- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
search
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Breaking News
Obama Sells Out Union Workers
During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised accountability and transparency. Last Tuesday, his administration broke that promise to yet another group. Department of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis betrayed rank and file union members by repealing vital reporting regulations that allowed members to see how union bosses were spending their hard-earned dues money.
Former Bush Administration DOL Secretary Elaine Chao, who for eight years fought for transparency in labor reporting, created the website unionreports.gov. Rank and file union members as well as the general public can still use the site to monitor how labor organizations spend their funds.
Solis's repeal weakens one of the chief reporting tools used by the website to collect union financial data, the Form LM-2. The form requires labor organizations whose annual receipts are greater than $250,000 to identify and report all expense above $5,000. This tool allowed the DOL's Office of Labor and Management Standards to obtain $91.5 million dollars in restitution of dues and resulted in over 900 convictions from 2001 to 2008.
Repealing this requirement limits union members' access to needed information about how their dues are being used. Chao's changes gave members more data to examine investments and transactions by their union and ensure they were made at arm's length and without self dealing. The repeal also limits a member's ability to monitor union officer and union employee compensation.
Before the repeal, labor organizations were required to identify all of their officers' compensation including salary, benefits, deferred compensation, and even travel expenses. Access to this information is critical to guard how members' money is being spent and help prevent abuse.
In most states workers are forced to join a union if they want to work in a certain job, meaning that the union imposes dues for the simple privilege of working. The union member cannot decide to not pay his dues and has little recourse to change his union. If he disagrees with the way his dues are being spent he can attempt, although this is difficult, to vote the union officers out of office. Or if there is corruption, he can report the officers to OLMS which will probably not be nearly as aggressive in rooting out corruption in the current Obama regime.
The only way the member can know if his dues are being wasted is by accessing information on forms like the LM-2. Weakening the disclosure requirements allows union officers to abuse their trust and hinders a member's effort to make sure his dues are being spent wisely.
Wyoming Sen. Mike Enzi, ranking Republican on the Senate Health, Education, and Labor Committee, warned the repeal is putting union members at risk. "We should be giving the department more tools and resources to root out fraud and abuse, not taking tools away from them," Enzi said.
The Obama administration claims that the recent changes were too burdensome and would result in unnecessary expenses to unions. This is the same specious argument that was used and proved incorrect the last time the Form LM-2 was changed.
In 2003, union leaders claimed labor organizations would be substantially harmed if they were required to report receipts and disbursements of $5,000 or more. Before the 2003 LM-2 changes unions could lump millions of dollars into single line items with no detail. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney claimed in 2003 the cost of the reporting changes would be over $1 million dollars for the average international union.
The final total for the AFL-CIO, one of the largest international unions, was only $68,000 the year the 2003 changes took effect. The justification given by the administration for the repeal of reporting requirements on the LM-2 is old and probably less then accurate.
The reality of the repeal is that union members will not have the ability to effectively oversee those in charge of their organizations. They will not be able to learn the total cost of benefits to their union officers. They will not be able to check the investments and transactions of the union to ensure their dues are being used efficiently and without a conflict of interest.
Now, because of the Obama administration's actions, the ability of members to watch how their dues are being used is in jeopardy.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Barney and Friends
- Two Weddings and a Demerol
- Obama's Foreign Policy Problems, Personified
Are you in a mob?
The Democrats say Obamacare opponents are a mob. Are they right?
Participating in this survey will subscribe you to the American Spectator email newsletter. You may unsubscribe at any time.
ADVERTISEMENT
Dagny Taggert| 4.27.09 @ 12:35PM
Compare this vs. public scrutiny over 2008 year-end bonuses in private sector.
Pingback| 4.27.09 @ 1:33PM
Valuable Internet Information » The American Spectator : Obama Sells Out Union Worker links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Terry| 4.27.09 @ 2:29PM
It seems like business as usual for the Zero. While he'll give lip service to the votes he received from the unions, he knows which side of his bread is buttered. He's going to take care of union bosses that directed so much money to him. This makes it easier to surreptitiously funnel those funds to him.
MF| 4.27.09 @ 3:11PM
Another typical step from the president and his cronies. There has yet to be one step taken by this group that is in favor of corporate interests. They think adding layer upon layer of extra work and cost to HR departments is great but when it comes time to keep notoriously dishonest unions in check it is too time consuming and expensive. He is the embodiment of the Democrat symbol.
pete the mediocre| 4.27.09 @ 4:30PM
The democrats have long been seen as the champions of labor unions. The truth is that they don't give a hoot about the union members, they are there to enrich the union leaders.
P. Aaron| 4.27.09 @ 6:41PM
Democrats on one hand make manufacturing in American almost illegal, and on the other hand, open compulsory Union Dues to corruption, fraud and embezzlement.
Which political party is anti-Union? Or are the Dems just "pro-Union bosses and anti-Union workers?
Gazinya| 4.27.09 @ 7:36PM
Union dues are another form of a tax. A tax that The Obama can use to funnel money to groups that can be used to force the increase of union members (re: ACORN). Also the extra tax taken by the corrupt union leaders, and these guys are truly corrupt, where they don't have to accout for it to the membership,keep the unions beholden to a socialist tax system.
Everything that has come out of this administration is geared to change the average individual into groups. These groups, which will all be unionize so as to maximize the tax bite and control the group. Everything will need to go through the The Obama government to recieve what today we get on our own.
BPT | 4.28.09 @ 5:34AM
I thought the Democrats in America were meant to be for the working-classes. Mmm..guess that’s a big whopper too.
Jack| 4.28.09 @ 6:02AM
been going on for years. the corrupt unions finance the Dems and Obama has to pay them back. the guy may sound like a moron,and no nothing about US history or World history,but he knows you pay back those who put you in office or you end up like JFK.
these guys make the clinton and grant administrations look like alter boys
Pingback| 4.28.09 @ 7:28AM
Obama Sells Out Union Workers links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Gary| 4.28.09 @ 2:05PM
The Democrats are pro-power, pro-corruption, and pro-money. They don't care where it comes from. This is just a payoff for union $$$ in the last election cycle, and an IOU for upcoming elections.
Fools in their eliment| 4.28.09 @ 4:25PM
Gary.
Who are you trying to reach? Democrats are pro war, pro -coruption, pro-money. Are you on drugs? Have you got a clue who has been in Office for the last 10 years. Have you heard about the Credit Crunch, the Bankers or Wankers fiasco?.
Did you hear about Bush war on WMD, and the FAKE war on TERROR, a WAR with no end who was in office at the time George W Bush whose father was a NAZI, his father before him was a NAZI. Zionist posing as anti NAZI and all their actions is pro-NAZI. Most Republicans are NAZI.
I do not trust Republicans nor Democrats, because they are all people who love money.
I don't trust Obama, because I trust people I know, I don't hear about someone on TV or in the News and trust them, if you can't trust people you know how can you trust people you don't know?.
Obama is about in as much control as you are just another American idiot.
Jeff| 4.29.09 @ 8:43AM
This article is very misleading. The DOL is not rescinding Form LM-2, but recinding a new rule implemented on January 21, 2009 which modified the report. The report would stay the same as it was prior to January 21, 2009.
http://www.dol.gov/federalregister/HtmlDisplay.aspx?DocId=22508&Month=4&Year=2009
Not that I care at all about the new administration but if we're going to bash them lets get the story right.
ThomNJ| 6.10.09 @ 12:39PM
Ha ha - so obummer got a threefer:
1) has solis cut back on access to data
2) card check is the rave
3) he has cut the budget of the office of labor management (the watchdogs for labor union corruption)
Gosh, do you think he is in the tank for the labor unions?
Pingback| 8.9.09 @ 12:34PM
Hate Crime in St. Louis: Obama Backers Beat Black Critic of Health-Care “Reform,” Us links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 8.9.09 @ 5:19PM
credit repair company, on credit repair company, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 8.25.09 @ 1:43PM
Elaine Chao: Union transparency “more important than Beck” | OpenMarket.org links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Lingerie| 9.11.09 @ 2:27AM
sexy lingerie lingerie