Suffolk County Legislator Kevin McCaffrey?
Long Island Business News
Suffolk,
Nassau
OTB probe ethics conflict
by David Winzelberg
Published: November 24th, 2013
At least one employee of Nassau County Off-Track Betting is questioning whether the head of his employee union, a member-elect of the Suffolk County Legislature, should have a say in Suffolk OTB business.
Teamsters Local
707 President
Kevin McCaffery, whose union represents about 200 Nassau OTB
workers,
was elected earlier this month to serve as a Suffolk
legislator
representing the 14th District. In a letter last week, Nassau
OTB
cashier Jackson Leeds alerted the Suffolk County Ethics Board
to
McCaffery’s possible conflict of interest.
“As a Suffolk County legislator, his duties are to the people
of
Suffolk County,” Leeds wrote. “He cannot simultaneously
represent the
interests of employees of Nassau OTB, a Nassau County public
benefit
corporation.”
McCaffery told LIBN he doesn’t think the two counties’ OTBs
are in
competition with each other and he doesn’t see his role as
union leader
for Nassau OTB workers as a conflict with issues surrounding
Suffolk
OTB.
“If anything, I have the background of dealing with Nassau
OTB, which
gives me more insight on the subject than any other legislator
out
there,” McCaffery said.
When asked if the legislator-elect’s union job appeared to be
a
conflict of interest, Nassau OTB chief Joseph Cairo said, “If
you
really want to stretch it. But I don’t see anything that’s
apparent to
me.”
Cairo added that he’ll instruct the Nassau agency’s counsel to
review
the situation.
Leeds, a 10-year veteran of Nassau OTB, complained that both
union
officials and county OTB management have been too focused on
the 1,000
video lottery terminals planned for each county’s OTB and
they’re not
paying enough attention to current operations.
“They never worked behind a window,” Leeds told LIBN. “They’re
out of
touch with the bettors of Nassau County.”
Internet wagering and dwindling handles – the overall money
being
wagered – have prompted a consolidation in Nassau OTB’s
operations in
recent years; there were 15 betting offices in Nassau in 2003,
and now
there are eight. Suffolk OTB, which has seven branch offices,
filed for
bankruptcy last year.
These days, according to some analysts, OTB offices exist
largely for
political patronage – another reason, according to Leeds, that
the
Nassau union chief shouldn’t mix one business with the other.
“Union leaders should not be politicians,” he said. “OTBs are
run by
politicians. Being political and doing public good aren’t
always
incompatible, but they often are.”
This isn’t the first time a Long Island legislator’s OTB ties
have
become an issue.
In May 2000, Gregory Peterson, then-president of the Nassau
OTB, sued
to prevent Nassau County Leg. Roger Corbin from voting on
appointments
to the Nassau OTB’s board of directors. Because Corbin was
employed as
a branch manager for New York City OTB and a member of
Teamsters Local
858, which then represented all employees of Nassau OTB,
Peterson
alleged Corbin’s legislative role posed a conflict of
interest.
A New York Supreme Court judge issued an injunction preventing
Corbin
from voting on OTB appointments, but Corbin appealed and the
lower
court’s decision was reversed. The Nassau County Board of
Ethics also
chimed in, determining by a 3-2 vote that voting on OTB
appointments
didn’t create a conflict because Corbin didn’t influence
policy or
engage in labor negotiations.
With McCaffery, some observers say it’s best to proceed with
caution.
Anthony Figliola, vice president of Uniondale-based government
relations firm Empire
Government
Strategies, said the legislator-elect may want to recuse
himself
from any votes concerning Suffolk OTB until the Suffolk County
Ethics
Board offers an opinion.
“OTB is a political football,” Figliola said. “It’s better to
stay out
of it, especially if you want to get things done in the
Legislature.”
David
Winzelberg
Reporter
631.913.4247
917.796.1801
Follow
me
on Twitter
What does the Wall Street Journal think of Labor peace agreements in NY? see below
What does the Wall Street Journal think of Labor peace agreements in NY? see below
Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law
§ 1346. Labor peace agreements for certain facilities. 1. As used in this section: (a) "Gaming facility" means any gaming facility licensed pursuant to this article or a video lottery gaming facility as may be authorized by paragraph three of subdivision (a) of section one thousand six hundred seventeen-a of the tax law, as amended by section nineteen of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen that added this section licensed by the commission. A gaming facility shall not include any horse racing, bingo or charitable games of chance, the state lottery for education, or any gaming facility operating pursuant to the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2710 et seq. A gaming facility shall include any hospitality operation at or related to the gaming facility. (b) "Labor peace agreement" means an agreement enforceable under 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) that, at a minimum, protects the state's proprietary interests by prohibiting labor organizations and members from engaging in picketing, work stoppages, boycotts, and any other economic interference with operation of the relevant gaming facility. (c) "License" means any permit, license, franchise or allowance of the commission and shall include any franchisee or permittee. (d) "Proprietary interest" means an economic and non-regulatory interest at risk in the financial success of the gaming facility that could be adversely affected by labor-management conflict, including but not limited to property interests, financial investments and revenue sharing. 2. The state legislature finds that the gaming industry constitutes a vital sector of New York's overall economy and that the state through its operation of lotteries and video lottery facilities and through its ownership of the properties utilized for horse racing by The New York Racing Association Inc. has a significant and ongoing economic and non-regulatory interest in the financial viability and competitiveness of the gaming industry. The state legislature further finds that the award or grant of a license by the commission to operate a gaming facility is a significant state action and that the commission must make prudent and efficient decisions to maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of gaming. The state legislature further recognizes that casino gaming industry integration can provide a vital economic engine to assist, nurture, develop, and promote regional economic development, the state tourism industry and the growth of jobs in the state. Additionally, the state legislature also finds revenues derived directly by the state from such gaming activity will be shared from gross gaming receipts, after payout of prizes but prior to deductions for operational expenses. Therefore, the state legislature finds that the state has a substantial and compelling proprietary interest in any license awarded for the operation of a gaming facility within the state. 3. The commission shall require any applicant for a gaming facility license who has not yet entered into a labor peace agreement to produce an affidavit stating it shall enter into a labor peace agreement with labor organizations that are actively engaged in representing or attempting to represent gaming or hospitality industry workers in the state. In order for the commission to issue a gaming facility license and for operations to commence, the applicant for a gaming facility license must produce documentation that it has entered into a labor peace agreement with each labor organization that is actively engaged in representing and attempting to represent gaming and hospitality industry workers in the state. The commission shall make the maintenance of such a labor peace agreement an ongoing material condition of licensure.
A license holder shall, as a condition of its license, ensure that
operations at the gaming facility that are conducted by contractors,
subcontractors, licensees, assignees, tenants or subtenants and that
involve gaming or hospitality industry employees shall be done under a
labor peace agreement containing the same provisions as specified above.
4. If otherwise applicable, capital projects undertaken by a gaming
facility shall be subject to article eight of the labor law and shall be
subject to the enforcement of prevailing wage requirements by the
department of labor.
5. If otherwise applicable, capital projects undertaken by a gaming
facility shall be subject to section one hundred thirty- five of the
state finance law.
6. If otherwise applicable, any gaming facility entering into a
contract for a gaming facility capitol project shall be deemed to be a
state agency, and such contract shall be deemed to be a state contract,
for purposes of article fifteen-A of the executive law and section two
hundred twenty-two of the labor law.
Opinion
The Court and Union Coercion
The Supremes hear a major case on free association.
Jan. 20, 2014 6:33 p.m. ET
Union membership was once seen as a route to
the middle class, but today it is too often a way for unions and
politicians to coerce money from the middle class. The Supreme Court can
end this government compulsion and the damage it does to free speech
and association in one of its most significant cases this term.
In
March 2003, then Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (now in the slammer)
signed an executive order making the Service Employees International
Union the monopoly bargaining representative for home-care workers.
Governor
Pat Quinn
signed a second order in 2009. Such workers are often
self-employed, don't work in state buildings or report to state
officials. But Illinois uses Medicaid to subsidize home care for the
disabled, which the governors used as the legal excuse to redefine
home-care workers as state employees and provide the SEIU with some
20,000 new dues-paying members.
Pamela Harris
cares at home for her severely disabled son, and she and seven others are challenging the Illinois rule in
Harris v.
Quinn. Their double-barreled First Amendment claim, which
the High Court will hear Tuesday, is that they were first forced against
their will to join a union, which violates their right to free
association. Then their right to free speech was violated because the
unions used their dues to spend on political causes they didn't support.
The coercion was compounded by the use
of "card check," which allowed the union to organize all home-care
workers when half of them signed a "card" saying they wanted a union.
This made it easier for union organizers to intimidate workers by
visiting their homes and denying them the right to a secret ballot.
All
of this was for the political benefit of the SEIU, which gets a cut of
the Medicaid money that subsidizes home care for the disabled. That's in
addition to the $3.6 million that home-care workers pay each year in
mandatory union dues, much of which is used to re-elect the Democrats
who coerced Ms. Harris.
Ten states have
similar arrangements, which have proliferated as union membership has
fallen to 6.6% of the private workforce. As fewer workers voluntarily
join unions, the unions have relied ever more on state coercion. There
were 1.9 million U.S. home-care workers in 2010, with that number
expected to reach over three million by 2020. Some 475,000 are
unionized.
The Illinois legal defense is
that there is a state interest in unionization based on the "labor
peace" doctrine that goes back to the earliest days of the union
movement. There may have been such a government interest when, say, a
railroad strike threatened nationwide commerce in the early 1900s. But
the Cato Institute and National Federation of Independent Business argue
persuasively in an amicus brief that the "labor peace" rationale does
not trump First Amendment rights. And it hardly applies to home-care
workers who operate independently or in small groups with no bearing on
statewide commerce.
In
Knox v.
SEIU in 2012, the Justices ruled that forced unionization
deserves a high level of First Amendment scrutiny. "Mandatory
associations are permissible only when they serve a 'compelling state
interes[t] . . . that cannot be achieved through means significantly
less restrictive of associational freedoms.'" Let's hope the High Court
follows this logic to find Illinois's forced unionization
unconstitutional.
No comments:
Post a Comment