Vol. 51, No.4                                                          April 27, 2010

Professional Staff Congress Loses Seidemann v. Bowen
Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.*

The Professional Staff Congress (PSC) has a reputation in the state capitol of being the least effective public sector union. The reason is its current leadership, Barbara Bowen and the “New Caucus.” Many of us who have turned to the PSC for grievance support have been told that the PSC lacks resources to file grievances. When it comes time for pay negotiations, the PSC has won, over the past 10 years, less than half of what the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) has won for New York 's elementary and high school teachers. Once among the best paid university faculties in the nation, CUNY's faculty's pay is now in the bottom quartile in surveys. Given this history, it is revealing that the PSC has been using at least 14% of its resources for political and ideological purposes unrelated to contract matters, a fact revealed in the case of Seidemann v. Bowen. The PSC lacks resources for grievances and contract negotiation because it spends so much of its budget on politics. As well, the union has lied repeatedly about its political spending.

Given this history, it is not surprising that the PSC's leadership now lies about its loss to the Jones, Day and Davis and Polk law firms in Professor David Seidemann's law suit, Seidemann v. Bowen.

The PSC has paid the law firms representing Seidemann $250,000, more than 1.5% of its entire operating budget, to settle Professor Seidemann's case. That money came out of your pocket. Seidemann settled because he had won his chief points in an appeals court. The union settled because ever more of their expenditures were being declared as political and they decided to cut their losses. Seidemann states that “in 2000/01, the PSC claimed only $15,387 in political expenses out of a total budget of $6,471,530. That's 0.24%. In 2007/08, the PSC claims $880,301 in political expenses out of a total of $6,243,044, or 14.1%.” More recently Debbie Bell, the PSC's Executive Director, has stated that "between 15% and 20%" of the PSC's expenses are for political and ideological purposes, according to a witness.

History

In 2002 Seidemann filed a pro se (self-represented) case concerning the reimbursement of fees used for political purposes and lost. He then appealed the decision, at which point he retained Davis and Polk, later transferring the case to Jones, Day. Both firms took the case pro bono. An appeals court reversed the district court's decision on the union's requirement that non-members must send a letter each year to receive a refund of funds used for lobbying. The current leadership of the PSC had enforced that requirement for years, and they lost that point in the appellate court. A yearly letter is no longer necessary. The appellate court also remanded the case to determine if the PSC rebates to non-members for political activities were properly calculated. This was a major victory for Seidemann.

Seidemann states that “the PSC settled because they had no way to prove that any of the remaining items in my complaint were properly charged to objecting fee payers. Thus, if they continued to go forward on the hearing, the fees they would have to have paid my lawyer would mount in a case that they knew they could not win.”

After the appeals court remanded the case, the district court said that Seidemann had to take the case to arbitration. Jones, Day appealed again. The appeals court reversed the arbitration requirement and again remanded the case, telling the lower court to determine which lobbying activities are chargeable to dissenting non-members. Because the PSC could provide no proof to support its position, the PSC decided to cut its losses.

I e-mailed the PSC President Barbara Bowen and other PSC bosses for an explanation of their rationale for paying a $250,000 settlement to Seidemann's attorneys, but they failed to respond.

Seidemann notes that “the PSC violated the constitutional rights of fee payers and fought a lengthy legal battle that they ultimately admitted they had no evidence to defend. That unnecessarily lengthy battle cost the union $250,000 in fees. And then they lied to cover up their costly legal loss. Thus, beyond proving a violation of constitutional rights, the case demonstrates the incompetence and dishonesty of the union leaders.”

Lies and Damn Lies

Given its maladroit failure in the Seidemann case, one would expect the PSC to exercise tact. Instead, the New Caucus has lied once again. In a statement to the PSC's executive council the labor bosses write (Page 1, Page 2) that the PSC won “on major constitutional issues.” In fact, the PSC settled the case because the appellate court had remanded the case to determine if the PSC rebates to non-member were properly calculated. The court had also noted that the PSC had not demonstrated that its agency fee procedure violations were unlikely to recur.

Here's a math problem. Of your union dues, more than one half automatically goes to two “national” unions, the AFT and NYSUT. Of the remaining half, the PSC has committed $250,000 to settle the Seidemann case. How much are you getting for your dues, after 14 to 20% in political spending, to administer a contract, file grievances and pursue collective bargaining?

*Mitchell Langbert is Associate Professor of Business at Brooklyn College. He can be visited at his blog at http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com.

Issues of The Patriot may be accessed at
http://www.patriotreturns.com
Archived editions are available at
http://www.patriotreturns.com/archive.htm