Employee Advocate Supports Repeal of Biden-Backed Union Power Scheme Over Temporary Agricultural Workers
National Right to Work Foundation comments: Biden DOL lacked authority to impose pro-union boss regulation over temporary agricultural workers
Washington, DC (September 4, 2025) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has submitted comments supporting the Department of Labor’s (DOL) proposal to scrap a Biden-era rule that lays the groundwork for giving union bosses monopoly bargaining powers over temporary agricultural employees. The Biden DOL rule, misleadingly titled “Improving Protections for Workers in Temporary Agricultural Employment in the United States,” also contained provisions that would have given union officials nearly unrestricted power to enter farmers’ private property.
The Foundation’s comments argue that the repeal is justified because the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law that lets union bosses gain monopoly bargaining power over most private sector workplaces, specifically exempts agricultural workers from its strictures. Such workers, who often are in the country on H-2A visas, are subject to state agricultural laws. The Biden Department of Labor’s rule, the comments say, is effectively an attempt to override Congress’ exclusion of agricultural workers from the NLRA.
“As now recognized by DOL and various courts considering the Final Rule’s provisions, DOL not only lacks Congressional authorization to take this action, it is defying Congress’ intent to exclude agricultural employees from the…NLRA,” the comments say.
Biden DOL Rule Gives Workers No Power to Resist Unwanted Union Intrusions
The Foundation’s comments also explain that the Biden DOL rule should be repealed because it grants union officials enormous power to enter private farm property to engage in agitation or other disruptive union activities – even over the objections of both workers and employers. Notably, the Biden rule goes well beyond giving union bosses who are invitees of agricultural workers the power to enter private farms, and opens the door to “nearly unrestricted harassment by ‘potential guests’ or unwanted guests of other employees,” the comments state.
The comments further contend that the Biden-era rule on temporary agricultural workers is impracticable because it lacks any kind of enforcement mechanism, and lacks protections for temporary agricultural workers who want to abstain from union affiliation. “If Congress had intended DOL to regulate the ability of agricultural employees to unionize, it would have created an enforcement mechanism within DOL and provided sufficient funding for enforcement,” the comments detail.
Foundation staff attorneys are providing free legal aid to agricultural workers around the country, especially in efforts to challenge state agricultural labor regimes that deny them basic rights of free choice. Employees in California and New York are engaged in federal lawsuits attacking labor laws that let union officials sweep them into dues-paying union ranks without a vote, impose union monopoly bargaining contracts over worker and employer objections, or deny workers the right to file unfair labor practice charges against union officials.
“The Biden DOL rule was a slapdash attempt by federal bureaucrats to give union officials massive new powers over workers in an area that is solely the domain of state law – the agricultural labor sector,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Of course, while claiming to care about temporary agricultural workers, the Biden Labor Department’s rule denied them any kind of right to resist unwanted union campaigns or to file charges against union officials who violate their rights.
“It’s obvious that this union boss power grab lacks any sort of legal underpinning. But it’s important to remember that, outside the agricultural sector, workers all over the country are subject to the National Labor Relations Act’s broken monopoly bargaining system, where union officials in a unionized workplace can impose their will over dissenting workers and often force those employees to pay them union dues or fees,” Mix added. “American workers in all sectors deserve the right to choose freely whether or not union representation is right for them.”
National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix: Labor Day 2025 Should Be About Restoring Worker Freedom
Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Committee and National Right to Work Foundation, issued the following statement on the occasion of Labor Day 2025:
No one should forget the reason for the festivities on Labor Day: Honoring America’s hardworking men and women, who power the most prosperous and innovative country in the world. Yet too often they’re forgotten by those in the halls of power. Today we should celebrate those workers by respecting their rights, including, critically, their Right to Work: The freedom to decide to join or financially support a union, or refrain from doing so.
The facts are clear. The American public at large, and unionized workers in particular, want a free choice when it comes to affiliating with a union. Around eight in 10 Americans consistently express agreement with the Right to Work principle, and polls of unionized workers show similar sentiment.
The truth is, American workers by and large want to make a living free from coercive union power: Most say that they have “no interest at all” in joining a labor union. American workers thrive on freedom, and policymakers who claim to care about them should be prepared to defend workers’ freedoms.
That means we should reject the cynical attempts by union officials to steal the spotlight on Labor Day to drum up support for their coercive agenda that seeks to impose on workers what they would never individually agree to. That agenda was unfortunately promoted with full force during the Biden Administration, which sought to undermine workers’ rights to reject union affiliation while empowering union bosses to force unwilling employees into union ranks. Union chiefs and their political allies also pushed hard under Biden to require workers to fund their activities – including their politicking – as a condition of keeping their jobs.
Now, on the first Labor Day since voters rejected the dysfunctional and coercive labor policies of the Biden Administration, it’s time to chart a new path for America’s working men and women. Politicians at the state and federal level should pursue policies that give workers the ability to protect their livelihoods – and their paychecks – from union bosses’ attempts to use them as tools to increase their power over America’s government and economy.
Keep Labor Day a holiday dedicated to American workers and their freedoms. Support each worker’s right to decide for themselves whether or not union affiliation is right for them.
Hudson Valley Farmworker Challenges PERB Official’s Dismissal of Employee Petition Seeking Removal of UFW Union Officials
Porpiglia Farms workers have been restrained for almost a year from voting union out of farm, new brief challenges suspect union “blocking charges”
Marlboro, NY (August 25, 2025) – Ricardo Bell, an agricultural worker at Porpiglia Farms in the Hudson Valley, is urging New York’s Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) in Albany to overturn a lower board official’s refusal to process a petition he and his coworkers backed seeking a union removal vote. Bell and his colleagues petitioned the PERB to hold a vote to remove United Farm Workers (UFW) union officials from power at Porpiglia Farms, and are receiving free legal aid in their effort from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
The PERB is the New York state agency responsible for enforcing labor law in the agricultural sector, a task that includes administering votes to install (“certify”) and remove (“decertify”) unions. Despite the fact he submitted a petition containing enough of his colleagues’ signatures to trigger a union decertification vote, Bell’s latest filing reports that the PERB’s Acting Director of Private Employment Practices and Representation refused to process his petition on the basis of four unproven claims of wrongdoing that UFW union officials filed against Porpiglia Farms management.
At both state and federal labor boards, union officials often file such allegations (usually called “blocking charges”) to stop workers from exercising their right to vote a union out of power at a workplace – even without evidence showing any connection between the employer’s alleged conduct and workers’ desire for an election. Because New York lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, union bosses have the power to enforce contracts that require workers like Bell and his colleagues to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. In contrast, in 26 states with Right to Work laws, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
Farmworker Argues PERB Shouldn’t Let Union Bosses Block Union Removal Election
Bell’s latest filing consists of exceptions to the PERB Acting Director of Private Employment Practices’ decision denying his request to process the petition. It states that the decision is unfounded because nothing in New York’s agricultural labor law or in the PERB’s policy authorizes the use of blocking charges to stop an employee-requested decertification election.
The brief argues that the PERB’s policy “is punitive, punishing the employees for conduct they cannot control… Employees should be free to choose their representative. Blocking charge delays prevent employees from exercising that right to choose.”
Bell’s brief also contends that the Acting Director’s decision violated a basic standard that PERB itself stated in an earlier case involving Bell and his coworkers. In that case – another union decertification attempt that was dismissed on different grounds – the PERB issued a decision explaining that not all charges of employer misconduct justify barring employees from exercising their right to vote out a union, and that if a blocking charge policy were to be applied, union officials must allege conduct that actually harms employees’ ability to choose for or against a union. Now the Acting Director’s dismissal of Bell’s newest decertification petition flies in the face of that standard, Bell’s brief explains, because it “failed to analyze the facts of the four charges” and makes no attempt to show how they might have affected the employees.
PERB Never Gave Employee Opportunity to Respond to Dubious Union Charges
Bell’s brief further points out that the Acting Director dismissed his union decertification petition without holding any formal fact-finding proceedings, and that the PERB agents provided Bell with the union’s blocking charges very late in the game – meaning he was deprived of any meaningful chance to challenge the allegations that blocked his election.
“Whether at the state or federal level, so-called ‘blocking charge’ policies do the exact same thing: Give union bosses the opportunity to stop the workers they claim to ‘represent’ from exercising their right to have an election they have properly requested,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “In non-Right to Work states like New York, these delays often mean that union officials can continue to siphon dues money from employees who have already expressed substantial interest in voting them out.
“Mr. Bell and his coworkers’ attempts to vote out the aggressive, politics-obsessed UFW union have been stalled for over a year now, which shows, clearly, how New York’s agricultural labor laws squash workers’ free choice simply to empower union bosses,” Mix added.
Bell and another New York farm employee, Jean Estrame, are also seeking to intervene in a federal lawsuit challenging New York State’s agricultural labor law (the so-called Farm Laborers’ Fair Labor Practices Act, FLFLPA) because it lets union officials bypass traditional union certification votes and sweep to power using the coercive “card check” unionization method.
Hundreds of Lufthansa Technicians at Rafael Hernandez International Airport Secure Vote to Remove IAM Union
Majority of technicians signed petition demanding union ouster vote; IAM officials used allegations against employer in unsuccessful attempt to block vote
Para leer este artículo en español, haga clic aquí.
Aguadilla, Puerto Rico (August 12, 2025) – Eric Matos, an airplane technician at Lufthansa Technik’s facility at Rafael Hernandez International Airport, has secured an opportunity for him and roughly 200 of his colleagues to vote International Association of Machinists (IAM) union officials out of their workplace. Matos’ success comes after the General Counsel of the National Mediation Board (NMB) in Washington, DC, rejected IAM union bosses’ attempt to block the employees from voting, and scheduled the vote to occur via mail ballot between August 21 and October 16, 2025. Matos is receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in defending his and his coworkers’ right to vote.
The NMB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal law in the air and rail industries, a task which includes ordering and administering elections to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions. Under NMB rules, to obtain a vote to decertify a union, workers must submit a petition indicating that at least 50% of similar workers across a “craft or class” under the union’s control want to have such a vote. Matos submitted a petition containing signatures from a majority of his colleagues in order to trigger the decertification election.
The Lufthansa Technik technicians are under the jurisdiction of the Railway Labor Act (RLA), the federal statute that governs labor relations in the air and rail industries. This means that union bosses have the power to enforce contracts that require payment of union dues or fees as a condition of employment, regardless of a state’s or territory’s Right to Work status (Puerto Rico currently lacks Right to Work protections). For that reason, rail and air employees must vote union officials out of their workplaces to avoid pay-up-or-be-fired demands.
“The union has only seen us as a dollar sign from the very first day and they know very well that having us intimidated and divided while feeding us misinformation is an open path for them to obtain that dollar,” commented Matos.
IAM Union Bosses Denied Request for Immunity From Worker Vote
Despite Matos’ submission of a majority-backed decertification petition, IAM union officials made a number of dubious arguments in an attempt to not only stop the technicians from voting, but to immunize the union for a whole year from any employee attempts to eject the union. IAM bosses asked the federal agency to extend by one year the two-year “certification bar” that prevents efforts to oust a union right after it is established at a workplace. The NMB very rarely grants such remedies.
Foundation attorneys argued in a May 2025 brief that the union’s allegations of employer interference – which concerned a supposedly illicit pay raise that Lufthansa gave the technicians – weren’t tested in a federal court. For that reason, the brief said, the allegations couldn’t support the union’s argument that the election should be blocked. In its recent decision, the NMB tossed the union’s request to block the vote and extend the “certification bar,” ruling that “[b]arring extraordinary circumstances, the Board does not take action on allegations of interference until the end of an election voting period.
“[E]ven in cases where election interference is found to have occurred, the remedies the Board imposes to eliminate the taint of any such interference are limited…they do not include the kinds of relief the IAM seeks here,” the ruling continues. In this case, the IAM made the request to block the vote before an election was even approved.
Trump Admin Should Examine Union Election Standards Across the Board
“The NMB was right to reject union bosses’ attempt to prevent Mr. Matos and his colleagues from exercising their right to vote on the IAM’s presence in their workplace,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While this case has worked out in the Lufthansa technicians’ favor, this case shows the kind of legal tactics and maneuvers that union bosses will attempt to frustrate the will of the workers they claim to ‘represent,’ just so they can collect forced union dues.
“The Trump Administration, which is still staffing its federal labor agencies, needs to focus on eliminating barriers to worker free choice, whether those exist in policies at the NMB or at other federal labor boards, like the National Labor Relations Board,” Mix added.
San Fernando Valley Kaiser Permanente Nurse Hits UNAC Union With Federal Charges for Forcing Nurses to Fund Union Politics
UNAC union officials stated she would be fired if she refused formal union membership and dues payments for political expenditures
Los Angeles, CA (July 18, 2025) – Sarah Warthemann, a nurse at Kaiser Permanente’s branch in Woodland Hills, has just filed federal charges against the United Nurses Association of California (UNAC) union at her workplace. She maintains that UNAC officials threatened that she would lose her job if she did not formally join the union, and have ignored her attempt to exercise her legal right to opt out of paying for union political expenses. Warthemann filed her charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a task that includes adjudicating labor disputes between employers, union officials, and individual employees. Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects workers’ right to refrain from participating in or supporting union activities.
Warthemann’s charge concerns her rights under CWA Union v. Beck, a Foundation-won case in which the Supreme Court ruled union bosses could not require those abstaining from union membership to fund union ideological activities just to keep their jobs. The General Motors v. NLRB Supreme Court decision also forbids union officials from requiring formal membership as a condition of employment.
Because California is not a Right to Work state, UNAC chiefs can enforce union monopoly bargaining contracts that require Warthemann and her fellow nurses to pay union dues to keep their jobs, but Beck limits this amount to only the portion of dues that UNAC officials use for bargaining functions. In contrast, in Right to Work states like neighboring Arizona and Nevada, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
“The radical political agenda promoted by the UNAC union is something I do not—and should not—be compelled to support,” Warthemann commented. “While I’m required to pay union dues to remain employed at the hospital, that obligation should not include funding extreme political activities. It is both unethical and, in my view, illegal.”
UNAC Union Bosses Snub Both Federal Law and Recent Settlement
Warthemann reports in her charges that a UNAC representative emailed her a union membership form in June, insisting that she “fill this out ASAP. It is a condition of employment.” Warthemann also notes that UNAC bosses have been ignoring her request to exercise her rights under Beck, and have persisted in demanding she pay full union dues. According to the charges, the union flouted other requirements mandated by the Beck decision – including that union officials provide nonmember employees with a financial breakdown of how the union spends employees’ money.
The UNAC union’s failure to follow Beck is especially flagrant in light of an NLRB-approved settlement union bosses recently reached with another Kaiser Permanente Woodland Hills nurse, Jillian Clausi. Clausi also accused the union of Beck violations, and the settlement in her case contains declarations by the union that it will “not charge Beck objectors the full amount of union membership dues,” among other things. This appears to be exactly the misbehavior Warthemann is describing in her new charge.
“It’s no surprise that UNAC union officials – who spent millions of dollars to influence the 2024 California elections – are trying to keep nurses in the dark about their right to stop their money from enriching the union’s political machine,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “But workers’ right to say ‘no’ to funding union boss agendas shouldn’t be limited to just politics. No worker should be forced to fund a union hierarchy that has been abrasive or just flat out incompetent while claiming to ‘represent’ workers.
“Ms. Warthemann’s case is Exhibit A in why all American workers deserve Right to Work protections. Union officials must rely on voluntarism – not government-backed force – to gain worker support,” Mix added.
Comfort Systems USA Pipefitters and Welders Win Two-Year Battle to Escape Steamfitters Local 52 Union
Union officials made dubious charges concerning pipefitter who collected worker signatures opposing union, but charges were dropped just before hearing
Montgomery, AL (July 15, 2025) – Brandon Davis and his fellow pipefitters and welders at Montgomery-based HVAC company Comfort Systems USA Mid-South have successfully removed Steamfitters Local 52 union bosses from their workplace. Davis, who spearheaded the nearly two-year struggle to oust the union, received free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Davis’ effort kicked off in March 2023, when he filed a petition backed by his coworkers asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold a workplace vote to remove (or “decertify”) the union. The NLRB is the federal agency in charge of enforcing federal labor law, a task that includes adjudicating labor disputes and administering elections to install or remove unions.
While Davis’ petition contained more than enough employee signatures under federal law to trigger a union decertification election, he had a backup plan: To avoid any attempts by union officials to use litigation to hold up or cancel the election, he also submitted a copy of his petition to his employer. Under the 2001 Levitz Furniture Co. NLRB precedent, employers can legally withdraw recognition from union bosses as the “exclusive representative” of their employees upon receiving a petition that shows the union does not enjoy majority support among workers – which Davis’ petition did.
Because Davis and his coworkers work in the Right to Work state of Alabama, state law barred Steamfitters union officials from enforcing contracts that required union membership or dues payments as a condition of employment. However, in Right to Work states and non-Right to Work states alike, union officials still have the ability to impose their “exclusive representation” on every worker in a unionized facility, even those who vote against or otherwise oppose the union.
Steamfitters Union Bosses Sought Order Compelling Workers Under Union Control
Comfort Systems stopped recognizing the Steamfitters union in March 2023 based on Davis’ petition. Unfortunately, Steamfitters union officials still tried to trap Davis and his coworkers under their control. Steamfitters union bosses filed a number of unfair labor practice charges against Comfort Systems management in an attempt to elicit an order from the NLRB that would force the company to submit to bargaining with the union – despite the petition showing that the union no longer enjoyed majority support from the workers. One union boss charge even accused Davis of being a manager or being put up to seeking an election, alleging his collection of worker signatures was part of an illegal company plot.
In February 2025, NLRB Region 15 issued a complaint finding merit to the union’s unfair labor practice charges, including the claim that Davis was a member or agent of management. Davis’ Foundation attorneys quickly sought to intervene in the case between the Steamfitters union and Comfort Systems to rebut the union’s allegations. “Should Mr. Davis be denied Intervenor status, an unfavorable determination in this case could destroy the impact of the decertification petition he prepared, i.e., the lawful withdrawal of recognition by his Employer,” read the motion to intervene.
Under pressure from Davis and his Foundation-provided legal team, the NLRB abandoned the allegations that threatened to reimpose the union and agreed to settle all others just three days before a hearing was scheduled to take place. With no remaining challenges to the company’s withdrawal of recognition, Davis and his colleagues are finally free of the Steamfitters union’s control.
“We’re proud to help Mr. Davis and his fellow Comfort Systems employees escape the clutches of Steamfitters union bosses who weren’t standing up for the employees’ interests, but their legal battle should have never lasted this long,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “As the Trump Administration selects new NLRB members, it should seek members who will eliminate policies that let union officials seize forced ‘representation’ powers over workers on the basis of unproven allegations. The Board should instead plan to defend equally workers’ right to associate or disassociate with a union as they please.”
Cornell University Graduate Student Files Federal Charges Seeking End to Union Boss Control Over Graduate Students
Student case attacks Obama-era federal labor board ruling that exposed graduate students to union boss power
Ithaca, NY (July 14, 2025) – Russell Burgett, a Ph.D. candidate in chemical physics at Cornell University, has just launched a groundbreaking federal labor case challenging the Cornell Graduate Student Union’s (an affiliate of United Electrical) authority to maintain exclusive representation powers over him and his fellow graduate students.
Burgett, who opposes the union and is not a member, filed his charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing private sector labor law. Burgett’s case is a direct challenge to the Obama NLRB’s 2016 Columbia University ruling, which overturned longstanding precedent and permitted union bosses to gain monopoly bargaining powers over graduate students at private universities like MIT, Columbia, and Cornell.
While union monopoly bargaining schemes in academia were already controversial at the time of the Columbia University ruling, student opposition to the policy has spiked in recent years as union officials have pursued increasingly radical and divisive ideological activities on campuses.
Charges: NLRB Must Reexamine Union Powers Over Students, Including Forced-Dues Mandates
Burgett’s charges assert that Cornell graduate students are not “employees” under the National Labor Relations Act. For that reason, the charges say, CGSU-UE union officials’ attempts to force them to abide by a union contract – including provisions that effectively mandate the students pay union dues or fees to complete essential parts of their graduate programs – violate federal labor law.
Furthermore, Burgett’s charges contend the union contract is illegal because it forbids the university from doing business with students who abstain from union membership or union financial support. Union agreements that require an entity to cease doing business with persons who refuse to associate with the union are a clear violation of the National Labor Relations Act.
“Mr. Burgett’s case is the latest chapter in a continuing saga showing why union bosses’ one-size-fits-all bargaining schemes have no place in academia,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “At America’s elite universities, union bosses empowered by the Obama and Biden NLRBs are coercing dissenting students into funding their political radicalism and constant agitation – including Jewish students who have sincere religious objections to the anti-Israel vitriol that campus unions push.
“Forcing students to choose between completing their graduate degrees or affiliating with an ideological group they find unconscionable is antithetical to principles of academic freedom, and Mr. Burgett’s case directly attacks the Obama NLRB’s and Biden NLRB’s flawed rulings allowing such coercion to happen in the first place,” Mix added.
National Right to Work Foundation Submits Comments Opposing Proposed DOL Rule Loosening Union Financial Disclosures
Comments: Rule will let huge number of unions escape meaningful scrutiny over how union bosses spend worker funds while providing no tangible benefits
Washington, DC (July 31, 2025) – The National Right to Work Foundation has just submitted comments regarding the Office of Labor Management Standards’ (OLMS) proposed rule to significantly reduce financial disclosures union officials are required to file with the Department of Labor. The comments warn that the slated rule will deprive millions of rank-and-file workers of vital information on how union officials spend their dues payments, especially spending on union political and ideological activities.
Current financial disclosure rules for unions mandate that unions with $250,000 or more in annual receipts file an LM-2 report with the Department of Labor, while unions with less revenue must only submit less-detailed LM-3 or LM-4 reports, both of which consist of only a few pages. The OLMS’ proposed rule would eliminate the requirement to turn in an LM-2 for all unions except those with $450,000 or more in annual receipts, meaning a large number of unions currently subject to LM-2 reporting would only be required to provide substantially less-comprehensive filings.
“The ‘cost’ of the proposed rule—the information that workers and others will no longer be able to learn about unions—is considerable,” the comments say. “The rule’s ostensible ‘benefit’—reducing union reporting burdens—is not supported by evidence and is insignificant…The costs of the proposed rule greatly outweigh its nonexistent benefits.”
New Rule Will Block Millions of Workers From Seeing Basic Details About Union Spending
The comments emphasize the wide impact of the proposed rule, especially among those who work in states that lack Right to Work protections and for that reason can be forced to pay union dues or fees just to keep their jobs. “OLMS data for the past year…shows over 7,700 filings from unions with receipts under $450,000 that are located in states that lack Right to Work laws,” the comments say. “These unions reported combined annual receipts of over $523 million, annual disbursements of over $514 million, and over 4 million members.
“The lack of more detailed reporting requirements for these unions therefore harms over 4 million workers by denying them meaningful details” regarding how union officials spend their hard-earned money, the comments explain.
Much of this omitted information will include details on how much money union officials spend on overhead and administration as opposed to representational activities in the workplace, not to mention what union bosses are contributing to often-divisive political causes. While LM-2 forms let workers quickly see these figures, the comments say, “[t]he proposed rule will deprive workers of this information about many unions because the LM-3 does not include these reporting categories.”
Knowing less about union political spending will also impede workers’ ability to enforce their rights under the Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision, the comments point out. Beck blocks union bosses from forcing nonmember workers under their control to pay for union ideological expenses or anything unrelated to representational activities. The comments point to contributions disclosed on LM-2s to groups such as ActBlue, Black Lives Matter, and the Democratic National Committee that would no longer be disclosed to workers if the proposed rule were implemented.
Comments Debunk Union ‘Burden’ Arguments Cited by OLMS
The comments also reveal that the main impetus OLMS cites for pushing this proposed rule – that the regulatory burden for unions is too large – has very little evidence to support it. An estimate that OLMS put out about the number of hours that the proposed requirements would save unions is “out of date, fails to account for modern…software, and is not even an estimate of the time it takes impacted unions to complete LM-2 reports, but rather is an estimate of the average time it takes all unions to complete LM-2 reports,” the comments say.
The comments conclude by asking OLMS to eliminate the current system of graduated filing thresholds and instead require all unions to file LM-2 reports. “The benefit of this change is self-evident: workers, the public, and the Department will receive more information about union finances, which in turn will lead to more informed workers and deter and uncover more union corruption,” the comments explain.
“America’s top union bosses are routinely caught abusing the funds they demand from millions of workers across the country, all while promoting divisive and often radical political causes at every level of government,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Acting in the best interests of workers means providing more clarity on how employee money is spent, not less.
“Make no mistake: The OLMS’ proposed rule will benefit union bosses at the expense of rank-and-file workers. Every worker deserves to know the basic details of how their money is being spent by those who claim to ‘represent them,’ and the slated rule would deprive millions of workers of what little information they already have,” Mix added.