The transit workers' strike that crip pled
Manhattan last month was clearly illegal. And the Transit Authority's
will ingness to end the walkout by agreeing to pay an estimated $60
million in wage boosts and fringe benefits was hardly more correct. New
York's tough Condon-Wadlin Act not only forbids strikes by public
employees but prohibits pay raises to strikers for three years after
they go back to work. Still, most New Yorkers — from Mayor John
Lindsay to the harried commuters — were willing to forgive and forget. Most, that is, except Attorney George Weinstein, 33. Convinced that the
“law is clear and should be en forced,” Weinstein went into
New York Supreme Court as a “taxpayer and voter” to ask for
an injunction barring the Transit Authority from giving the transit
workers their illegal raise. Craven Servility. For a change, the Authority and the Transport Workers
Union found themselves on the same side of an argument. They sought dis
missal of Weinstein's suit on the ground that as a “private
citizen without special or peculiar interest,” he lacked
“standing”; they claimed that the law was
“unworkable” and the strike could not have been settled
without granting the workers a raise. Judge Irving H. Saypol was not impressed. In a blistering and verbose
19-page ruling that cited such diverse
sources as William Pitt the Elder and Saypol himself, the judge said
that Weinstein's complaint must be answered. But he seemed to chafe
under the need to wait the required ten days. “The case for relief
for petitioner,” said Judge Saypol, “is clear.” Fortunately for the Transit Authority, the final decision will probably
be made by another judge of the State Supreme Court. This did not
prevent Say pol from taking the Transit Authority to task for
“yielding and submitting to illegally extorted demands” by
the un ion and permitting it to obtain a heavy “ransom from eight
million citizens” of New York City. “Submission today,”
the judge went on to say, “to this un lawful misconduct under the
guise of civil disobedience, grinding into the dirt the civil rights
and liberties of the city's millions, is craven servility and could
lead to disaster for all. If responsible officials cannot stand up in
firm resist ance, the court will.” Verbal Spanking. Judge Saypol, who last year upheld the
constitutionality of the Condon-Wadlin Act, solemnly warned the
authority not to follow “any course which would increase the
compensation of the strikers in violation of the law.” In Saypol's
opinion, the issue at stake is nothing less than the very preservation
of the rule of law. If laws that are disliked can be violated with
impunity, then anarchy prevails and “liberties become
useless,” said the judge. Before he was finished, he had harsh words for everyone. Not only did he
denounce the Transit Authority and the union, but he also accused the
city's corporation counsel of “fuzzy” thinking. Then he
administered a mild verbal spanking to Attorney Weinstein as well for
submitting what he regarded as an “inartistic” brief, which
“leaves much to be desired.”
