Remembering Suze Rotolo, Dylan's 'Freewheeling' Muse

*** TRANSCRIPTION COMPANY BOUNDARY ***
..DATE:
20110301
..PGRM:
Fresh Air
..TIME:
12:00-13:00 PM
..NIEL:
N/A
..NTWK:
NPR
..SGMT:
The Long-Term Effect Of Wisconsin's Union Battles

TERRY GROSS, host:

This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross.

For nearly two weeks, thousands of union members and supporters have
been protesting in Wisconsin's state capital, Madison, where Governor
Scott Walker is seeking to strip most bargaining rights from the state's
public-employee unions.

Walker's efforts have stalled so far because 14 Democratic senators have
left the state, denying the Senate the quorum needed to enact Walker's
proposals. Walker has stood firm, saying that without the change he
seeks, he'll have to lay off 1,500 state workers.

The events in Wisconsin are the most extreme example of battles
unfolding across the country, between government unions and financially
strapped state and local governments.

For some perspective on the issue, we turn to Steven Greenhouse, the
labor and workforce reporter for the New York Times. He's covered the
events in Madison and union conflicts elsewhere. He's also the author of
the book "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker."
Greenhouse spoke this morning with FRESH AIR contributor Dave Davies.

DAVE DAVIES, host.

Steven Greenhouse, welcome to FRESH AIR. There's a sense that what we're
seeing in Wisconsin is a battle being joined that's been coming for
quite some time. To what extent is this conflict representative of
what's going on, nationally, between fiscally stressed officials and
public-employee unions?

Mr. STEVEN GREENHOUSE (Labor and Workforce Correspondent, New York
Times; Author, "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"):
There are two levels of fights going on in Wisconsin. One is trying to
scale back their, the public employees' wages and benefits, and that we
are really seeing across the country - literally from California and
Oregon to New York and Maryland and Virginia and Florida. That's a
nationwide fight because so many states have colossal deficits, you
know, caused, you know, in large part by the big recession. And they're
trying to figure out: how do we reduce our deficits? We try to reduce
wages and benefits for our employees.

The second level is, in Wisconsin, the governor there is really trying
to cripple the public-employees' unions, and that is not a nationwide
fight. That's a fight going on in certain states, where there really is
Republican control. And they see this as a way, you know, weakening
unions is a way, both to - weaken unions at the bargaining table and
secondly to weaken unions' help of Democratic candidates in elections.

So, you know - so the Republicans, having seen labor unions, you know,
greatly help the Democrats in last November's elections, are eager to
try to weaken unions' ability to help Democrats in future elections.

DAVIES: Now, just for context, there's a perception, at least among
some, that public employees, or at least unionized public employees,
have a much better deal than similarly skilled workers just about
anywhere else in the economy. Is that true?

Mr. GREENHOUSE: The studies I've read and some articles in my newspaper
say that, basically, public employees earn more or less the same as
private-sector employees.

There are studies by conservative think-tanks saying that when you
include benefits, public employees earn somewhat more than private-
sector employees. There are studies by various, you know, liberal
professors and liberal think-tanks, saying that public-sector employees
earn four to nine percent less.

There's an excellent study by the - sponsored by the bipartisan,
nonpartisan Center for State and Local Government Excellence that says
that public employees generally earn four percent less than private-
sector employees.

Also, I should note, Dave, that, you know, there'll be studies showing
that public-sector employees generally earn more. But when you think
that public-sector employees generally have a much higher level of
education than private-sector employees - like in Wisconsin, 60 percent
of public-sector employees have college educations, versus just 20
percent for the private sector. So that, on a certain level, explain why
public-sector employees earn more, and generally, public-sector
employees have much more longevity in their jobs.

You know, teachers, policemen, firefighters, they often stay 15, 20, 25,
30 years on the job. So they generally develop more seniority, more
experience, and therefore, they are also paid more.

DAVIES: So maybe not such a clear picture, at least on wages and
salaries. Is it fair to say that benefit packages in general are more
generous for public employees?

Mr. GREENHOUSE: Generally, yes. Dave, generally yes. Their benefit
packages are better. I did a story a few weeks ago about cities and
states trying to pare back, scale back, fairly generous health benefits
for retirees.

And people I spoke to at the National Governance Association and the
National League of Cities said, you know, 20 years ago, it was clear
that wages for public-sector workers were considerably lower. So how did
we compensate for that? We compensated for that by giving them better
health and pension benefits. Now, their wages have sort of caught up,
but there's much more pressure to hold down their health and pension
benefits.

I wrote a story the other day basically saying that, you know, their
overall compensation, wages and benefits, are about the same as for
private-sector employees.

DAVIES: Now, those of us who follow the events in Wisconsin, know that
the governor, Scott Walker, wants to restrict collective bargaining
rights for public-employee unions there. What exactly is he asking for?

Mr. GREENHOUSE: The governor is asking to limit collective bargaining,
you know - for the state's teachers, the state's sanitation workers, for
the state's, you know, nurses and public hospitals. He wants to limit
their negotiation to just one issue: basic wages.

So that means the unions could not bargain over things like workloads or
vacations or overtime or health coverage. And he would further limit,
you know, that, the bargaining over wages so that unions could never get
raises above the consumer price index, unless - in the city or the
state, if they - you know, if inflation's running at three percent, and
the city agrees to a raise of four percent more than the consumer price
index, then that would have to go to a public referendum. And I think
the chances are extremely slim of a public referendum ever approving a
raise higher than the consumer price index.

So basically, he's telling unions: You can only bargain over one thing,
and you're always going to disappoint your members because you'll never,
ever be able to get more than the consumer price index in raises.

And coupled to what the governor is doing, there are several steps to
weaken unions. Every single year, members - union members would vote on
whether to decertify, to quit their union.

And I think the because the union's role would be so, so limited, and it
would have so little power in bargaining, you know, it's - there's a
very good chance that many public-sector workers would vote to quit
their union.

Also, the government would allow them to stop paying union dues, and I
think, again, because unions would have so little power, so little role,
because of what the governor wants, many union members would say: Why in
the world should I continue paying union dues?

And I think, you know, this is, in many ways, designed to weaken unions,
as I said, both at the bargaining table and in politics.

DAVIES: And just to be clear, on benefits, were this to be enacted, a
union would have no say on what health plan or retirement options their
employees might have. That would be at the discretion of their public
employer.

Mr. GREENHOUSE: That's correct. As they say in the business, these
decisions would be unilateral by management. You know, and in this way,
management represents the taxpayers. But the governors and the mayors
and the school district superintendents could, henceforth, if this is
enacted, could basically dictate what's going to happen in the future in
pensions and what's going to happen in the future in health coverage and
how many days' vacation one has and what the school day is and when
people work to, and the rules for transfers and what one's workload are,
and there won't be a union - you know, the union would not be allowed to
negotiate any of this.

DAVIES: Now, one of the things we've seen in Wisconsin is that the
unions have made financial concessions. They said that they will
contribute more to their pensions and take wage cuts, which arguably
would help Governor Walker address the budget problem, which he says is
really driving this.

If he can get the concessions without destroying collective bargaining,
why doesn't he just accept the money?

Mr. GREENHOUSE: That's an excellent question. That's what many people in
Wisconsin are asking. The governor says that Wisconsin faces a $3.6
billion budget deficit over the next two years, and he asks for
significant economic concessions from the workers.

So the workers basically agreed to concessions that will reduce their
take-home pay by seven percent, which is a whole lot. They agreed to
start paying 5.8 percent of their salaries towards their pensions, and
they agreed to double their contribution for their health coverage -
from six percent of the cost to 12 percent of the cost, and together,
that comes to about seven, eight percent of salary for workers.

And that's a major concession, and everyone says that will make a real
dent in reducing the deficit. So people ask the governor: Well, the
unions have sort of met you halfway. Why don't you meet them halfway by
dropping your demands to essentially, you know, gut collective
bargaining rights?

And he says: We have to get rid of bargaining rights, weaken bargaining
rights because we need to solve our budget problems long-term, and he
asserts that only by weakening collective bargaining rights can they, in
future years with future budgets, you know, get what they need in terms
of reducing the deficits.

Now, union advocates and union leaders will say there are many states
with serious budget deficits, even worse deficits than Wisconsin, that
aren't seeking to weaken or gut or eliminate collective bargaining. And
the Republicans in Michigan and Pennsylvania face serious budget
deficits, but they're not trying to eliminate collective bargaining
rights.

And Democratic governors, like Andrew Cuomo in New York and Jerry Brown
in California and John Kitzhaber in Oregon, they have huge budget
problems. They have contentious unions. But they're also not pushing to
get rid of collective bargaining because they're confident that they
could reason with the unions and persuade unions to do what's necessary
to help balance their budgets.

DAVIES: Now, one of the things that unions and their supporters say is
that union contracts aren't simply about economic stuff. It's about
protecting workers on the jobsite from vindictive treatment by
employers, favoritism, discrimination. And the governor says: Well, you
have civil service protection, which really ensures those rights anyway.
Does he have a point?

Mr. GREENHOUSE: Yes and no. You know, Wisconsin is one of the nation's
strongest civil service laws. Unlike the civil service laws in many
states, Wisconsin civil service law bars the state from firing anyone
except for just cause. And that's a pretty strong standard.

The civil service law does not apply to counties, cities and school
districts. So one thing the unions protest is, well, you know, the
governor says, well, having a union contract isn't so important, we have
the civil service laws. But those laws really only apply on the state
level and provide very few protections at the local level.

Second, you know, if you get fired because you think of favoritism or
nepotism, and you have a union contract, and you want to challenge it,
you know, the union will really go to bat for you. Generally, it might
bring in an arbitrator, and there's a good chance you can get that
overturned if you're really fired for, you know, not for just cause.

But if you're - if there's no union contract, and you want to appeal to,
you know, the state Employee Relations Board, generally you don't have a
lawyer going to bat for you. In Wisconsin, the state Employee Relations
Board just has 22 people on its staff, and I can imagine a situation
where hundreds, or even thousands, of workers might bring appeals saying
I was suspended improperly, or I was demoted improperly, I was fired
improperly, and that could easily overload this board.

Moreover, you know, this board will be run by appointees of the
governor, and union leaders fear, many workers fear, that they're not
going to get a fair shake, that, you know, this board is going to very
often favor management's point of view.

Again, many workers say they're in much better shape against arbitrary
treatment, against favoritism, against nepotism, when they have a union
contract than with civil service laws.

DAVIES: We're speaking with Steven Greenhouse. He's the labor and
workplace reporter for the New York Times. He's also the author of the
book "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker." We'll talk
more after a short break. This is FRESH AIR.

(Soundbite of music)

DAVIES: If you're just joining us, our guest is Steven Greenhouse. He's
the labor and workplace reporter for the New York Times. He's been
covering the events in Wisconsin, where there's a standoff between
Governor Scott Walker and the state's public-employee unions. Steven
Greenhouse is also the author of the book "The Big Squeeze: Tough Times
for the American Worker."

I've covered a few public-employee labor battles in my own years as a
newspaper reporter. And while it's clearly true that workers at the
workplace have far less protection and are probably not going to get as
good an economic deal, I have to say there are times when I have heard
managers make a somewhat convincing case that - say for example someone,
a city, a government, wants to reorganize its procurement or its
information technology or fleet management.

Let's say you've got, you know, inefficiently run fleet - garages in
many, many different departments, and you want to centralize it,
bringing it in to one department. To do that, you have to transfer a lot
of workers from one department to another, change their work
assignments, alter their schedules. Those are all conditions of work
which the union has a say in and will oppose, in part because the
savings might result in fewer jobs. And you just can't get it done.

Managers say as long as the union controls the shop floor, our hands are
tied, and we can't rearrange things. We can't create efficiencies that
taxpayers deserve.

DO you - I mean, you - I'm sure you've heard these things. Do you think
they have a point?

Mr. GREENHOUSE: I think, you know, many times, unions really get in the
way. Unions' role are to protect the interest of their members. And
sometimes, perhaps often, those interests disagree with those of
management. In the private sector, they'll disagree - you know, their
interests will clash with those of companies and increasing profits, and
in the public sector, if a mayor says well, we really want to
consolidate these two or three municipal garages to save money and
create more efficiencies, I can imagine unions saying: That stinks. That
will cause, you know, five of our people to be laid off.

And I think in this day and age, when unions are really under fire, both
in the private sector and the public sector, I think union leaders are
realizing that: Hey, maybe we have to become more flexible. Hey, maybe
we have to become more understanding of what the needs of mayors are, of
governors are.

And some are getting the message, but some, I think, are still resisting
very, very much because their members say: You know, don't do anything
that might lead to layoffs.

DAVIES: This is a big fight, and there are plenty of people involved who
aren't locals in Wisconsin. Who are some of the outside players that are
weighing in on this battle, either - both in Wisconsin and nationally?

Mr. GREENHOUSE: There are many people from out of state who have gotten
involved in this fight. You know, Governor Walker has repeatedly said,
you know, there are only out-of-state union leaders, union activists
here. Why are they meddling? We don't really need them.

And the union people say: Wait a second. You know, the Koch brothers,
the billionaire brothers, gave $43,000 to your campaign. They've given
lots of money to the Republican Party. You know, you're saying union
leaders can't come in from out of state, shouldn't come in from out of
state to show solidarity with their union brothers and sisters, whereas
you're taking large amounts of money from out-of-state billionaires.

So as I've said, the stakes are very big on both sides. You know, Karl
Rove has said to Republicans around the country: It's important to try
to weaken public-sector unions because they're a pillar of the
Democratic Party. To the extent Republicans can weaken public-sector
unions, that will really help Republicans at the polls and really hurt
Democrats.

So clearly, Republicans around the country, you know, see electoral
benefits here, but also, you know, many governors, you know, whatever
the party, who are eager to balance their budgets, you know, I think
they realize that if Governor Walker gets his way, that will put unions
on the defensive, might force unions to be more reasonable in
negotiations.

I had a very good interview the other day with an esteemed professor at
MIT, Tom Kochan, who said: You know, the unions, public-sector unions
have sometimes dug in too much. And they've dug in so much that
sometimes, it's turned the public against them.

And public-sector unions have to recognize reality more. They have to be
more willing to compromise on things like, you know, consolidating
operations to save state money. They need to compromise, maybe, on doing
more to help hold down health coverage because that will not only
improve the image of unions in the public's eye, but it might forestall
future governors from trying to take away their bargaining rights
altogether.

DAVIES: I thought we should talk just a moment about the pension issue.
You know, there are so many public-employee pension funds in trouble
across the country. I mean, their unfunded liabilities are high, meaning
essentially that if you compare what the cost would be of them simply
paying the benefits they owed to the employees and retirees they have,
compare that to the assets in the fund, the assets don't nearly cover
the cost.

To what extent would eliminating collective bargaining solve the pension
problem?

Mr. GREENHOUSE: That's a good question. In some states, unions are
allowed to bargain over pensions. In other states, they aren't allowed
to bargain over pensions. In many states, even when you're allowed to
bargain over pensions, under constitutional law, contractual law, you
can't touch the pensions of people who are already retired, and you
can't even touch the pensions of, you know, current workers under the
notion that they took their jobs with a contractual promise that they
would receive pensions of X and that to change that in mid-stream after
they've been hired would violate their contract.

But in other cities and states, and I hope I'm not being too confusing
here, governments, mayors, are allowed to change pensions for current
employees.

Now, stepping back, generally, governors, mayors, school districts, are
trying very hard to make pensions less generous for new workers, for
future hires, because they have an absolute right to do that. And
they're also often pressuring unions to get current employees to
contribute more to their pensions to reduce the burden for the state.

DAVIES: You know, as we speak on March 1 here, the sides seem really dug
in. The unions are determined to resist this effort by Governor Walker.
He's saying he'll lay off people if he can't get the changes he needs.
How do you see this playing out?

Mr. GREENHOUSE: It's very unclear, Dave, how this will play out. The
governor is really ratcheting up the pressure against the unions and
against the 14 Democratic state senators who have decamped to Illinois
to prevent the state Senate from voting on this, to deny a quorum.

So the governor is saying: Look, union leaders, look, Democratic
senators, I'm going to lay of several thousand people because you're not
giving me the ability to cut my budget, to trim my budget the way I
would like.

So he is, in ways, trying to turn the 2,000, 3,000, 4,000, 5,000 people
threatened with layoffs against their union. He's trying to turn them
against the Democrats.

The Democrats are saying, the unions are saying: We don't want these
people laid off. That's the last thing in the world we want. So Governor
Walker, why don't you just compromise?

The union leaders will say: We've already agreed to a huge a concession,
to an essential seven, eight percent cut in take-home pay on pensions
and health coverage. So why don't you meet us halfway, and in that way,
they maintain, we could avoid any of these layoffs.

GROSS: Steven Greenhouse will talk more with FRESH AIR contributor Dave
Davies in the second half of the show. Greenhouse covers workplace and
labor issues for the New York Times and is the author of "The Big
Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker." I'm Terry Gross, and this
is FRESH AIR.

(Soundbite of song, “Blowin’ in the Wind”)

Mr. ROBERT ALLEN ZIMMERMAN (Singer/songwriter): (Singing) Yes, and how
many times can a man turn his head and pretend that he just doesn't see?

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. I’m Terry Gross. Let's get back to the
interview that FRESH AIR contributor Dave Davies recorded this morning
with Steven Greenhouse, the workplace and labor reporter for The New
York Times. Greenhouse has been covering the battle in Madison,
Wisconsin between public employee unions and Republican Governor Scott
Walker. Greenhouse is also the author of “The Big Squeeze: Tough Times
for the American Worker.”

DAVIES: You know, one of the things that occurred to me as I've followed
what’s happening in Wisconsin, is that is it that call for the end of
collective bargaining, particularly for state and local officials,
reminds me a little bit of baseball owners in collective bargainings
with players, where they're really trying to save themselves from their
own mistakes. And what I mean is, if you have collective bargaining you
can always say no. You can say I can't afford that pension. I can't
afford that health care. I can't afford that wage plan. I need changes
in work rules and conditions. Is Governor Walker, here, trying to
foreclose the possibility that state and local officials will negotiate
bad deals for their taxpayers?

Mr. GREENHOUSE: Yes. Governor Walker basically wants to take the tools
out of the hands of mayors, local governments, school districts, to
prevent them from ever granting wages or benefits that are too generous
to unions. Because, you know, one way he does that is saying, you know,
if you offer a raise higher than the inflation rate that has to go to
public referendum so don't even bother.

Behind this there's a lot of politics. On the one hand, it is true that
many unions have spent hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars to
help elect mayors, school board presidents, they’ve scratched that back
in then these mayors or school board presidents or county officials or
City Councilman will then be nice to the unions in labor negotiations
and in ways that have been too generous. So, you know, there's been some
unfortunate politics there.

I think what's happening now on the Republican side is some Republican
governors and, you know, even some Democratic governors like Andrew
Cuomo say we face these budget crises. And I think the Republicans say I
can make a lot of – many Republicans believe they can make a lot of
political hay with their rank and file, and especially with Tea Party
folks, by really kicking and beating up the public sector unions,
because the public sector unions have become public enemy number one for
many, many conservatives nowadays. And I think that Governor Walker sees
that it’s just great great politics for him to squeeze the public sector
unions.

DAVIES: There’s a huge hearts and minds battle here. I mean you know,
the partisans of unions say that, you know, Scott Walker looks at the
bully who has no concern for working people. People on the other side
that unions look like, you know, greedy special interests. Who is
winning the public relations battle? Can you tell?

Mr. GREENHOUSE: It’s hard to know. Governor Walker cites certain polls
saying, you know, majority of people support me. And yesterday I read a
poll in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel saying that if were we to rerun
the gubernatorial election in Wisconsin again, Wisconsin voters now say
they would elect a Democrat rather than Scott Walker. That seems pretty
damning to me. My newspaper, The New York Times, has a front page piece
today, based on a recent poll, that shows the American public
overwhelmingly opposes the notion of taking away collective bargaining
rights for public sector workers. That was 60 percent to 33 percent.
Democrats overwhelmingly believe that. Independents overwhelmingly
believe that. Republicans, though, support taking away collective
bargaining rights, but not by a huge majority.

Another surprising result for me was that in the poll, you know, far
more people opposed reducing wages and benefits for public sector worker
than for cutting them. And a lot of people said they would prefer, you
know, 40 percent of people responding said they would prefer to pay
increased taxes than to decrease the benefits for public employees.

So again, a lot of the states have Republican governors and many
Republican governors have taken the read my lips pledge, I will never
raise taxes. They know that if they do they're going to anger their
conservative base, so they are much more eager to try to wrest
concessions from public sector unions than to increase taxes. So the
stakes, if the unions win in Wisconsin, Ohio and Indiana, that will
really embolden them. I think I will clearly discourage, you know,
governors elsewhere from trying to cripple collective bargaining rights.
If the unions lose I think it will really hurt the Democrats in
elections in those states and maybe in other states. If Governor Walker,
if Governor Kasich win on this I think it will encourage governors in
other states to do likewise. It will really kow unions in many ways how
unions in many ways.

I think one question mark in all this is: unions are so invigorated,
they feel that maybe if they even lose these fights in Wisconsin and
Ohio their people, their supporters - and not just union members but,
you know, liberal church people and Hispanic groups and African-American
groups - are going to be so angry and so jazzed up that at the polls in
2012, they hope, they believe they might be able to swamp the
Republicans in various states.

DAVIES: I want to ask you one more question. You know, I've covered a
lot of public employee labor disputes over the years, and I find it a
very tough challenge because I want to figure out what's fair. And it
seems to me that, of course people who work hard deserve fair wages and
secure retirements and decent health care. On the other hand, it costs
money. And particularly, if you're looking at a, you know, a city or a
state that might have a declining tax budget and limited resources, you
have to think of what's fair for taxpayers as well. Both sides have
horror stories to tell about the other. They're often hard to get to the
bottom of. And it is a very tough challenging reporting assignment, it
seems to me. And I'm wondering how you find out over the years? How did
you figure out what's fair?

Mr. GREENHOUSE: It’s very hard to know what's fair. As I was saying
earlier, you know, sometimes unions help elect the people who, you know,
who sit at the other side of the table bargaining with them. And I think
people could say there's an odor to that, that's not a good thing. And I
think it's important, it's extremely important that governors, mayors,
school board presidents don't give away the store. I mean they, it's
important that they maintain fiscal integrity, that they don't run up
big deficits.

On the other hand, public sector workers have to, you know, feed their
families. You know, you want to make sure that public sector jobs pay
enough and provide good enough benefits that you attract top-notch
people.

One big issue is: are pensions to generous? It's very hard to know
what's fair. And this whole dispute, Dave has become so infected and
inflamed with partisan rhetoric. You know the Koch brothers, the
billionaire brothers have really, you know given lots of money to Scott
Walker and they are really, you know, fueling the conservative fight to
weaken public sector unions. The Democratic Party is really backing the
unions here because one, I think they really believe in collective
bargaining. And two, they realize that it's a union, it’s weakened it
will jeopardize the future of the Democratic Party.

DAVIES: Well, Steven Greenhouse, I know it's a really busy time for you.
Thanks so much for making some time for us.

Mr. GREENHOUSE: My pleasure. Great to be here.

GROSS: Steven Greenhouse spoke with FRESH AIR contributor Dave Davies.
Greenhouse covers workplace and labor issues for The New York Times.

Coming up, we listen back to an interview with Suze Rotolo about the
four years Bob Dylan was her boyfriend and about the photo she appeared
in with Dylan that was on the cover of his 1963 album “The Freewheelin'
Bob Dylan.” Suze Rotolo died Friday at the age of 67.

This FRESH AIR.
..COST:
$00.00
..INDX:
134159817
*** TRANSCRIPTION COMPANY BOUNDARY ***
..DATE:
20110301
..PGRM:
Fresh Air
..TIME:
12:00-13:00 PM
..NIEL:
N/A
..NTWK:
NPR
..SGMT:
Remembering Suze Rotolo, Dylan's 'Freewheeling' Muse

(Soundbite of music)

TERRY GROSS, host:

Suze Rotolo had a pretty private life as an artist, wife and mother. But
there was one thing she was famous for which made her the subject of
mystery and speculation. She appeared in the picture with Bob Dylan on
the cover of his famous 1963 album “The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan.” The
album included the songs “Blowin’ in the Wind,” "A Hard Rain's A-Gonna
Fall" and “Don’t Think Twice.”

Suze Rotolo died Friday of lung cancer at the age of 67.

(Soundbite of song, “Don’t Think Twice”)

Mr. ROBERT ALLEN ZIMMERMAN (Singer-songwriter): (Singing) Well, it ain’t
no use to sit and wonder why, babe, if you don’t know by now. And it
ain’t no use to sit and wonder why, babe, it will never do somehow.

When your rooster crows at the break of dawn, look out your window and
I’ll be gone. You’re the reason I’m traveling on. But don’t think twice,
it’s all right.

GROSS: The cover photo of “The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan” showed Dylan and
Suze Rotolo walking arm in arm down a Greenwich Village street. They met
when she was 17 and he was 20. They were a couple for about four years.
She'd moved to Greenwich Village from Queens, New York on her own, after
graduating high school. Dylan moved there soon after. At the time, the
Village was the epicenter of the urban folk scene. Rotolo was an artist.
She later taught at the Parsons School of Design. She lived in Greenwich
Village with her husband. I spoke with her in 2008, after the
publication of her memoir “A Freewheelin' Time: A Memoir of Greenwich
Village in the Sixties.”

In Dylan's biographical book “Chronicles, Volume One” he writes about
you in the end of the book, and I want to read some of the things he
says about you. He says...

(Reading) Right from the start I couldn't take my eyes off her. She was
the most erotic thing I'd ever seen. She was fair skinned and golden
haired, full-blood Italian. The air was suddenly filled with banana
leaves. We started talking and my head started to spin. Cupid's arrow
had whistled by my ears before, but this time it hit me in the heart and
the weight of it dragged me overboard.

Suze was 17 years old, from the East Coast. Had grown up in Queens,
raised in a left-wing family. Her father had worked in a factory and had
recently died. She was involved in the New York art scene, painted and
made drawings for various publications, worked in graphic design and in
Off-Broadway theatrical productions, also worked on civil rights
committees - she could do a lot of things. Meeting her was like stepping
into the tales of 1,001 Arabian nights.

And then he compares you to Rodin a sculpture come to life and says,
(Reading) She reminded me of a libertine heroine. She was just my type.

How does that description sound to you? Do you hear yourself in that
description?

Ms. SUZE ROTOLO (Artist): I think that's wonderful and generous, and a
lovely thing that he wrote and he captured that sense of being young and
meeting somebody, and being overwhelmed by feelings for them - and
that's what young love is. He did that well.

GROSS: Everyone knows now that Bob Dylan was born Robert Zimmerman and
he grew up in Minnesota. What did he tell you about his past when you
met him?

Ms. ROTOLO: Well, at that time when I met him I think it was the time
when we all were - people were coming to the Village to find or lose
themselves and you lived very much in the present, so I don't think any
of us really talked about where we came from and what our parents were
like. But there were rumors that that was his name because he had to get
a cabaret card and then you had to have documentation, so rumors started
flying that it wasn't his real name. I think a lot of people suspected
it wasn't his real name, but it did make any difference. But for me,
once we were a couple and we were together, I was hurt but he didn't
tell me. It was okay that he didn't tell everybody else.

GROSS: So how did you find out that his last name was actually
Zimmerman?

Ms. ROTOLO: We’d come home. We were living, by then, together on West
4th Street and we’d come home one evening and he was a bit in his cups,
and he took his wallet out of his pants and everything fell on the floor
and I saw his draft card – there were draft cards in those days – and I
saw his name and I was really - that's when I was hurt. I said you never
told me that this was your real name. I understand you didn't tell
anybody else, but you could have at least told me.

GROSS: Now you said that, you know, just as he didn't want to be too
forthcoming about his upbringing and his family, you felt the same way
too. But you were from Queens, New York and your parents were both
communists...

Ms. ROTOLO: Yeah.

GROSS: ...and you had to grow up with some secrecy, because you grew up
during the McCarthy era.

Ms. ROTOLO: Exactly.

GROSS: So you couldn't very well go around talking about your communist
parents.

Ms. ROTOLO: No, I couldn't until 1989 - I didn't feel comfortable saying
that. So that was why, to give you an idea of how secrecy would make
sense in something like that. I could understand people not wanting to
talk about their story and I - you didn't go around saying that your
parents were communists, because what was from the McCarthy era into the
60s certainly left its mark. And I'm sure there were many others with
communist parents, certainly in the folk music world, but we didn't even
identify each other. You know, it was a secret thing.

GROSS: Let’s talk about the cover - the now famous cover from the “The
Freewheelin' Bob Dylan,” the cover that you're on with him, walking down
a partially snow-covered street. He has his hand in his pockets and his
shoulders up because it's cold, and you have your arms wrapped around
one of his arms. You're wearing like a green trench coat that's tied
around the waist and you have on nearly knee-high boots.

Ms. ROTOLO: Mm-hmm.

GROSS: And you look really in tuned with each other. It's such a
romantic cover. I mean what woman didn't want to be on Dylan's arm in
that cover? What woman didn’t want to be in your place?

(Soundbite of laughter)

GROSS: So tell us how that cover came to be?

Ms. ROTOLO: It was all very casual, and the apartment was very small,
and the photographer came and the publicity guy from Columbia came. So
then they started - figured they'd start taking some pictures in the
apartment of Bob sitting around, pick up your guitar, put it down, sing
something. And then he said - Don Hunstein said to me get in some of the
pictures. So I did. And he took more pictures. And then he said let’s
let's go outside and walk. It was very casual, completely unplanned and
it was freezing outside. And then again, referring to Bob getting
dressed, he just took this thin suede jacket that wasn't good for a New
York cold winter day, and I had on a couple of sweaters. The last one
was his, a big bulky knit sweater because the apartment was cold and I
threw on a coat on top. So I always look at that picture as I feel like
an Italian sausage because I had so many layers on, and he was freezing
and I was freezing and had more clothes on. It was very cold that day.

GROSS: Well he was freezing you say in part because he wore light suede
jacket because it looked good.

Ms. ROTOLO: Yes.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Ms. ROTOLO: Image. Image.

GROSS: Even though he knew he was going to be really cold.

Ms. ROTOLO: Yeah.

GROSS: How did that album cover change your life?

Ms. ROTOLO: I had no idea and I don't think anyone who had anything to
do with it thought it would be - it would have such an enormous impact.
So it became something that was, you know, was my identifier, but it
wasn't my identity, so it became something that was separate from who I
knew myself to be, which might sound odd but I thought it was a great
cover, very unusual cover for the time. And the first time I saw it was
- he was playing at Carnegie Hall, I think or Town Hall and it was, the
cover was blown up and put on right outside. It was in black and white
and blown up very big and that really made an impression. It was almost
embarrassing. There we were up on 57th Street. Huge. Huge. So each time
the album became more and more known, as the album became more of what
it is, it became an iconic album, the more I could detach from it and
just look at it okay, that's what that is. But it was an odd feeling for
many years.

GROSS: I think one of the problems for young women who fall in love with
men older, even if they're just slightly older - particularly if that
man becomes very famous - is that you risk this kind of mentor,
mentee(ph) relationship where, you know, the woman is expected to be the
learner, looking up to the man, and he teaches her everything he knows.
And it could really be a kind of uncomfortable relationship, as opposed
to like the relationship of equals. But when you Dylan met you had so
much to learn from each other. I mean you really admired his music and
had so much to learn from that. He was really interested in learning
about your world. You were working in the civil rights movement. You
were working in avant-garde theater. He learned about the music of Weill
and Brecht through the fact that you were working on a Brecht
production. And he writes in his memoir about how it really changed him
to be exposed to that music. You exposed him to art that he was unaware
of because you were an artist yourself. I was glad to see that, to see
how much you had to learn from each other.

Ms. ROTOLO: That's nice, because it’s true.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Ms. ROTOLO: We did. We were very curious and we were both in search of
poetry and we fed each other's curiosity. And I was – well, because I
was from New York City also, you know, and he was from Hibbing,
Minnesota. So the fact that in New York you’re exposed to a lot more,
plus the family I came from, we were very - we didn't have much money,
but we were very culturally – I always think of being culturally very,
very wealthy. Because of, you know, books, we had - we didn't have a TV,
but the house was filled with books and phonograph records and we
listened to the radio. I was exposed to all different kinds of music
from a very early age. But mother loved Bessie Smith, Billie Holiday and
Edith Piaf and they listened to opera, classical records we had. It was
very, very rich. And when grow up in that you just assume everybody else
knows all this, but I knew an awful lot about music just from listening
and hearing and being exposed to it. Whereas with Bob, he was, he heard
this music and knew this is what he wanted to investigate, but he had a
harder time finding it and finding people. And there are stories now,
about when he was in Minnesota stealing people's records so he could
learn the music on it. So he had a harder time finding things, whereas I
was almost born into it.

GROSS: We're listening back to an interview recorded in 2008 with Suze
Rotolo about the four years in the 60s when Bob Dylan was her boyfriend.
She died Friday of lung cancer.

We'll hear more of the interview after a break.

This is FRESH AIR.

(Soundbite of music)

GROSS: Let’s get back to the interview I recorded in 2008 with Suze
Rotolo. She was long the subject of mystery for being bold young woman
walking arm in arm with Dylan in the cover photo of his 1963 album “The
Freewheeling Bob Dylan.” They were a couple for four years. She died
Friday at the age of 67.

You decided to leave for Perugia, Italy. You were supposed to go there
after high school. You'd have a trip planned, but because of a car
accident you never made it. And then you moved to Greenwich Village, and
then you met Dylan and so on. But the opportunity was offered to you
again by your mother, so you decided to leave for Perugia. It was a very
difficult decision for you. What was his reaction when you told him you
were going?

Ms. ROTOLO: Well, he didn't want me to go, but at the same time he
didn't want to put pressure on me. He did say don't go, but he didn't
want to restrict me from considering going at the same time. And it was
a difficult decision for me. I kept hemming and hawing on whether I
should or shouldn't, or whether I wanted to or not. It was difficult.

GROSS: Is the song, "Boots of Spanish Leather" written about your
leaving for Italy?

Ms. ROTOLO: You know, most of his songs that he's written, I hate to
say, oh this is written about me or this - but that’s a good example of
a song that is a fiction based on an experience he was going through.
So...

GROSS: And the experience he was going through was the experience of
missing you?

Ms. ROTOLO: Yes. So that's a good example of how it becomes art, your
life experience, he translated into art. It serves a purpose for the
music you're making or the art you’re making.

GROSS: So the fiction is that you weren't in Spain, you were in Italy.
And did he ever ask for boots of Spanish leather?

(Soundbite of laughter)

Ms. ROTOLO: No. I think I had a pair though, of boots of Spanish leather
at some point.

GROSS: After about eight months in Perugia you came back to Greenwich
Village and you write that during your absence he suffered in public.
You didn't get a friendly reception when you returned. A lot of people,
you say, thought that you'd been cold and indifferent to someone who
loved you. And that some of the folk singers deliberately sang songs
that Dylan had written about his heartache as well as any ballad that
pointed a finger at a cruel lover, when you are around.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Ms. ROTOLO: Yeah.

GROSS: And you say it was as if every letter Bob had written to me and
every phone call he had made had been performed in a theater in front of
an audience. What do you mean by that?

Ms. ROTOLO: I've always been a shy person, so to have this relationship
kind of thrown right out there in public was very horrible. I thought it
was terrible. I was very private. I didn't go broadcasting things
around, and yet people seemed to know how I had made him suffer.
Publicly, he was letting that out. But I see that that was just his way
of working through it, making it part of his art. But at the time, I
just felt so exposed. It was awful.

GROSS: Well, you moved back to Greenwich Village and you got back
together, but then you eventually moved out of the apartment that you
shared with Dylan. What was the breaking point for you?

Ms. ROTOLO: Well, it was all this stuff that was going on around his
fame and there was so much pressure. I just felt that there was no
longer - I no longer had a place in this world of his music and fame.
And I more and more - felt more and more insecure, that I was just this
string on his guitar; I was just this chick. And I was losing confidence
in who I was, in the way I felt in Italy, that I was still - I was my
own self and could continue my life. And also, the more famous he got,
there were more pressures on him; and, of course, there's all these
women that were running around, and so it became something that I didn't
like being involved in anymore. I saw it as a small, cloistered,
specialized world, that I just didn't belong in it.

GROSS: You’re married. You have one child?

Ms. ROTOLO: Yes.

GROSS: And your husband's Italian. Did you meet him when you are in
Perugia?

Ms. ROTOLO: Initially, yes. I had met him all that long time ago but
then we met up again many years later. So it's funny that he came from a
certain time also.

GROSS: Oh, I see.

Ms. ROTOLO: Yeah, and then we met again many years later.

GROSS: Do people still recognize you from the “Free Wheelin’” album?

Ms. ROTOLO: I look exactly the same, Terry.

(Soundbite of laughter)

GROSS: Yeah. Don't we all?

(Soundbite of laughter)

Ms. ROTOLO: Yes.

GROSS: But, you know, so it doesn't mean that you're not recognizable.

Ms. ROTOLO: Well, for those who notice those things, yes, I mean
otherwise, no. I mean it’s a funny kind of recognition and it’s people
are Dylanphiles(ph), you know, Dylanophiles(ph) of however I can say
that, would know to recognize the name, but not everybody does. So it's
kind of a funny - sometimes I'm surprised that someone recognizes me.

GROSS: Well, I want to thank you so much for talking with us.

Ms. ROTOLO: Thank you. It's been a pleasure to speak to you.

GROSS: Suze Rotolo died Friday of lung cancer at the age of 67. Our
interview was recorded in 2008 after the publication of her memoir “A
Freewheelin' Time: A Memoir of Greenwich Village in the Sixties.”

(Soundbite of song, “Boots of Spanish Leather”)

Mr. ZIMMERMAN: (Singing) Oh I'm sailing away my own true love. I'm
sailing away in the morning. Is there something I can send you from
across the sea, from the place that I'll be landing.

GROSS: You can download Podcasts of our show on our website,
freshair.npr.org.

I'm Terry Gross.

(Soundbite of song, “Boots of Spanish Leather”)

Mr. ZIMMERMAN: (Singing) ...me unspoiled from across that lonesome
ocean. Oh, but I just thought you might want something fine. Made of
silver or of golden...
..COST:
$00.00
..INDX:
134158270

Transcripts are created on a rush deadline, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of Fresh Air interviews and reviews are the audio recordings of each segment.