300 word discussion response Crime Statutes and Racketeering

Please respond to the below post. This can be an opinion, follow-up question, discussion, remark, argument, or agreement about what was stated. Remember to stay professional in your postings. You are free to disagree or agree with something that someone has said, but you must clearly show why. Discuss how you feel their postings relate or are different from your own. Feel free to debate points, and hold a discussion!

Save your time - order a paper!

Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlines

Order Paper Now

Note: Each participation response should be a “minimum” of 300 words each (does not count references and or restating what a classmate said) and include “at least” one properly referenced source each (in accordance with APA 6th edition), for full credit. Please see the syllabus for what constitutes a “substantive” participation response.

Respond to Richard:

Labor racketeering and union corruption have been associated/synonymous terms since the early 1900s (Jacobs, 2013, p. 1057); but most likely was occurring long before then. With John Landesco’s publication of Organized Crime in Chicago (1929), union corruption in association with organized crime (OC) figures, union leaders, and employers was brought out into the light (p. 1058). Landesco pointed out how businesses could potentially be disrupted to a small or large degree by the influence of OC-led groups of employees performing their jobs less efficiently, or perhaps not at all, under the guise of benefits for better working conditions, higher pay, or other amenities for the working class.

The New York City’s International Longshoremen’s Association was first formed in 1864; then referred to as the Longshoremen’s Union Protective Association (LUPA) (International Longshoremen’s Union, 2019). Unions from the onset were strife with conflict between competing ethnic groups, the Germans, Irish, and Southern Mediterranean immigrants (Italians most notably), and anti-union large businesses were in the habit of pitting unions against one another. “Between 1881 and 1905 there were more than 30,000 strikes” (Longshoremen’s Union, 2019). Violence by gunfire and explosives was not uncommon. More recently, in July of 2005, RICO charges were filed against the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) for rigging elections, awarding contracts to companies with ties to OC, and placing OC members in “high-ranking union offices (Labor Notes, 2005, para. 4).

In 1891, the Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union was established through the American Federation of Labor (Online Archive of California (2010). In 1976, New Jersey passed legislation, the Casino Control Act (CCA), to their state constitution to allow casino gambling in Atlantic City (Fick, 1984, p. 439). Atlantic City’s Local 54 (of the above mentioned union) represents about 12,000 workers, of which 8,000 are casino employees; “waiters, bartenders, cooks and housekeepers” (p. 439). Eighty-five percent of Local 54’s income is received from dues and initiation fees derived from employees working casinos and hotels. Local 54 ran into problems when one of the governing bodies, the Casino Control Commission, learned that Section 93 of the CCA had been violated by the fact that some of the Local 54 officials, president Frank Gerace and executive board member Frank Materio, had ties to Nicodemo Scarfo, a career offender and OC member (p. 440). The commission also discovered that Karlos LaSane, another official of Local 54, in charge of handling discrimination cases, had been convicted in 1973 of extortion while employed as a City commissioner of Atlantic City. In the end, the case was remanded from the federal court to a district court for further deliberation because Section 93 was preempted by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), stating that employees have a right to choose which unions represent them.

The Laborers’ International Union was established in 1903, and was established to protect the bargaining rights of construction workers (DOJ, 2018). Today, they have over 500,000 members and are involved with infrastructure work both in Canada and the U.S. They build roads, bridges, schools, and skyscrapers (LIUNA, 2019). Members also work on catchment systems as well as water and sewer systems. In addition, they work solar plants, wind farms, natural gas and oil pipelines, as well as maintain nuclear and coal plant facilities. Unfortunately, LIUNA has had their union corruption problems as well. On January 18, 2016, Roderick Marvin Bennett, a former chief-of-staff for LIUNA, was indicted for theft from the labor organization and conspiracy in health care fraud. Bennett made several personal charges against his LIUNA account totaling about $170,000. The charges included boat slip payments, trips to Las Vegas, hotel and restaurant charges in excess of $33,000, electronic toy purchases, and lavish jewelry and clothing purchases.

Last but not least, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) was established in 1903, and has over 1.4 million members. Originally begun as predominantly a trucking and warehouse union, they have expanded into organizing workers in professional and nonprofessional sectors including, but not limited to, vegetables workers out of California, New York sanitation workers, Seattle newspaper employees, Pennsylvania zoo keepers, Main bakery workers (Teamsters, 2019). The Teamsters have their contributions to the OC dilema.

As recently as 2012, charges for racketeering, extortion, mail fraud, along with about 30 others were levied against four members of the IBT Local 82; John Perry, Joseph Burhoe, James Deamicis, and Thomas Flaherty (Horowitz, 2015). These men allegedly forced payments from booth exhibitors to provide cash prior to having their booths unloaded as well as providing work for union members. Not doing so often ended up in having their booths picketed just prior to the opening of the event. They were also accused of providing no-show jobs, as well as extorting money from engagement organizers of hotels, catering companies, entertainment companies, and non-profit organizations (Horowitz, 2015). Eventually, Teamster General President James P. Hoffa took over and dissolved Local 82.

With regards to potential advantages for a company to enter into a corrupt relationship with their employees union, “employers may pay off union officials to obtain sweetheart deals or waivers of collective bargaining provisions (Jacobs, 2013, p. 1064). Corrupt union officials can also assist employers by making agreements so as to not contribute to employee benefit funding (p. 1065).

The Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914 was the beginning of America’s policies meant to address drug addiction, what may be done about it in the U.S., and the many peripheral unintended consequences in society due to drug addition and the availability, or lack thereof, of desired intoxicating substances (Redford & Powell, 2016, pp. 509-510). As seen with Prohibition of alcohol, the prohibition of opium created a market for organized crime (OC) to provide the people what they wanted (opium and related substances) in spite of authoritative restrictions to a free market society (p. 511). The Angell Treaty (1887) was an attempt to restrict opium from entering the U.S. Apparently, the import tariff on opium in 1883, raising it from $6.00 per pound to $10.00 per pound was not enough to dissuade people from carrying through with continued importation of the naturally occurring substance (p. 512). Subsequently, between the years of 1880 and 1886 646,280 pounds of opium made its way into the U.S. through legal channels (p. 512). And because of the 1887 ban on opium importation, naturally Americans sought it out in higher numbers; no pun intended. Smoking opium spread from the Chinese of California to twenty-two states and territories, and was felt to be a bane to society (p. 513); as would alcohol two decades later, ending in similar, perhaps grander and more bullet-ridden and explosive results; once again, no pun intended.

By 1890, the importation of unprocessed (for smoking) crude opium began to occur, and by 1897 increased to over 1 million pounds entering the U.S.; in addition to the tariff having been raised to $12.00 per pound; clearly a good government tax enterprise (p. 514). Seeing that raising the tariff only increased financial opportunities for smugglers (OC) to increase their profits, the tariff was lowered back down to $6.00 per pound (p. 516). In addition, opium dens expanded to America’s elite socioeconomic crowd, and while dens were being busted by police in the poorer districts, the elite simply set up their own dens where police would not be around to interrupt the high life; once again . . . never mind.

The medical industry was apparently understanding of the addictive processes involving opium and morphine use; however, it was not considered a national threat in the late 1800s. It is estimated there were only about 220,000 morphine and opium addicts; most of them in middle-class to upper-class societies (Redford & Powell, 2016, p. 518). In fact, many people addicted to alcohol were often prescribed morphine; not dissimilar to methadone being used to treat heroin addiction today. And should someone become addicted to morphine, the next step would be getting a prescription for heroin; available and sold commercially by the Bayer company (p. 518). However, by 1914 it was becoming apparent that restrictions were needed for cocaine, morphine, heroin, and opium, and they could only be legally prescribed by a doctor (p. 519). Thus, enter the Harrison Act of 1914.

The Harrison Act was created to ensure that narcotics were relegated to the proper handling and distribution by the medical profession (Redford & Powell, 2016, p. 524). It was designed to stop narcotics sales “peddling,” provide data for the “narcotics supply chain,” and to stop interstate transportation of what were seen as dangerous narcotics on a federal level; making southern states uncomfortable with limiting states’ rights (p. 524-525). Neither were physicians happy with the Harrison Act because it muddied the water where a physician’s right to acquire then distribute opium products to patients became confusing (p. 526). In addition, federal department confusion ensued, as between the Internal Revenue Service and the Narcotics divisions, arguing over budget allocations. The Narcotics divisions would, according to their way of thinking, need budgets large enough to take on the new roles for enforcing criminal violations of narcotics sales, distribution, and illegal use of designated narcotic substances (p. 526). It had also come to the attention of the public and government that heroin was particularly addictive, and a ban on it was further sauce for the goose in budgetary allowances or restrictions; hence, the Heroin Act of 1924 (p. 527).

In closing, the Harrison Act of 1914, as well as other acts limiting or banning narcotic substances results in unanticipated consequences; such as, but not limited to (1) OC efforts to smuggle, store, sell, and distribute narcotics to a demanding public; (2) increased profits for said OC groups; (3) inflated prison populations from convictions for narcotics trafficking and use; and (4) criminal offenses against an otherwise law abiding public who are victimized by those seeking money or illegal materials for personal use or tangent gains. Better to invest in treatment programs; court appointed or voluntary, as each situation may require.



Fick, B. (1984). Labor Racketeering and Labor Law: State Regulation v. Federal Rights: An Analysis of Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union Local 54, 1983-1984 Preview U.S. Sup. Ct. Cas. 439 (1983-1984). Available at:https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholar…

Horowitz, C. (2015). Boston teamsters convicted of extortion, racketeering. National Legal and Policy Center. https://nlpc.org/2015/01/07/boston-teamsters-convi…

International Longshoremen’s Union. (2019). Overview of ILA History. https://ilaunion.org/ila-history/

Jacobs, J. B. (2013). Is labor union corruption special? Social Research, 80(4), 1057-1086,1322. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/docv…

Labor Notes. (2005). Feds file racketeering lawsuit against longshore union. https://www.labornotes.org/2005/07/feds-file-racke…

Laborers International Union of North America. LIUNA. (2018). https://www.liuna.org/about

Online Archive of California. (2010). Finding aid to the hotel & restaurant employees and bartenders international union records, 1937-1980MS 458A. http://pdf.oac.cdlib.org/pdf/chs/hotelres.pdf

Redford, A., & Powell, B. (2016). Dynamics of intervention in the war on drugs: The buildup to the harrison act of 1914. The Independent Review, 20(4), 509-530. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/docv…

Teamsters. (2019). Who are the teamsters. https://teamster.org/about/who-are-teamsters

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). (2018). Former chief-of-staff for Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA) and former D.C. attorney charged with healthcare fraud and thefts from LIUNA. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-chief-staff-…

Forum Rubric

Zero Points





Substance (Possible 40 points)

Zero points: Student failed to respond to the question(s)

25 points: Presentation is unclear; a basic understanding of the topic and issues is not evident; explanation is lacking; segments of the required answer are lacking; sources and supporting facts are not utilized; length requirements may not have been met.

30 points: Student’s initial posting did not meet the length and or source requirements; and/or presentation evidences some confusion concerning topics under discussion; analysis may be lacking and/or elements of the question are not answered; support and references may be lacking.

35 points: Student answered/addressed most aspects of the question/topic posed in the Forum; initial posting met length and source requirements; a basic understanding of relevant concepts/theories is demonstrated; relevant sources were located; minimal or no facts/examples were used in support of presentation.

40 points: Student answered/addressed all aspects of the topic/question posed in the Forum; initial posting met length and source requirements; analysis of concepts and theories clearly demonstrates superior knowledge and a clear understanding of the topic; relevant and scholarly resources were located and used appropriately; facts and examples are used in support of presentation.

Collaboration (Possible 30 points)

Zero points: Student filed none of the required replies.

15 points: Student filed only one of the required replies OR filed the required replies but failed to meet length and or source requirements.

25 points: Student filed the minimum number of replies, meeting the length and source requirements and evidencing an understanding of the issues under discussion and the views of colleagues. Student failed to respond to specific queries posed to him by colleagues or by the Instructor. Student did not take initiative in advancing the discussion throughout the week.

30 points: Student filed at least the number of required replies and they met the length and source requirements; the replies were substantive, thoughtful responses and contributed to the discussion; student exceeded minimum requirements by answering all queries posed to him by others and remained present and actively engaged in the discussion throughout the week; student led the discussion by raising complex issues, connecting concepts, and illuminating the discussion with examples.

Timeliness (Possible 10 points)

Zero points: Student filed more than two required postings in an untimely manner.

2 points: Student filed two required postings in an untimely manner.

7 points: Student filed one required posting in an untimely manner.

10 points: Student filed all required postings in a timely manner.

Writing (Possible 10 points)

Zero points: Student failed to respond to the essay question

4 points: Writing contains several grammatical, punctuation, and/or spelling errors. Language lacks clarity or includes some use of jargon and /or conversational tone; sentence structure is awkward.

6 points: Student demonstrates consistent and correct use of the rules of grammar usage, punctuation and spelling, with a few errors; there is room for improvement in writing style and organization.

8 points: Student demonstrates consistent and correct use of the rules of grammar usage, punctuation, and spelling. Language is clear and precise throughout all submissions. Sentences display consistently strong, varied structure and organization is excellent.

10 points: Student demonstrates a quality of writing consistent with scholarly works in the relevant discipline; student is facile in the use of subject-matter vocabulary and terminology consistent with the level of instruction; student applies concepts with ease; writing style and organization are designed to successfully convey the message and the related information to the reader with maximum effect.

Citations (Possible 10 points)

Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references

4 points: Citations of reference sources exist; citations apparently correspond to the correct source but do not enable the reader to locate the source. APA 6thedition format not evident.

6 points: Attempts to cite reference sources are made, but the reader has difficulty finding the sources; attempts to useAPA 6th edition format are evident but poorly executed

8 points: Reference sources are cited as necessary, but some components of the citations are missing and/or APA 6th edition format is faulty in some respects.

10 points: Reference sources relied on by the student are cited appropriately and accurately. No writing of others is left without quotation and/or attribution, as appropriate. APA 6thedition format is used correctly and consistently.