Another perspective on race

[d-ray657]

Some of the threads here have been addressing the topic of race. OK, help me figure this one out. I've been slightly conflicted on this case I've been working on for the past several years. It's going to its second trial this month. I have been defending the union against claims made by five African Americans for racial discrimination.

I'll have to admit that the construction industry has a history of segregation, but I believe it is past that. I really believe that I have not been a hired gun in this case, but am defending what is in fact my client's fair operation of its referral system. I also believe that a couple of these plaintiffs have abused the civil rights laws for years, and that a couple of the other guys just got caught up in this thing and came along for the ride.

It bugs me that the attorneys on the other side are the type of folks that we would otherwise consider allies. We all strongly support democrats, and really all want what's best for working people. But they see my client as some sort of rednecks. I think they have this union stereotyped because some of them were involved in litigation involving another local in a different part of the country, from the same international union. From my review of court decisions in a lawsuit that has gone on for 30 years, the other local fought integration for years. In contrast, this local has African Americans on its executive board, there are probably a higher proportion of African Americans serving as foremen than Caucasians, and the officers run the union in a very business-like manner.

Still, it is a bit uncomfortable for me to be staunchly defending a suit in which the plaintiffs claim that they are fighting for racial equality. I have to look behind the rhetoric and see that their legal theories and evidence don't work. In fact, we have won and had affirmed verdicts against the discrimination claims, and have a trial involving only the claim of retaliation (which is based primarily on advising the members how much was being spent on defending the claims). In any event, this case has caused me to regularly examine my attitude toward race. Does that mean I really am a hired gun?

P.S. Sorry for the long post, but as I have said before, I'm in a profession where we can call a hundred page document a brief.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Grumpy]

I hate to say it but when some people learned the race card could make them money its social value went out the window.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Grumpy

I hate to say it but when some people learned the race card could make them money its social value went out the window.

Make them money, or serve some personal agenda.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Heck D you're in the best position to know outside the principals.

Just the fact you worry about it makes a good case that you're in the right imo.

Pete

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Some of the threads here have been addressing the topic of race. OK, help me figure this one out. I've been slightly conflicted on this case I've been working on for the past several years. It's going to its second trial this month. I have been defending the union against claims made by five African Americans for racial discrimination.

I'll have to admit that the construction industry has a history of segregation, but I believe it is past that. I really believe that I have not been a hired gun in this case, but am defending what is in fact my client's fair operation of its referral system. I also believe that a couple of these plaintiffs have abused the civil rights laws for years, and that a couple of the other guys just got caught up in this thing and came along for the ride.

It bugs me that the attorneys on the other side are the type of folks that we would otherwise consider allies. We all strongly support democrats, and really all want what's best for working people. But they see my client as some sort of rednecks. I think they have this union stereotyped because some of them were involved in litigation involving another local in a different part of the country, from the same international union. From my review of court decisions in a lawsuit that has gone on for 30 years, the other local fought integration for years. In contrast, this local has African Americans on its executive board, there are probably a higher proportion of African Americans serving as foremen than Caucasians, and the officers run the union in a very business-like manner.

Still, it is a bit uncomfortable for me to be staunchly defending a suit in which the plaintiffs claim that they are fighting for racial equality. I have to look behind the rhetoric and see that their legal theories and evidence don't work. In fact, we have won and had affirmed verdicts against the discrimination claims, and have a trial involving only the claim of retaliation (which is based primarily on advising the members how much was being spent on defending the claims). In any event, this case has caused me to regularly examine my attitude toward race. Does that mean I really am a hired gun?

P.S. Sorry for the long post, but as I have said before, I'm in a profession where we can call a hundred page document a brief.

Regards,

D-Ray

Don,

It sounds to me the Local you are defending has a strong history of good practice concerning race. Despite the fact that another local may not. Perhaps you could find more evidence that other locals within the international also have good race practices and portray the union as a whole to be more race friendly? I dunno, I'm not a lawyer.

But I do know that within the labor movements history, race has been a contentious issue, for better or worse, many times. There should be plenty of case histories to draw from.

Anyways, NO I don't see you as a hired gun. Racism is a two way street, and if the plaintiffs are trying to paint this local as a bigoted institution run by sheet wearin' good ole boys when it clearly is not, then as far as I am concerned the plaintiffs are racist. And you are doing the right thing.

Also, remember this; "The local is a ship upon the sea."* Meaning each local must answer for it's own actions.

Good luck with your case,
Dave

(*Can you tell me who said that?)

[Charles]

It appears to me that racial parity has pretty much been reached in America. Gaming the system by using the perception of racial inequality only works to destroy what has been accomplished.

You're doing your job, with the bonus of feeling justified that you are doing the correct thing. I wouldn't let it bother me.

Now cutting the pony tail, well, that's a different matter entirely.

Chas

[HatchetJack]

I never worked for a union but have worked for some big manufacturing
companies and there have always been the good ol boy network that one
has to travel in order to move up. I also noticed that there was always a
couple sourpus gangs that didnt play along and instead played the victim.
Usually a white outcast gang and a black one. They always had a chip on
their shoulder because they felt they were being held back when in fact they
held themselves back. They bad-mouthed the supervision and owners fully
believing they were being conspired against. Guess who got passed up for
promotion? Word gets up the ass kissing list pretty quick on who says what.
If you are going to work in the lawyer business, you have to leave your
personal feelings at home. Everyone else does, well except the sourpusses
that get passed up.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by HatchetJack

I never worked for a union but have worked for some big manufacturing
companies and there have always been the good ol boy network that one
has to travel in order to move up. I also noticed that there was always a
couple sourpus gangs that didnt play along and instead played the victim.
Usually a white outcast gang and a black one. They always had a chip on
their shoulder because they felt they were being held back when in fact they
held themselves back. They bad-mouthed the supervision and owners fully
believing they were being conspired against. Guess who got passed up for
promotion? Word gets up the ass kissing list pretty quick on who says what.
If you are going to work in the lawyer business, you have to leave your
personal feelings at home. Everyone else does, well except the sourpusses
that get passed up.

Funny thing that you use the term "lawyer business." I really enjoy the legal thought process, and giving an argument before the court of appeals is a bona fide adrenaline rush. Not being overly inclined toward capitalism, however, I'm pretty bad at the business end of law. I've been doing it for 20 years, and I have always based my practice on my values. I went into labor law because I believe in labor unions. As often as not, we're charging half the hourly rate of the management attorneys whose a** we kick. I originally did some employment discrimination work too, until I realized that the only ones who paid the bills doing it were the ones who were willing to practice extortion - take cases that were not actually provable discrimination cases, and settle them for 20 or 30k, which is less than the cost of defense. Unfortunately, management attorneys looked at all of the cases as cost of defense settlements, so you had to take a genuine case to trial. You can't try every contingency case and expect to maintain a practice. The flip side is that unions seldom settle cases, so when our clients are sued, we're gonna get some work.

I'll agree with you Jack, that a segment of the population in any field is unwilling to accept responsibility for their own acts, and spends most of their energy trying to blame someone else or work some kind of angle. Some unions will tell you, and probably supervisors as well, that ten percent of the membership (or workforce) takes up ninety percent of their time. What the heck, that ten percent keeps me in business.

Regards,

D-Ray