Posted on 08/31/2007 5:08:25 AM PDT by Big Labor Hater
When Congress comes back from its August recess in September, one of the quiet controversies lurking in the wings will move to center stage as Democrats resume their campaign to slash funding for the Office of Labor Management Standards in the Department of Labor.
While this may sound like typical Washington insiders baseball, the function and operations of OLMS are anything but inconsequential — monitoring the financial disclosure compliance of labor unions. Because OLMS has been the Bush administration's chief tool for ramping up union financial accountability standards, it appeared in the Democrats' crosshairs even before their new majority in Congress took the oath of office.
Labor Secretary Elaine Chao made a priority of finally putting teeth into the 1959 Landrum-Griffin Act, which required that unions make public credible information concerning how they spend their money, most of which comes from members' dues. Until Bush and Chao came along, however, the union chieftains and their buddies in the Labor Department bureaucracy essentially ignored the disclosure requirement.
That ended when Chao updated the LM-2 disclosure forms, requiring labor unions with at least $250,000 in annual receipts to file more detailed reports, and then had the audacity to enforce compliance by recalcitrant union officials. The degree of complexity and sensitivity of the data required in the new LM-2 pales beside the thousands of separate disclosure mandates imposed on public companies. Even so, it's a credible start toward ensuring that all union members can know how their dues are spent.
That's the kind of information more than a few union leaders are loathe to disclose. Since 2001, OLMS has secured 810 indictments with 781 convictions of union officials for failure to comply with LM-2 requirements. Courts have also ordered more than $100 million in restitution to union workers. Labor Department officials believe OLMS is only just beginning to shine sunlight into the darkest corners of union corruption.
It's an ironic situation at a time when corporate and political transparency gets so much attention, thanks to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act enacted in the wake of Enron and the earmark and ethics abuses on Capitol Hill. But excluding unions from reasonable transparency requirements is not surprising, considering the traditional relationship between Democrats and Big Labor.
Democrats received $56.7 million in campaign contributions from organized labor in the 2006 midterm elections, compared with $8.2 million for the GOP. Now they want to cut the OLMS budget by 20 percent from what the Bush administration requested. That cut is likely viewed as a mere down payment on the complete gutting Democrats plan for OLMS immediately after one of their own becomes president in 2009.
Examiner
A new New Deal.
What ever happened to that underhanded “card check” legislation the Unions were demanding the Dems pass?
it passed the house 241-185, but, a cloture vote was defeated in the Senate 51-48. Big labor is trying to pass a bill through that would force monopoly bargaining on all policemen, firefighters, and EMTs in the country. a lot republicans were tricked into supporting it in the house by provisions such as a “no strike” clause. however, as history has shown, unions never respect no strike clauses. over 80% of all firefighters in the US are volunteer. unions want them paying dues.
the bill in the house was hr 980. it has yet to be introduced in the senate, but, is coming up soon. going to be very close.
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.