Mobsters, Unions, and Feds

by on March 30, 2007 at 7:07 am in Economics | Permalink

My family [Genovese] made a lot of money from gambling and the numbers rackets.  We got money from gambling, but our real power, our real strength, came from the unions [emphasis added].  With the unions behind us, we could shut down the city, or the country for that matter, if we needed to get our way.  Our brugad [crime family] controlled a number of different unions, some of which I personally dealt with, some of which I knew about from other amico nostra.  In some cases, we got money from our dealings with the unions, in some cases we got favors such as jobs for friends and relatives — but most importantly, in all cases, we got power over every businessman in New York.  With the unions behind us, we could make or break the construction industry, the garment business, the docks, to name but a few.

That is mobster Vincent Cafaro, cited in James B. Jacobs’s excellent Mobsters, Unions, and Feds: The Mafia and the American Labor Movement.  This book, which is avowedly left-wing and pro-union, chronicles the grisly and underrecorded history of mob influence over unions.  Today the mob’s presence in the Teamsters, the Laborers, the Hotel and Restaurant workers and the Longshoreman’s union has largely dissipated, but keep in mind why.  Our government has spent the last twenty years busting these unions, using arrests, RICO, and federal monitoring and control.  That should not be forgotten the next time you hear talk of new legal privileges for unions.

Chris March 30, 2007 at 9:46 am

Has anyone studied the costs/benefits of subjecting unions to federal anti-trust law?

Methinks March 30, 2007 at 9:53 am

I don’t understand why unions are not subject to anti-trust laws. Perhaps someone will be good enough to explain this.

spencer March 30, 2007 at 10:17 am

But on the other hand the Mafia is a pure example of libertarian economics.

So which is worse?

alkali March 30, 2007 at 10:22 am

I don’t really know what it could mean to apply antitrust laws to unions, but a lot of things that you might consider to fall in that category (e.g., “secondary boycotts,” where union X refuses to deal with a business because of its dispute with union Y) are unfair labor practices under the Taft Hartley Act.

Rob March 30, 2007 at 10:45 am

“Is it that the mob could threaten violence against recalcitrant employers and scabs?”

Yes.

mickslam March 30, 2007 at 11:00 am

Let’s not forget why unions made the deals they did with the mobsters. Union orginizers were getting their ass kicked by the police, falsely arrested, imprisoned and exectuted by judges, and killed by police. The early history of how unions came into being in this country is filled with violence, most of it from the anti-union side. Union busting didn’t come into existence after the unions were created – no, unions were fought tooth and nail for decades prior to the first successful union being created.

The unions knew what they were getting into, a devils bargin where the unions would insure their survival at the cost of becoming an arm of a horrible criminal enterprize. It was their only choice given the situation they faced. The other choice was to allow their members to be illegally targeted by police as the enforcment arm of business owners.

After the alliance between
unions and gangs (lets not glorify they with the term mobs), they were able to fight back.

Then of course, what everyone knew was going to happen, happened. They became part of the gangs. A weapon to be used by people who were criminals.

Does this excuse the fact that today many unions still are corrupt and associated with gangs? No.

eddie March 30, 2007 at 11:31 am

The smart gangsters have abandoned unions and have moved into government. The great thing about taking over the government is that then your acts of theft and extortion don’t have to be illegal any more!

josh March 30, 2007 at 2:17 pm

“The smart gangsters have abandoned unions and have moved into government. The great thing about taking over the government is that then your acts of theft and extortion don’t have to be illegal any more!”

Godfather 1 to Godfather 2!

Chris Conway March 30, 2007 at 3:17 pm

lets not glorify they with the term mobs

“Mob” is a euphemism?

Mike Huben March 30, 2007 at 5:15 pm

“That should not be forgotten the next time you hear talk of new legal privileges for unions.”

It would be nice to hear talk of enforcement of currently existing rights to unionize. New privileges would not be needed.

On the other hand, we hear endlessly about new privileges for corporations. Maybe we should ask them to pay a fair share of taxes first.

Mr. Noah March 30, 2007 at 8:15 pm

But wait…immigrant communities tend to be one of the biggest incubators for organized criminal activity, as with the Italian mob last century and the Mexican mob this century. So is that an argument for decreasing immigration?

Methinks Dr. Cowen has some ulterior motive in making this argument, and methinks me has a pretty good idea of what that motive is

p.a. March 30, 2007 at 11:00 pm

“Libertarian economics by definition eschews threats and intimidation of the sort that define mafia interactions.”
Yes, let’s wish for a society where those with power don’t seek to maintain it, those who are without power don’t seek to get it… and a pony!

Russell Nelson March 31, 2007 at 2:24 am

Wow, criticize unions and the union members sure show up in force! Ya think this was orchestrated much?? Ya think?

Klug March 31, 2007 at 3:20 pm

I agree with josh, Mr. Noah.

Lorenzo March 31, 2007 at 4:47 pm

In answer to Jacob’s question: unions are a prime source of legal coercive power. That makes them naturally attractive to the Mob, whose business is the application of coercive power.

Unions more generally are a helpful base for cartels precisely because of that, even without any criminal element.

Joey Zaza March 31, 2007 at 9:05 pm

Unions are useful to the mafia because they allow it to exert its force without exposing itself. Assassinating or burning the offices of every real estate developer in New York city will create a huge backlash. Get control of the union and you don’t need to do that anymore.

arthur April 4, 2007 at 1:24 pm

And in the same time period, the United States Army practiced both racial apartheid and almost complete exclusion of women. This should not be forgotten next time you hear talk of new funding of the United States military.

SUN August 8, 2007 at 9:31 am

We are Fine Art Supplies positioned to distribute our best Artist Brush materials around the world. For all of your artists needs, We offer a broad assortment of fine quality art supply items: Artist Brush, School Brush, easel, paper and pads, artist drawing tools, fine picture frame, etc.

maple story September 11, 2007 at 3:55 am
32rrfrtg October 7, 2007 at 11:06 pm
batteries October 16, 2007 at 11:31 am
T3 December 31, 2008 at 12:37 am

My favorite salad dressing is simply olive oil, balsamic vinegar and water. I then add some dry spices of choice…garlic powder, salt, pepper, oregano and onion powder. If I don’t mix it very well then too much spice is concentrated on a leaf of lettuce and it doesn’t taste so well.
That is similar to unions, the good and evil within our business sectors and our free markets. The mixing of them all creates a balance of flavor and eventually, just like my salad dressing, all the ingredients separate.
I wish it weren’t so and that evil and corruption didn’t exist, but it does and the two poles of life will remain at struggle.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: