Missouri Shangri-La Dispensary Workers Officially Free of Unwanted UFCW Union Boss “Representation”
Labor Board certifies workers’ victory in case to remove UFCW after union officials disclaim representation and walk away
Columbia, MO (September 2, 2025) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has just issued an order that officially removes United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 655 as the exclusive “representative” of a unit of Shangri-La dispensary workers. The order makes official the workers’ victory in their legal effort to remove UFCW union officials from their workplace.
The case started when Travis Hierholzer, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, filed his petition with the NLRB requesting a “decertification” election to remove UFCW union bosses at his workplace. Hierholzer’s petition was signed by nearly all of his fellow workers at the dispensary. The filing of the petition triggered an election process to determine whether the UFCW would remain the dispensary workers’ exclusive representative.
The NLRB is the federal agency tasked with enforcing federal labor law and with adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual workers. Workers are able to initiate an election administered by the NLRB if their petition gathers the signatures of 30% or more of their fellow employees.
The election was close to being scheduled in September among all full-time and regular part-time patient consultants, patient consultant supervisors, and inventory specialists employed at the Columbia, MO, dispensary. However, rather than proceed with the election, UFCW union bosses apparently decided to avoid the embarrassment of a nearly unanimous vote by workers against them, instead “disclaiming” their status and removing the union as the dispensary’s so-called representative.
Missouri is one of the 24 states without Right to Work protections that make union affiliation and dues payment fully voluntary, meaning Hierholzer and his coworkers could have been forced to pay dues or fees to UFCW union officials or else be fired. Now that the union has been officially decertified, union officials lack the authority to impose a forced-dues requirement on the employees.
“Workers across the country, and especially in states where union bosses can force them to pay dues or else be fired, continue to exercise their legal right to free themselves of unwanted union representation,” stated National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The National Right to Work Foundation will continue to stand up for American workers wherever they may be, by providing free legal aid to help defend their rights and remove unwelcome union bosses from their workplace.”
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.
Walking Dead Production Driver Defends Victory over Teamsters for Unlawful Discrimination in Rigged “Hiring Hall”
Virginia-based driver asks National Labor Relations Board to order notification and compensation of other victims of Teamsters’ discriminatory scheme
Washington, DC (August 27, 2025) – Terringus Walker, a transportation employee for Virginia-based movie and television productions like Walking Dead, is asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to uphold the central findings of an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) favorable ruling in his case against the Teamsters union.
Walker charged Teamsters Local 592 union officials with retaliating against employees who previously filed Unfair Labor Charges against the union. Walker is receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The ALJ’s ruling validated Walker’s charge that a “hiring hall” arrangement, run by Teamsters Local 592 union bosses, constituted illegal discrimination under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Union bosses failed to use objective criteria for referring production drivers, instead privileging senior union members over junior members and nonmembers.
Union officials, who negotiated exclusive hiring contracts for certain productions, have denied Walker work since 2020. The ALJ decision now under review by the NLRB agreed with Walker that union officials violated the NLRA by operating a hiring hall in an arbitrary manner without objective criteria, ignoring their duty of fair representation to all unit members.
In a separate filing, Walker asked the NLRB to extend the ALJ’s compensation order to all workers the Teamsters discriminated against, and ensure all affected workers are properly notified of the ruling. Despite acknowledging that the hiring arrangement maintained separate, discriminatory lists that affect hundreds of workers, the ALJ ruling puzzlingly ordered compensation only for Walker himself, ignoring NLRB precedent.
Union Officials Use Suspect Legal Arguments to Attempt to Justify Discrimination
Teamsters Local 592 lawyers have filed their own documents asking for the NLRB to overturn the ALJ decision largely on the grounds that union officials were, somehow, not responsible for the discrimination and retaliation, even though it occurred within the union’s exclusive hiring hall.
Walker’s newest filing refutes the union’s claim. The Teamsters union officials argue that they did not discriminate against Walker, but evidence presented during the trial shows that they and hiring managers used various excuses and false pretenses to string Walker along without ever bringing him back to work, even while other employees quickly gained work.
Union officials are also attempting to pass all responsibility to the production companies. But union officials built the hiring and referral process. It was their duty to include objective criteria in the referral process, which they failed to do.
Foundation staff attorneys have recently aided several groups of workers in efforts to challenge malfeasance by Teamsters union officials or vote the union out completely. These include movie transportation workers in Texas, truck drivers in California and Georgia, Frito-Lay warehouse workers in Ohio, metalworkers in San Diego, nurses in Michigan, and many more. Across the country, workers’ desire to exercise their right to vote out unpopular union bosses is increasing: Worker-filed petitions seeking union decertification votes are up more than 50% from 2020, according to NLRB data.
“Teamsters officials have demonstrated time and again that they are willing to discriminate against workers who don’t subject themselves to union officials’ rules, as well as those who expose their unfair practices,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Production drivers like Mr. Walker who are ready, willing, and able to help bring stories to the silver screen shouldn’t be ignored for exercising their right to free association, or for holding unions accountable to their duty of fair representation.
“We’re humbled by Mr. Walker’s courage to stand up for his rights and encouraged by his victory before the administrative law judge. Further, we are eager to defend that victory and fight for his fellow workers who don’t play by the Teamsters’ illegal and unfair rules,” added Mix.
Florida Imperial Bag & Paper Workers Vote to Remove Teamsters but Union Officials Seeking to Overturn Election Result
Teamsters officials trying to disenfranchise Orlando-area workers who voted to end union representation
Orlando, FL (August 27, 2025) – Teamsters union officials are moving forward in their attempt to overturn a vote by the majority of Orlando-area paper and plastic company employees to remove the union. Imperial Bag & Paper Co. employee Lionel Powell spearheaded the effort to oust International Brotherhood of Teamsters officials.
In early July of this year, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Powell submitted a petition signed by enough of his peers to prompt the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to carry out a “decertification” vote amongst his coworkers. Foundation attorneys will now defend the vote of Powell and his coworkers at the NLRB against Teamsters bosses’ attempt to disenfranchise them.
The NLRB, the federal agency tasked with enforcing federal private-sector labor law and with adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual workers, administered the vote among Powell and his Imperial Bag & Paper Co. coworkers on August 7, in which the employees voted against the union’s representation.
The election was held among all full-time and regular part-time drivers and shuttle drivers employed at the Orlando, FL, facility. A majority voted to remove Teamsters union officials as their monopoly bargaining “representative.”
Florida’s popular Right to Work law means workers cannot be fired for refusing to pay union dues or fees. However, even in Right to Work states, union officials can impose exclusive bargaining control upon all workers within a workplace, even those who oppose the union.
To end that monopoly power, workers can petition for and hold a decertification election. Imperial Bag & Paper Co. employees followed those steps, and the union failed to win the vote. But rather than accept the result of the election, Teamsters lawyers filed election objections with the NLRB seeking to cancel the ballot count. Last week, Teamsters union officials also levied new, unproven allegations of employer misconduct in an attempt to stifle the workers’ effort.
“All American workers are entitled to the full protections afforded to them by federal labor law, which include the right to vote out unwanted union officials in a secret-ballot election,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Once again Teamsters union bosses are showing that they are more interested in preserving their own power than respecting workers’ rights and choices.
“Foundation staff attorneys will continue to assist the Imperial Bag & Paper Co. workers until they are freed from unwanted union officials,” Mix added.
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.
Workers in Missouri and Minnesota Challenge Union Bosses’ Scheme to Coerce Workers into Funding Union Political Activities
Cases against AFSCME, Guards Union, are latest to argue federal law prohibits “window periods” that trap nonmembers in full union dues payments
Kansas City, MO & Bloomington, MN (August 14, 2025) – Tina Delkamp, an employee of Honeywell FM&T in Kansas City, MO, and Meriem LeClair, an employee of Cornerstone Advocacy Center in Bloomington, MN, have each filed federal charges challenging union officials’ policies in their respective workplaces that coerce nonmember workers into funding union political activities. Delkamp and LeClair filed their charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Both charges state that union officials breached federal labor law by demanding that the employees “affirmatively opt-out of paying for political and ideological activities, instead of opting-in to make political and ideological contributions.” Under the Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision, union bosses cannot force workers who have opted out of union membership to pay fees for union political or ideological expenditures.
While the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects workers’ right to abstain from formal union membership, states like Minnesota and Missouri that lack Right to Work laws permit unions to force workers to pay dues or fees just to keep their jobs. However, Beck limits this forced-dues amount to only what union bosses spend on bargaining functions, and these so-called “chargeable expenses” can never include money for union political or ideological activities. In both cases, union officials have attempted to get around Beck by neglecting to inform the employees of their rights.
Unions Can’t Force Funding for Political Activities Automatically
Delkamp’s charges, filed against International Guards Union of America Local 172, state that union officials are unlawfully withholding financial information she needs to verify what she has to pay as a non-member under Beck. Additionally, the charges challenge union officials for telling Delkamp that her inclusion of her employer on emails concerning her Beck rights was somehow a violation of federal law.
“I tried to exercise my right not to fund political activities I oppose, and the union threatened me for it,” said Delkamp. “Union officials shouldn’t be able to take my wages for their partisan activities without asking me first. They need to take responsibility for respecting my rights, instead of making me fight them on it.”
Union officials often neglect to inform workers of their Beck rights, and sometimes don’t even seek worker consent before deducting full dues (including dues for political expenses) from their paychecks. Recent federal charges filed by Delkamp, LeClair, and other workers with free Foundation legal aid give the NLRB an opportunity to enforce a new federal standard that would require union officials to seek clear consent from workers before extracting full union dues payments from their paychecks.
Union Used “Window Periods” to Keep Worker Trapped
LeClair’s charges, filed against AFSCME Council 5, also allege that the union “refused to recognize withdraw of union membership, except during ‘window periods,’” imposing an arbitrary restriction on the exercise of her Beck rights. Union-created “window periods,” in which union members can withdraw membership, are a stonewalling tactic with no basis in federal law.
“I didn’t want my union dues funding political activities I oppose, so I tried to resign my union membership, only for officials to tell me I had to wait,” commented LeClair. “If I have a right guaranteed under federal law, that right should apply all the time, not only on the days and weeks convenient for union bosses.”
“Across the country, Big Labor officials are using legally dubious schemes to force unwilling workers to fund a radical political agenda that is completely contrary to the priorities of most rank-and-file employees,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The best way to ensure workers’ freedom is, of course, through Right to Work protections that make all union payments completely voluntary.
“Until Right to Work is the law of the land, the NLRB needs to step up to protect workers from being trapped in full forced dues, including the portion used for union political activism,” added Mix. “Workers who have already declined formal union membership should not have to also navigate arbitrary ‘window periods’ just to ensure they are not funding union boss political spending.”
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.
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.