Security Guards at Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant Demand Vote to Remove SPFPA Union Officials
Guards collect enough signatures to prompt federal labor board to administer union removal vote
Waynesboro, GA (January 8, 2026) – Security guards working for Southern Nuclear Operating Company have recently filed a petition asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold a vote to remove the Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) union from their workplace. The guards, who filed the petition with assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, work at Plant Vogtle, a major nuclear power plant in Waynesboro, Georgia.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a task that includes administering votes to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions in workplaces. Under NLRB rules, the Board should administer a decertification election if employees submit a petition in which a required number of workers in a work unit demand such an election. The Southern Nuclear Operating Company workers’ petition, which Dallas Howard submitted on behalf of his coworkers, met this threshold.
Security Guards Dissatisfied with Union ‘Representation’
Georgia is a Right to Work state, meaning that SPFPA officials cannot enforce union contracts that require workers to pay union dues or fees to keep their jobs. In non-Right to Work states, union bosses can have workers fired solely for refusing to financially support union officials’ activities.
However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work states, union officials can wield exclusive “representation” power over every employee in a workplace, even those that don’t want to be represented by the union. A successful decertification election would strip SPFPA union bosses of exclusive bargaining power over these 250 security guards, enabling the workers to negotiate for themselves.
SPFPA Union Officials Continue to Ignore Worker Interests
The Foundation has seen a history of unwanted “representation” by the SPFPA. In 2024, the Foundation provided free legal aid to security guards in Delaware after the SPFPA negotiated a contract behind their backs. In Las Vegas, security guards scored a settlement returning thousands of dollars in illegally-seized union dues after SPFPA officials failed to acknowledge many employees’ attempts to revoke their union memberships and cut off dues deductions.
“SPFPA union officials have repeatedly shown that they care little about workers they claim to ‘represent.’ They only care about maintaining control and power, and we are proud to assist these security guards as they try to restore their individual freedom,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While Georgia’s Right to Work law guards employees from the forced-dues demands of union officials, no worker should be forced under the control of union chiefs who are self-interested or simply aren’t doing a good job.”
Penske Leasing Workers Free Themselves from Teamsters’ ‘Representation’
Dallas area workers increasingly demanding individual freedom from unions
Dallas, TX (December 22, 2025) – Employees of Penske Truck Leasing’s facility in the Redbird neighborhood of Dallas have freed themselves from the control of Teamsters Local 745 union officials. A majority of workers, with assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, filed a petition requesting decertification of the local union with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on November 14, 2025.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a task that includes administering votes to install (or “certify”) and remove (or “decertify”) unions in workplaces. By law, the NLRB should administer a decertification election if employees submit a petition in which at least 30% of workers demand such an election (this petition far exceeded that threshold).
The decertification election was scheduled for December 18, but on the day of the election, union officials formally disclaimed interest in continuing as the workers’ “representative,” removing the need for an election. Teamsters bosses presumably knew they would have lost the vote overwhelmingly, and preemptively conceded defeat.
Texas Employees Free from Union’s Twin Coercive Powers
Texas is a Right to Work state, meaning that Teamsters union officials cannot enforce union contracts that require workers to pay union dues or fees to keep their jobs. In non-Right to Work states, union bosses can have workers fired solely for refusing to financially support union officials’ activities.
However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work states, union officials can wield exclusive “representation” power over every employee in a workplace, unless the union is decertified. The workers at Penske’s Redbird facility are now free of both of these powers granted to union bosses by the government.
“I support decertifying the Teamsters union because the union isn’t benefiting us the way it should,” commented Penske employee Epifanio Hernandez in early December, shortly after his petition for decertification was filed. “The union rules aren’t beneficial to everyone, and instead of helping us progress, they end up holding many of us back. We deserve the freedom to exercise our own rights, speak for ourselves, and make decisions that reflect what we actually want — not what the union decides for us.”
Teamsters Union Continues Streak of Decertification
In just the last year, Foundation staff attorneys have helped several groups of employees free themselves from unwanted union “representation” by the Teamsters. These include two other cases in Dallas, where both delivery drivers for Restaurant Technologies, Inc. and employees at FCC Environmental Services recently booted Teamsters Local 745 bosses from their workplaces, the same union as in this case.
Foundation staff attorneys have also noticed a marked rise in requests from workers seeking legal assistance in Teamsters decertification cases. Recent NLRB statistics also suggest no union faces more decertification petitions than the Teamsters.
“More and more, American workers across the country are deciding they are better off without Teamsters union bosses who prioritize their own interests over that of the workers they claim to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “We’re proud to support the growing number of workers engaged in the transportation and trucking industries who are demanding freedom from coercive unionism.”
National Right to Work Foundation Issues Notice to VW Chattanooga Employees Impacted By UAW Boss-Ordered Strike
Notice informs VW Team Members of their rights in light of a potential strike at Tennessee production plant
Chattanooga, TN (November 4, 2025) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has released a special legal notice to thousands of autoworkers at Volkswagen’s production plant in Chattanooga, TN. The notice comes as officials of the United Auto Workers (UAW) have just announced that they could order a strike at the facility at any time.
The full notice is available at https://www.nrtw.org/vw/.
The Foundation’s legal notice informs autoworkers of their rights that union officials often hide, including the right to continue working to support their families. The notice gives workers who want to return to work information on how to avoid fines and punishment that could be imposed by union officials. When union bosses call strikes, they will often fine workers who don’t abide by the strike. In many cases, the fines far exceed a day’s wage. The most foolproof way for workers to avoid union discipline is to resign their union membership before returning to work.
“The situation presents serious concerns for employees who believe there is much to lose from a union-ordered strike,” the legal notice reads. “That is why workers confronted with strike demands frequently contact the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation to learn how they can avoid fines and union discipline for continuing to work during a strike to support themselves and their families.”
The Foundation’s special legal notice highlights workers’ right to resign union membership, and provides guidance on best practices for doing so. Because Tennessee enjoys right-to-work protections, the notice also highlights employees’ right to not pay union dues.
Finally, the notice provides helpful information for removing the union by using a decertification petition to obtain a secret ballot election. Such an NLRB-supervised election would be like ones previously held in 2014, 2019, and 2024 at the facility, and would give workers the opportunity to vote in private on UAW affiliation.
Workers Can Receive Free Legal Aid and Avoid Illegal Union Retaliation
The National Right to Work Foundation is the nation’s premier organization exclusively dedicated to providing free legal assistance to employees victimized by forced-unionism abuses. The full notice can be found at https://www.nrtw.org/vw/.
The Foundation has a long history of assisting workers in cases against the UAW. In fact, Foundation staff attorneys have helped workers at the VW production plant in Chattanooga before, challenging union organizers’ attempts to bypass a secret ballot election and impose the union through an unreliable and abuse-prone Card Check. Recently, Foundation attorneys successfully defended auto accessory manufacturing employees against illegal strike fine threats by UAW officials in Pennsylvania.
“Despite fearmongering, pressure tactics, and misleading statements from union officials, workers always have the right to continue to work during a strike, providing for their families,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “This legal notice reflects the Foundation’s longstanding commitment to helping independent-minded workers who want to exercise their rights, protecting them from union bosses’ coercive tactics that regularly go hand-in-hand with strike demands from union officials.”
Starbucks Baristas File Brief Urging Supreme Court to Allow President to Remove Rogue Agency Officers
National Right to Work Foundation-backed federal case for Starbucks employees was first federal case to argue that NLRB officials can’t be shielded from the President’s oversight
Washington, DC (October 20, 2025) – Two Starbucks employees represented by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation have filed an amicus brief at the United States Supreme Court in the case Trump v. Slaughter. The brief argues that restrictions on the President’s authority to fire members of executive bodies, such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), are unconstitutional, violating the separation of powers.
The amicus brief was filed on behalf of Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam, two New York Starbucks employees who challenged the constitutionality of the structure of the NLRB in a separate federal court case with the assistance of Foundation staff attorneys.
Since 2023, Foundation staff attorneys have pioneered the legal argument that the NLRB’s structure is unconstitutional because it places restrictions on the President’s authority to fire the NLRB’s members, despite it being part of the executive branch of government. This disconnect exemplifies the problem of federal bureaucrats operating as an unaccountable, “headless fourth branch,” something clearly at odds with the government’s constitutional structure.
Now, the Trump Administration is using this same argument as a justification to fire members of the FTC. Rebecca Slaughter, a Biden appointee to the FTC, has sued to be reinstated, and the case is now before the Supreme Court. The Foundation-backed amicus brief argues that as the Court considers the FTC, it must keep in mind that other so-called “independent agencies” that wield executive power, such as the NLRB, must be subject to Presidential control and removal.
Supreme Court May Reverse Humphrey’s, Must Recognize Its Limitations
Trump v. Slaughter provides the Supreme Court an opportunity to reverse its decision in the 1935 case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, in which the Court crafted an exception to the general rule that the President can remove principal officers at will under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. In theory, Humphrey’s exempted agencies that exercised “quasi-judicial” or “quasi-legislative” power, but not those that exercise executive power.
But regardless of the Court’s reevaluation of the case, “the NLRB fails the Humphrey’s Executor test,” the brief argues.
“The NLRB is a policymaking body that enforces the [National Labor Relations Act] based on its legal conclusions, not scientific or technical judgments,” write Foundation staff attorneys. “[T]he Board does not exercise quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial authority. It exercises executive power in everything it does.”
The brief concludes with the Foundation’s legal argument that Humphrey’s “cannot neuter the President’s ability to supervise those who exercise substantial parts of [executive] power.” Therefore, the Supreme Court “should make clear that the President’s removal power applies to every agency that exercises executive power, including the NLRB.”
Clear Separation of Powers Would Support Workers’ Individual Rights
A proper understanding of the limitations of Humphrey’s when it comes to executive bodies like the NLRB would support workers like Cortes and Karam as they exercise their individual rights. Cortes and Karam are trying to exercise their right to remove local union bosses from their respective workplaces. But non-statutory policies enforced by the pro-Big Labor Biden NLRB have stymied their efforts. Success in this case could help ensure that Cortes and Karam receive a fair judgment from the NLRB in their cases.
“Unaccountable and biased NLRB bureaucrats have caused direct harm to independent-minded workers and their individual rights, and the Supreme Court should rightfully restore the proper separation of powers, including at the NLRB,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “We are proud that the very legal arguments made by Foundation attorneys are now being utilized by this administration to dismantle the unaccountable fourth branch of government and restore proper constitutional structure.”
Texas Workers at Multiple Workplaces Latest to Successfully Free Themselves from Unwanted Teamsters Union ‘Representation’
Dallas-based workers at two companies petitioned the NLRB for decertification elections to remove Teamsters Local 745 bosses
Dallas, TX (October 3, 2025) – Two successful union decertification efforts have freed workers from the control of International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 745 Union bosses in Dallas, Texas. Both Dallas-based delivery drivers for Restaurant Technologies, Inc. and employees at FCC Environmental Services in Dallas filed decertification petitions 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 the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual employees. When employees are dissatisfied with union officials and want to remove the union from their workplace, they may file a “decertification” petition with the NLRB.
Union bosses often try to block elections with charges of unfair labor practices, and vigorously campaign to keep workers under their control. In both of these cases, workers ultimately were able to remove the union.
Teamsters Local 745 Can’t Win Decertification Efforts
Local Teamsters officers tried to block a decertification election at FCC Environmental Services last year, filing numerous charges of unfair labor practices, but despite these stalling attempts, the employees were successful in their effort to remove the union. The union ultimately withdrew all of their objections but one, which the NLRB Regional Director dismissed as it had no bearing on the election itself in which a majority opposed union affiliation.
Meanwhile, Local 745 officials couldn’t even put up a fight against delivery drivers for Restaurant Technologies, Inc. After workers filed a decertification petition at the NLRB in April, a decertification election was set for September. Only three days before the election was scheduled to take place, union officials themselves decided not to contest it, and instead disclaimed any further interest in representing the employees, who are now free from their control.
Workers Fleeing Teamsters Union Nationwide
These successful decertification efforts are part of a larger trend across the country. For four years, the Foundation has seen increasing demand for assistance from groups of workers seeking votes to remove unions. This trend has disproportionately affected the Teamsters Union, as NLRB statistics for the past 12 months show that one of every five decertification cases involved the Teamsters union.
“More and more, American workers across the country are deciding they are better off without Teamsters union bosses who prioritize their own interests over that of the workers they claim to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “These successful decertification efforts demonstrate what happens when courageous and independent-minded workers assert their rights.”
“Union bosses often do not speak for the workers under their so-called ‘representation,’ and statistics show that over 90% of employees have never had a chance to vote on the union that purports to represent them,” Mix added. “That one in five decertification petitions filed last year involved the Teamsters only drives home the point that workers are increasingly rejecting the union’s coercive agenda.”
King Soopers Employees Hit Union Officials with New Federal Charges for Illegal Strike Fine Threats
Charge: UFCW Local 7 once again violating federal law with fines against non-union employees who wouldn’t abide by a union boss-ordered strike
Denver, CO (September 8, 2025) – Two King Soopers grocery workers have filed federal charges against the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7 union in response to union officials illegally threatening to fine the workers, who chose to exercise their right to work during a strike. These cases, filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), follow a series of similar charges against UFCW union officials for issuing retaliatory fines against King Soopers employees in 2022. Both employees are receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
According to the charges, Local 7 union bosses illegally retaliated against Ryan Lamb and Lucas Martin by assessing presumptive fines and scheduling “trials” for each of them, despite the union having no authority to punish non-members. The charges note that attempts to discipline the workers for post-resignation conduct violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
Union-Ordered Strikes Don’t Mean Workers Have to Stop Providing for Their Families
UFCW officials demanded that workers strike against King Soopers grocery stores for more than a week in February 2025, affecting more than 10,000 employees. In response to the high profile strike, the Foundation issued a legal notice informing the impacted workers of their rights that union officials often hide, including the right to continue working to support their families.
“Despite often-misleading language in union contracts, no employee is actually required to be a member of a union,” the notice reads. “And if an employee is not a member of a union, union officials have no power to fine or discipline him or her.”
In the cases of Lamb and Martin, both employees ensured they took the proper actions to avoid being legally subjected to internal “union discipline.” In other cases, union officials illegally attempted to issue ruinous fines against workers who declined to participate in union strike actions, with some fines reaching tens of thousands of dollars per employee.
“Union officials shouldn’t be telling me I can’t earn a living just so they can make a point,” commented Lamb. “We have the right to keep working and not abide by their rules, and it’s ridiculous that the union officials think they can punish us for exercising that right,” added Martin.
Repeat-Offender Union Has a History of Ignoring Workers’ Rights
This isn’t the first time UFCW Local 7 officials are alleged to have violated federal law. In 2022, after the UFCW ordered a strike, several employees filed charges against Local 7 officials for hitting them with fines despite being non-union members.
In two cases where the employees received free legal aid from Foundation staff attorneys, union enforcers backed down from their fines rather than face discipline from the NLRB.
“Once again UFCW bosses are demonstrating their willingness to steamroll the legal rights of rank-and-file workers, just because those workers won’t toe the union line,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Kings Soopers employees have beaten back these illegal fines in the past, and while it shouldn’t take a team of attorneys to ensure workers can exercise their legal rights, we are dedicated to ensuring all King Soopers workers can freely make the choice that is best 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.
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.”
Public Overwhelmingly Opposes Labor Department Proposal to Loosen Union Financial Disclosures
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.
