Bush's union transparency rules retracted under Obama

The Obama administration promised increased transparency in government but has rolled back rules proposed by the Bush administration that expanded the financial disclosure statements required of labor unions and their leaders.

Since President Obama took office, the Labor Department has rescinded or delayed three sets of rules proposed by the George W. Bush administration that would have required unions and their leaders to more specifically detail their finances, according to a review of records by The Washington Times.

The rules were rolled back while the Obama administration was seeking more stringent regulation of corporate America, including banks, insurance companies, health care providers and publicly traded companies.

The proposed Bush rules would have required labor unions to identify from whom they were buying and selling assets, forced union leaders and employees to file more detailed conflict-of-interest forms, and required unions to reveal the finances of hundreds of so-called labor trusts - largely unregulated entities set up to provide benefits for members.

Former Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao, one of the architects of the expanded Bush rules, said the Obama administration is "making a mockery of the regulations" and is giving "preferential treatment" to the unions.

"This administration is not enforcing laws on union transparency and democracy," Ms. Chao told The Times. "They are telling unions that they don't have to comply."

A senior Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee has similar concerns.

Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, ranking member on the health, employment, labor and pensions subcommittee, asked Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis in February why the Labor Department had rescinded rules designed to increase transparency in union finances. He said the rollback made it "more difficult for rank-and-file union workers to see how their dues are being spent."

Bttt — As promised:

“Obama has indicated willingness to end federal oversight of the Teamsters [& gets Hoffa endorsement]” ~ Robert Novak 2/23/08 [Crumbling Ohio Firewall]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1974928/posts

Obama Signals Less Union Oversight
by Robert B. Bluey (more by this author)
Posted 05/09/2008 ET
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=26440

The Labor Department’s seven-year effort to improve financial reporting and disclosure by unions could come to a screeching halt once President Bush leaves office.

Sen. Barack Obama’s support for ending federal oversight of the Teamsters is the clearest indication yet of how a Democratic administration would treat labor unions.

Both Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton wooed the Teamsters in hopes of securing its coveted endorsement.

But only Obama went so far as to say that government oversight had “run its course.”

The union endorsed Obama in February.

Since then, Obama’s ties to Teamsters President James P. Hoffa have grown stronger. Hoffa has traveled with Obama on the campaign trail and acted as a surrogate on trade issues for the candidate.

History of Corruption

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters has a history of corruption problems dating back to 1959, when the Landrum-Griffith Act created many of the financial reporting and disclosure requirements in law today.

Within years of the act’s passage, Hoffa’s father was sparring with then-U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy over union corruption.

But it wasn’t until 1992 that the Department of Justice took the unprecedented step of creating a three-member independent review board to help the Teamsters root out its mob influence.

When the younger Hoffa became president in 1999, he made it a priority to end the government’s oversight.

The Wall Street Journal, which first reported Obama’s promise to the Teamsters, notes that the review board’s caseload has declined over the years. Still, many problems remain with local Teamsters outfits, according to the Labor Department’s union enforcement agency.

In the last seven years, the Office of Labor-Management Standards has secured more than 30 convictions of Teamsters officials for crimes ranging from embezzlement and wire fraud to theft and falsifying union records.

Two former officers of Teamsters Local 743 in Illinois were convicted in March as part of a 14-count criminal complaint alleging conspiracy, mail fraud, theft and embezzlement. Another conviction in April involved a former bookkeeper charged with embezzling $140,000 from Houston’s Teamsters Local 19.

Increased Enforcement

These types of cases aren’t limited to the Teamsters.

The Labor Department’s enforcement agency has secured 900 indictments and successfully prosecuted more than 850 individuals since 2001. During that time the office has a recouped more than $103 million for American workers.

This wasn’t always the case. The number of employees working for the Office of Labor-Management Standards fell from 392 in 1992 to just 260 in 2002 after years of cuts by the Clinton administration. Fewer employees meant fewer audits — forcing the office to rely more heavily on unions to police themselves.

Since taking office, Bush has restored many of the positions cut under Clinton to boost auditing and enforcement. As of 2006, there were 384 employees working for the office.

The lean Clinton years could return, however.

While other offices at Labor last year reaped budget increases from the Democratic-controlled Congress, the enforcement office saw its budget cut by $3 million.

And that wasn’t all. Congressional leaders and their Big Labor allies also tried to water down financial reporting requirements. A dispute arose last year over the revised LM-30 form that requires union bosses to “disclose possible conflicts between personal interests and the officer’s or employee’s duty to the union and its members.”

The Labor Department revised the rule to give the union rank-and-file more information about how their dues were spent. But union leaders such as John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO denounced the new reporting requirements as a “debilitating burden.”

With promises from Obama to ease union oversight, and endorsements from congressional Democrats for the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800), better known as the card check bill, Big Labor is salivating at the prospect of a return to “one-party government” in Washington next year.

Mr. Bluey, a contributing editor to Human Events, is director of the Center for Media & Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation. He maintains a blog at RobertBluey.com.

In Michigan it was a republican who introduced the legislation that forced home care workers into a union. That republican and his republican co sponsors.

They did it for the same old reasons the democrats do it. Lust for union money and support.

GOP Senators, SEIU Taxpayer Giveaways, Campaign Cash and More, OH MY!

On Aug. 5, 2009, Sen. Jason Allen, R-Traverse City, introduced Senate Bill 731, which would give statutory cover to a scheme transferring approximately $6.6 million in taxpayer money annually to the SEIU government employee union, one of the parents of ACORN. This is accomplished by creating a shell government "employer" for some 42,000 individuals who are actually hired by elderly or disabled Medicaid recipients to provide personal care services in their homes. A Mackinac Center lawsuit is pending regarding a similar arrangement imposed on home day care providers.

Snip

passing the bill was part of a quid-pro-quo between Senate Republicans and the SEIU for union support of former state representative Mike Nofs in a November 2009 special election, which state Republican Party Chair Ron Weiser had characterized as among the party's top priorities. Day observes that the SEIU endorsed Nofs on August 22nd, two weeks after SB 731 was introduced, and sent four full-time workers to help on his campaign.

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.