Over 97% percent of comments oppose proposal to let union bosses hide more political spending from workers

The National Right to Work Foundation recently filed detailed comments in opposition to a Department of Labor Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS) proposed rule to significantly reduce financial disclosures union officials are required to file. With the comment period concluding last week, it is now clear that commenters overwhelmingly agree with the Foundation that the rule should be rejected.

Of 299 public comments submitted, over 97% strongly opposed the rule change.

The full comment submitted by the National Right to Work Foundation can be read here.

The Foundation’s comments note that the rule cannot be justified because workers’ rights will be undermined if union officials are permitted to more easily hide their spending of dues money, including money seized from workers forced to pay dues or else be fired:

“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. 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…”

These sentiments were echoed by hundreds of Americans, including rank-and-file workers, who are furious with the OLMS for proposing to deprive millions of workers of vital information on how union officials spend their dues payments, especially spending on union political and ideological activities. As over 225 of the comments point out, this change would allow over 850 unions, spending over $200 million annually, to hide their activities from detailed financial disclosure accessible to workers and the public.

Former union members used the public comments to share their personal experiences with union misconduct, and their desire for more accountability:

• A former member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters shared retaliation he experienced for speaking out about errors in union financial reports.
• A former professor recalled being forced to pay union dues and being coerced into supporting union candidates and policies.
• A former member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers remembers union chiefs spending lavish amounts of money on politicians he would never vote for.
• A former member of the Communications Workers of America felt betrayed by union bosses and urges the Department to make them account for every cent they misuse.

Other detailed comments opposing the rule came from the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, Institute for the American Worker, Yankee Institute, and Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, as well as others.

Of the just seven comments that actually favored the change, a majority were filed by union officials who predictably want more leeway to hide their spending of dues money from the rank-and-file they claim to “represent.”

Among them was the National Education Association (NEA) which unsuccessfully attempted to hide its controversial 2025 handbook from the public just as comments were being solicited.

Meanwhile, union bosses at the AFL-CIO and AFSCME actually argued for even less disclosure to workers than the rule proposed, with AFL-CIO even suggesting that thresholds should be automatically raised every year.

The United States establishes a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. OLMS should reject these union bosses’ personally-motivated requests, and instead listen to the voice of the overwhelming majority calling for this change to be withdrawn.