A Word to the Wise

As a general rule, we believe that union officials should avoid criticizing each other's contracts when they are awaiting ratification unless the terms of a deal are so egregiously harmful that they are likely to cause long-term damage to the unhappy officials' members.

Some police union officials, however, over the past 25 years have freely indulged in such criticism even in situations where it seemed unlikely that the deals up for ratification would materially hurt their own bargaining prospects.

The latest instance involves a revised contract for the Detectives' Endowment Association. Literature from Patrolmen's Benevolent Association President Pat Lynch, which his union said was written and disseminated prior to the DEA deal reached a month ago, had questioned the union's decision to seek a four-year contract. It called the wage terms for the final two years inadequate and questioned why the DEA was not willing to let the PBA set a more favorable pattern for that period.

Although Mr. Lynch denied the piece was written for use against the revised DEA agreement, some of his delegates have been circulating it with precisely that aim, according to DEA President Mike Palladino.

The obvious answer for Mr. Palladino's unwillingness to put his members' fate in the PBA's hands is that using that strategy blew up on him and his rank and file when Mr. Lynch, as part of an arbitration process last summer, opted for an attrition-based contract that worked to the detriment of all police unions besides the PBA.

Mr. Lynch's claims that this time will be different are rendered hollow by the fact that the Uniformed Firefighters' Association agreed to a 50-month contract last fall that provides similar terms to the tentative DEA deal and covers the two-year period that the PBA is talking about.

There is some speculation that the PBA president believes he can present an arbitration case so compelling that a panel will disregard 120 years of parity between Police Officer and Firefighter salaries. We can think of much sounder investments than betting on that proposition.

Just three months after rejecting the first agreement Mr. Palladino brought back, some of his members may have lingering reservations about the revised terms, even though they were tailored to address objections to the earlier deal.

They should not, however, cast negative votes based on assurances they are hearing from officials at another union that greener pastures lie ahead if they trust for a second time the very organization that complicated their bargaining situation with its contract decisions last year.