Posted on 03/19/2006 3:57:31 PM PST by RWR8189
FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, the Department of Labor is seriously enforcing its financial reporting requirements of unions and disclosing the results online. As a result, union members--and the public at large--now have the means to examine union finances in extraordinary detail and to learn about the outside activities and potential conflicts of interest of union officials. The purpose of this newfound transparency is to promote fiscal integrity and union democracy.
Previously, the department's record of enforcing its reporting requirements was dismal. As recently as 2002, 43 percent of unions were either tardy in submitting their LM-2 forms or never turned them in at all, even though some sort of reporting had been required since 1959. By contrast, the IRS nonfiling rate was a mere 1.5 percent, and after the Federal Elections Commission introduced civil financial penalties for noncompliance (also in 2002), compliance improved from 82 percent to 85 percent.
Labor long suffered from what a senior department official called a "classic big government problem": Union financial disclosure involved a good deal of paperwork, most of it providing information so vague it was useless--which left little incentive to go after nonfilers. In an effort to encourage greater union transparency, Congress during the Clinton administration mandated that the completed LM-2 forms be available online. It was left to George W. Bush's secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao, however, to actually enforce this--and to require more detail into the bargain. The new, more elaborate reports are now available and searchable online as soon as a union files electronically.
Some might ask why government should require this level of transparency of labor unions, the champions of America's working men and women. In response, Chao's department sees itself as the labor equivalent of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Although a number of unions have, after some hesitation about privacy concerns, welcomed the increased scrutiny, the "absolutists," as a Labor Department official terms them, have cried foul. When Labor announced the new requirements in 2003, the AFL-CIO, in a 218-page document, projected that compliance could cost its affiliated national and local unions an average of $1,239,482 for international and national unions and $217,509 for local unions. In reality, according to its own LM-2, the AFL-CIO's national headquarters spent just $54,150 in 2005 on software needed to compile the necessary data--though it spent another $121,367 litigating against having to do so.
A few days spent perusing the spreadsheets of the 20 percent of unions that have already submitted their LM-2s for fiscal year 2005 showed that many unions have reported their affairs in detail--down to the $97,888 made by the enterprising Retiree Chapter Local 455 of the UAW in bingo income. Other numbers may raise eyebrows. Gerald B. Ellis, for example, made $116,703 in 2004 as a business manager at Local 627 of the International Union of Operating Engineers, a member of the AFL-CIO. Local 627 also buys $86,400 worth of legal services from the one-man law firm Gerald B. Ellis, Inc., nicely padding its business manager's income.
And how about the lavish destination meetings enjoyed by the AFL-CIO's executive council: As the private watchdog organization the Center for Union Facts reported recently after it followed the super-union's executive council to its retreat in California, the 46 members of the council stayed at the pricey Hotel del Coronado (check the Labor Department's website next year for dollar amounts) at a time when the Carpenters' Union was picketing that very hotel--hypocrisy one might expect of a politician (say, Nancy Pelosi, who won't allow workers at her Napa Valley hotel to unionize), but surely not of labor bosses, right?
Or consider Linda Chavez-Thompson, an AFL-CIO executive who also serves as vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee. In explaining potential conflicts of interest on union disclosure reports, she writes, "I eat very little at the various receptions, events and meetings I attend, certainly far less than $25 worth of food or drink at any particular event." She further explains that the DNC spent "no more than" $10,000 on her attendance at events such as the DNC Hispanic Caucus--while noting further that the AFL-CIO Committee on Political Education's voluntary fund donates $15,000 to the DNC.
The National Education Association, which refused an interview request "at this time," has its share of fun as well. The teachers' union disclosure report states that $59,646 was spent at a Charlotte, N.C., store called Morris Costumes. (This sum was divided between two categories: "overhead" and "union administration.") NEA leaders do more than party; they also campaign for politicians. They report $24 million spent on political activities in 2005.
Naturally, much of this political money goes to Democrats. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees gives 99 percent of its $8,527,370 in political funds to Democrats. Surely the union has some Republican and Independent union members, which may be why the Service Employees International Union and several other major unions have broken away from the AFL-CIO to form the Change to Win coalition. Some speculate that this coalition might become more popular if members are privy to their unions' detailed records.
Now they can peruse the Labor Department's website and learn, for instance, that the AFL-CIO gave $55,000 to the peacenik group Pax Christi; $152,250 to the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, which takes positions on policy issues ranging from Iraq to judicial nominations; $150,000 to the liberal Economic Policy Institute for "general support for economic research"; $113,400 to Pride at Work, an advocacy group "for LGBT workers and families"; and $360,466 for the printing of John Kerry fliers. The AFL-CIO is involved in education as well: It awarded $120,000 to Cornell's School of Industrial and Labor Relations and $6,703,927 to its own George Meaney Center for Labor Studies, a degree-awarding institution in suburban Washington.
Unofficially assisting in the Labor Department's effort is the Center for Union Facts's user-friendly, chart-filled website, which will tell you everything you ever wanted to know about union corruption. Visitors to the site can learn about the 322 racketeering indictments against organized labor in 2005; the 13,815 discrimination complaints filed since 2000; and the 65 percent of the "decertification" elections held in 2004 in which employees dissociated their workplace from a union.
Opponents of the new efforts at opening the hallowed halls of organized labor to scrutiny say it is unfair to go after labor union excesses when many corporations overpay their top executives and enjoy lavish expense accounts. Be that as it may, the new requirements are designed, as the senior Labor Department official said, "to empower union members themselves and to hold their officers accountable. . . . Increased transparency will make union members more informed consumers." It's the American way. As James Madison wrote, "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." The new external controls on unions are intended to protect them from men who are not angels.
Joseph Lindsley is an editorial assistant at The Weekly Standard.
testing 123
Linda Chavez had a good book about this I think.
Long overdue,But a good start.....Are we enforcing the Beck Decision yet or just giving it lip service??
Electing Republicans DOES make a difference. You would NEVER see this under a Democrat administration. And if the Dems win in 2008, this will be discontinued.
my goodness....that presumes the union leaders can read
How about a website link? That would be helpful. Thanks
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/olms/rrlo/lmrda.htm
From the DOL website.
Excellent and thanks!!!!
Unions have become the most corrupt entity in this nation after organized crime...or maybe before OC.
I went and clicked on a few unions and the people who've filed reports.
Someone should take some time and go through some of this stuff. In just a few minutes I've seen everything from the ridiculous to the sublime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.