Department of Labor Sells Out Union Members for Big Labor 1%

The Department of Labor's efforts to destroy financial disclosure rules designed protect union members and inform them about the spending habits of the union bosses is selling out the 99% to help the 1%, in the parlance of the Occupy Wall Street movement: The Department of Labor (DOL) doesn’t need to loosen financial disclosure for union bosses to take advantage of union members’ dues. Yet, this is exactly what the Obama administration has done. On October 26, DOL published a regulation that would weaken union members’ protections against fraud and corruption by union leadership. Under the new regulation, DOL’s union financial reporting document, the Form LM-30, will no longer require financial disclosure reporting by union stewards, leave for workers performing union activities while being paid by their employer, financial dealings with credit institutions (such as loans), and union officials’ payments from union trusts. It’s not as if these requirements served no purpose. Numerous major cases of union corruption last month bring the timing of the rulemaking into question. Here’s a quick rundown for October: In Chicago, former Chicago Federation of Labor President Dennis Gannon, along with two union lobbyists, were found to be double-dipping pensions. They secured six-figure pensions from the city of Chicago, based on calculations from their inflated wages for carrying out union activities, rather than from their wage from government service. Union bosses were found greasing the wheels on the Long Island Railroad Workers’ billion- dollar disability pension scam. Ten NYPD officers, who are union officials in the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, were charged for their role in a widespread ticket-fixing scam. The United Food and Commercial Workers’ New York local president, former president, and treasurer were arrested for racketeering, extortion, money laundering, and witness tampering. The LM-30 was designed to make union finances transparent and hold union bosses accountable to their membership. As stated in Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, “[T]he Department [of Labor] established the Form LM-30 … to make public any actual or likely conflict between the personal interests of union officers and employees and their obligations to the union and its members.” With this fresh list of corrupt union activities, does loosening union financial disclosure and relaxing compliance procedures protect the hardworking, middle-class union member? No. Unfortunately, the opposite is true.
Right to Work Has Been Right All Along

Right to Work Has Been Right All Along

Big Labor Spent $1.14 Billion on Politics, Lobbying in 2009-2010 (Source: September 2011 NRTWC Newsletter) A surprising source has confirmed, unimpeachably, that Big Labor spends more than a billion dollars on politics and lobbying per federal campaign cycle. National Right to Work Committee members have for years known this to be true. But poor-mouthing union officials and supposedly nonpartisan monitors of political spending like the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) continue even today to foster a false impression that Big Labor spends less on electioneering and lobbying than Big Business. Unfortunately for the union bosses and their apologists, the very LM-2 forms that private-sector (and some government-sector) unions with annual revenues exceeding $250,000 are required to file with the U.S. Labor Department show unambiguously they control by far the most massive political machine in America. Reported Union PAC Spending Only Tip of the Iceberg In 2003, then-President George W. Bush's Labor Department revised these disclosure forms with the avowed goal of helping the millions of private-sector workers who are forced to pay union dues or fees as a job condition get a better idea of where there conscripted money was going. This was a worthwhile initiative. Current labor laws, as interpreted by federal courts, unjustly authorize the firing of employees for refusal to pay for unwanted union monopoly bargaining, unless the employees are protected by a state Right to Work law.

It’s ‘Labor’ Day, Not ‘Union’ Day

National Right to Work President Mark Mix makes the critical distinction between "Labor Day" and "Union Day," a distinction that union bosses chose to ignore: By Mark Mix Most Americans realize that Labor Day is about celebrating workers, not union bosses, but that won’t stop Big Labor’s apologists from stealing to spotlight to demand more power. The fact is that modern unions are built on the legal privilege of compulsion. In 28 states without Right to Work laws, nonunion employees can be fired for refusing to pay union dues. Millions more nonunion workers have no choice but to accept union bargaining over their wages and working conditions. What’s more, union officials routinely funnel nonunion workers’ dues into political campaigns aimed at defending or expanding their already extensive special privileges. As legislators from Wisconsin to Ohio can attest, this perverse cycle has made it extremely difficult to roll back union bosses’ workplace powers. Big Labor thrives on a system of government-granted special privileges. But what do workers get out of this arrangement? According to union apologists, they’d be helpless without it. But the facts reveal a different story. Compulsory unionism makes union bosses unaccountable to rank-and-file workers, whose financial support is absolutely mandatory. After all, why should union officials bother with the hard work of representing employees if they’re sitting on a forced-dues revenue stream guaranteed by the government?

Obama's Secretary of Labor sued for aiding union bosses concealment of personal benefits

With the help of National Right To Work Legal Defense Attorney Bill Messenger, UFCW former union steward Chris Mosquera seeks to force U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis to reverse her regulations that rescinded disclosure of union boss benefits, insider deals, and sources of receipts.  Forced-dues fill Big Labor treasuries with cash that all-too-often union bosses turn into private slush funds awarding themselves handsome benefits. From the Mosquera's Op-Ed in the Washington Examiner:  Without stringent disclosure requirements, union members and nonmembers alike are left at the mercy of union officials who have the power to collect dues without being held accountable for how that money is spent. The public reporting guidelines Solis jettisoned included several common-sense additions to the Labor Management Relations Disclosure Act of 1959. Under the proposed guidelines, union officials would have to disclose how much individual compensation they receive in the form of benefits, account for any travel and entertainment expenses, and identify union income streams. The fact is most workers want more information about how their money is being spent by union officials. Last year, a poll revealed that nearly 90 percent of union members support strong union transparency requirements. Disclosure is a simple but effective tool for fighting corruption and encouraging accountability. If union officials know their spending habits are part of the public record, they'll be less interested in expensive getaways and more interested in effectively managing their members' hard-earned dues.

Obama's Secretary of Labor sued for aiding union bosses concealment of personal benefits

With the help of National Right To Work Legal Defense Attorney Bill Messenger, UFCW former union steward Chris Mosquera seeks to force U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis to reverse her regulations that rescinded disclosure of union boss benefits, insider deals, and sources of receipts.  Forced-dues fill Big Labor treasuries with cash that all-too-often union bosses turn into private slush funds awarding themselves handsome benefits. From the Mosquera's Op-Ed in the Washington Examiner:  Without stringent disclosure requirements, union members and nonmembers alike are left at the mercy of union officials who have the power to collect dues without being held accountable for how that money is spent. The public reporting guidelines Solis jettisoned included several common-sense additions to the Labor Management Relations Disclosure Act of 1959. Under the proposed guidelines, union officials would have to disclose how much individual compensation they receive in the form of benefits, account for any travel and entertainment expenses, and identify union income streams. The fact is most workers want more information about how their money is being spent by union officials. Last year, a poll revealed that nearly 90 percent of union members support strong union transparency requirements. Disclosure is a simple but effective tool for fighting corruption and encouraging accountability. If union officials know their spending habits are part of the public record, they'll be less interested in expensive getaways and more interested in effectively managing their members' hard-earned dues.