On this record, the District Court erred in upholding the union's [PSC] charges to nonmembers for political activity undertaken to secure a new contract, lobbying by the local union's state affiliate, costs incurred to send union delegates to the state affiliate's annual convention, and the salaries of the union's employees. Further, we hold that the District Court erred in dismissing plaintiff's [Seidemann's] challenge to the union's [PSC] charges for media communications by its national affiliate, and it erred in holding, sua sponte, that plaintiff will be required to arbitrate future claims against the union [PSC] before filing suit.

-- Seidemann v. Bowen, 2d Cir., No. 08-3922, 10/15/09

That doesn't sound like a very good result for our Dear Leader, Barbara Bowen. And here was the opening sentence in a summary of the decision from the Daily Labor Report, under the headline of "Second Circuit Rules CUNY Teachers Union Didn't Prove Chargeability of Some Expenses":

The union representing City University of New York teachers failed to show that various expenses, including political activity to persuade the university to agree to a new bargaining contract and lobbying efforts by its parent union, are chargeable to objecting nonmembers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled.

Would the New Caucus' Propaganda Office rise to the challenge of describing this legal setback as a "victory" for the PSC? We needn't have asked the question. Here's how a PSC mass e-mail described the ruling excerpted above:

New Court Ruling on Agency Fee Withholdings:
The US Court of Appeals upheld last week the PSC's right to charge non-members for political activities aimed at securing a new contract and for lobbying efforts related to collective bargaining, but remanded to the Second District Court for further review the bases of the union's actual apportionment of charges in four categories of expense and one category of expense of the PSC's national affiliate.

Seidemann v. Bowen involved allegations by Brooklyn College professor David Seidemann that the Dear Leader had routinely shortchanged agency fee payers. As the Dear Leader shifted the union's focus from workplace issues to implementing her political agenda, the PSC started listing funds for the union's various ideological crusades as job-related items, for which agency fee payers didn't get refunds.

 

THE SPECIFICS

A few specific items from the ruling:

(1) The Dear Leader claimed that she was entitled to charge agency fee payers for 64 percent of the costs of NYSUT's lobbying, on grounds that these charges covered the amount of work NYSUT had performed for contract-related lobbying.

What, exactly, did NYSUT do for our contract? From the ruling:

The undisputed evidence before the District Court demonstrated that NYSUT's "lobbying activities that concerned the ratification of or fiscal appropriations for a PSC/CUNY collective bargaining agreement" consisted principally of a "few phone calls." PSC offered no other evidence that NYSUT engaged in other lobbying that was related to collective bargaining and might inure to the benefit of PSC members.

The PSC pays NYSUT tens of thousands of dollars each year in dues for "a few phone calls"??!!

(2) The Dear Leader claimed that agency fee payers deserved no payment for what the PSC described as its "Contract Campaign." And, according to court documents filed by the PSC, what did the "Contract Campaign" include?

A series of rallies, a concert of Woody Guthrie music, a "contract protest," and an event called "Teach CUNY."

The Circuit Court found the claim unpersuasive: "In light of the public nature of the activities at issue, we hold that the District Court erred in upholding PSC's charge for the 'Contract Campaign.'"

Did the PSC really think a federal court would accept the claim that a Woody Guthrie concert should be considered a legitimate contract expense??!! And, more important, is it any wonder the Dear Leader can't secure good contracts when she thinks that the path to salary increases runs through Woody Guthrie concerts?

(3) The Dear Leader had seemingly secured two victories when a lower court allowed the PSC to charge Seidemann for AFT media communications; and ordered the dissenting professor to engage in PSC-friendly arbitration before filing any additional suits.

But the appeals court overturned both findings, and ruled in Seidemann's favor.

 

SOME CLOSING QUESTIONS

The questions:

1. Why did our "democratic" union leadership not provide us with any of this information?
    
2. When will the PSC inform the members of the costs that we all have been forced to pay as this losing case has wound its way through the courts?
    
3. Why are massive amounts of PSC dues going to NYSUT when all NYSUT---according to the PSC itself---does for us is to produce "a few phone calls"?
    
4. Why did the Dear Leader think that a Woody Guthrie concert would lead to better pay and benefits for CUNY faculty members?

Sharad Karkhanis, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Editor-in-Chief