislation.
The Supreme Court, with its power
of judicial review, can thwart the efforts of an interest group
by declaring the law it had worked for unconstitutional.
Although this rarely happens, a group must never overlook the
possibility.
Page 91
As a result of this power, interest groups are concerned
with the men who sit on the bench.
In the past the UMW has
had a great deal of control over the election and/or appointment of coal area judges on the local and state level.
This
influence is not felt on the federal level to as great an extent,
so the union must lobby in the executive and legislative branches
to ensure that men are not placed on the Court who would not
protect the interests of labor or the UMWA.
The reverence in which many people hold the judiciary,
generally exempts it from the partisan political world and
its "corruption."
It is important for judges to deal with
cases realistically, yet it is, also, important for the courts
to maintain their prestige and integrity in the eyes of the
people.
This aura of judicial stature makes it difficult and
often unrewarding for interest groups to center their lobbying
efforts on the courts.
PROSPECTS
The termination date for the present union-management
contract, the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1968,
is set for September 30, 1971.
At that time either party may
conclude the above agreement by giving the other party at least
sixty days written notice.
At the present, management is repre-
sented by the Bituminous Coal Operators' Association; however,
this position can be held only as long as the organization is
representative of 51% of the coal produced for use or sale.
The contract,which will probably be negotiated in the
closing months of 1971, will have a major impact not only on
the industry itself, but on the lives of almost every individual
in America and many people abroad.
being more depleted every year.
Stock piles of coal are
If coal production were to be
halted in all union mines, ''blackouts'' and "brownouts" would
become more than household words, they might become a glaring
reality for many people.
"Coal generates more than half the
nation's electric power; setting aside the output from power
dams, coal accounted for 58.8 per cent of the electricity
Page 93
generated by fuels in 1969.,,1
This situation has further been complicated by the recent
ecology movement.
Coal gives off sulfur dioxide gas when burned.
"The move into low-sulfur coal is worrying steel producers.
Of some 800-billion tons of coal of all grades considered recoverable at present costs, only l28-billion are considered
of low-sulfur coking quality.,,2
Also, the cost of installing
pollution control devices in plants which burn coal is placing
an additional financial burden on coal consumers.
An additional financial burden has been placed on the
operators as well.
The Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety
Act of 1969 forced management to increase safety measures and
equipment.
In response to this legislation, many of the smaller
mines closed down because they could no longer compete and
remain solvent.
The large mine operators rebelled too, and
asked for an extension to the dates set for the penalties which
were to be levied for failure to comply with the laws.
Although
penalties have for the time being been suspended, inspections
still continue, and the union is pushing for enforcement.
lBituminous Coal Facts 1970, p. 8.
2"Coal's Prosperity," p. 68.
In
Page 94
addition to federal legislation, the states, too, can make
rules covering mine health and safety.
Further legislation at
this time might cause even more mines to close.
It is a diffi-
cult puzzle to solve; health and safety improvements are necessary
for the miners' peace of mind, yet financially, many operators
cannot meet the costs which stem from these improvements.
Fo11woing the past two contract settlements in 1964 and
1968, the miners expressed their discontent in a series of
"wildcat strikes."
These temporary work stoppages put an even
greater burden on the mines which are in operation to produce
more coal to compensate.
Unless the union leadership places
more emphasis on health and safety in the contract talks this
year, work stoppages could become increasingly more frequent.
It is difficult for the individual miner to be heard unless he
takes dramatic and often drastic steps.
In his attempts to appease the miners, however, Tony Boyle
may be going too far in the promises he has been making.
Ever
since the 1969 election, he has, on several occasions, placed
his promises before the membership.
One example of this is
his statement in the October 15, 1970 issue of the United Mine
Workers Journal.
Page 95
I pledged a year ago that we would work for a $50 per day
basic wage in our next contract. I renew that pledge.
I pledged to work for a $200 pension.
to keep that pledge.
You Union intends
I pledged to work for sick pay to injured miners while
they cannot work. This will be won.
I pledged a Federal coal mine health and safety law
with teeth. Thanks to the UMWA, this has been won.
(Page 11)
As has been stated previously, the addition to the pension
could be disastrous to the solvency of the Welfare and
Retirement Fund.
While profits have increased in the coal
industry, so have the costs; it will be more difficult than
ever this year to win a large contract settlement from the
operators.
Also, with the extensive publicity which the Health
and Safety Act of 1969 obtained, I find it hard to accept the
fact that the miners are naive enough to believe that this legislation came only as a result of the union's efforts.
Boyle may
have placed himself in the untenable position of making good
pledges which are not feasible.
At the present time, the union
president needs all the prestige he can muster; he can only
achieve this by bringing his promises to reality.
With increasing union demands, it is also possible that
some of the mines which bargain with the UMW might be chased
Page 96
into the ranks of the independent mines.
It is no longer as
beneficial to be considered a union mine as it was several
decades ago.
The United Mine Workers is at a crossroad: one road leading
to a resolution of the problems which plague it; the other road
leading into ever increasing turmoil and the threat of extinction.
Dissent can no longer be ignored.
The union leadership must
become aware of the plight of the rank-and-file miner and be
receptive to his demands.
When Abraham Lincoln spoke of "a
House divided against itself," he was referring to a nation on
the verge of civil war, but is this not applicable to any organization which must come to grips with internal dissension?
In 1861
our nation went to war for four long years because it could
not compromise, because it failed to heed the early signs of
turmoil.
Is this to be the fate of the United Mine Workers
of America?
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Alinsky, Saul. John L. Lewis. New York:
Sons, 1949.
G. P. Putnam's
Caudill, Henry M. Night Comes To The Cumberlands.
Little, Brown and Company, 1963.
Boston:
Holtzman, Abraham. Interest Groups and Lobbying.
The Macmillan Company, 1967.
New York:
Jacob, Herbert. Justice in America.
and Company, 1965.
Boston:
Little, Brown
Jay, John; Hamilton, Alexander; and Madison, James.
The Federalist Papers. Mentor Books. New York: The
New American Library of World Literature, Inc., 1961.
Keefe, William J., and Ogul, Morris S. The American Legislative
Process: Congress and the States. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968.
Truman, David. The Governmental Process.
Knopf, Inc., 1960.
New York:
Alfred A.
Periodicals
"Boyle Takes the Oath."
Newsweek, March 30, 1970, p. 72.
"Coal's New Prosperity Can't Ease Its Pains."
August 23, 1969, pp. 64-8.
"Digging Into the Mine Workers."
1970, p. 94.
Business Week,
Business Week, March 14,
Page 98
"Lewis Heir Faces Revolt."
pp. 110 and 112.
Business Week, November 15, 1969,
"Mine Workers: Can They Survive Reform?"
December 20, 1969, p. 32.
"Miners Wanted."
Business Week,
Coal Age, February, 1970, pp. 106-7.
"Pay Padding an Issue in Mine Vote."
December 15, 1969, p. 102. "Shades of John L."
U. S. News & World Report,
Newsweek, December 15, 1969, pp. 83-4, 89.
"The UMW vs. Jock Yablonski's Ghost."
1970, pp. 38 and 40.
Business Week, May 2,
"The Yablonski Murders: A Bitter Struggle for Life in the
Mines Slides into Savagery." Life, January 23, 1970,
pp. 36-7.
"Troubles Pile Up for Most Sued Union."
April 18, 1964, pp. 121-2, 126.
"UMW's Family Fight Moves To Courtroom."
May 3, 1969, p. 96.
"Yablonski's Death Stirs Up Miners."
1970, pp. 35-6.
"Yablonski's Legacy."
Business Week,
Business Week,
Business Week, January 10,
Newsweek, February 23, 1970, pp. 35-6.
Armbrister, Trevor. "The Coal-Black Shame of the UMW."
Reader's Digest, October, 1970.
Boyle, W. A. "Coal Operators Take Full Advantage."
Mine Workers Journal, October 15, 1970.
The
United
Caldwell, Nat, and Graham, Gene S. "The Strange Romance Between
John L. Lewis and Cyrus Eaton." Harper's Magazine,
December, 1961.
Page 99
Cupp, Stephen.
1970.
"Death By Runaround."
The Nation, August 31,
Lawrence, David. "A Crime That Shocked the Nation."
U. S. News-& World Report, January 19, 1970.
Chicago Tribune.
Chicago Sun-Times.
March 28, 1971.
April 14, 1971.
The South Bend Tribune.
December 31, 1970.
The South Bend Tribune.
March 2, 1971.
United Mine Workers Journal.
October 15, 1970.
Special Publications
Bituminous Coal Facts, 1970.
National Coal Association.
Congressional Quarterly, January 15, 1971.
National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1968.
United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund:
Report for the Year Ending June 30, 1965, August, 1965.
United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund:
Report for the Year Ending June 30, 1970, August, 1970.
-