Veolia Environmental Services Employee Slams Teamsters With Federal Charges for Illegal Termination Threats
Worker maintains that Teamsters Local 63 officials threatened to have her fired for not joining the union and refusing to pay for union politics
Colton, CA (February 2, 2026) – An employee of medical waste management firm Veolia Environmental Services has just hit Teamsters Local 63 union officials with federal charges, maintaining that union officials threatened to have her fired for refusing to join the union. The employee, Alexus Villanueva, also charges Teamsters bosses with unlawfully forcing her to pay full union dues, including dues for union political activities, via paycheck deduction.
Villanueva filed her charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law in the private sector. Under federal labor law and Supreme Court decisions like NLRB v. General Motors, union officials cannot enforce contracts that mandate formal union membership as a condition of employment. Furthermore, the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision bars union bosses from compelling workers to pay for “nonchargeable” union expenses, like the union’s political or ideological doings.
California lacks Right to Work protections for its workers, meaning that union chiefs can force workers under their control to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. In contrast, in Right to Work states like neighboring Nevada and Arizona, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary for workers.
Teamsters Union Officials Blatantly Ignore Federal Labor Law
According to Villanueva’s charges, Teamsters Local 63 officials threatened to have her fired if she didn’t join the union and authorize the deduction of union dues from her paychecks. Federal law forbids union officials from requiring workers to pay union dues by direct deductions from their paychecks.
Villanueva’s charges also detail that Teamsters bosses violated other elements of the Beck decision, including by “fail[ing] to provide her with…a notice of the calculation of the amount of non-chargeable fees verified by an independent certified public accountant” and “an opportunity to challenge its calculation and have it reviewed by an impartial decisionmaker.”
Case Follows String of Actions by SoCal Workers Against Teamsters Local 63
In recent years, Foundation attorneys have helped numerous other workers in Southern California challenge Teamsters Local 63 union officials. In 2024, Dependable Highway Express driver John Cwiek slammed the union with charges after he faced retaliation for revealing publicly available data about Teamsters bosses’ salaries. Cwiek and his coworkers later sought a “decertification vote” with free Foundation aid and successfully forced the union out of their workplace. Foundation attorneys also aided Ozvaldo Gutierrez and his Los Angeles-based XPO Logistics colleagues in removing Teamsters Local 63 from power in 2021.
“Instead of seeking to win workers over voluntarily, Teamsters Local 63 union bosses continue to flout federal labor law in pursuit of more control and more dues money,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “But worker opposition to Teamsters control is not limited just to Southern California – recent NLRB statistics suggest that no union faces more employee-backed removal attempts than the Teamsters.
“While it’s especially heinous that Teamsters officials are attempting to get Ms. Villanueva fired for refusing to pay for union political activity, ultimately no worker should be forced to subsidize any part of union bosses’ agenda just to keep their job,” Mix added.
MI, OH Kroger Employees Challenge UFCW Forced-Dues-For-Politics Schemes
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Foundation-backed workers battle union seizures of PAC money, confusing dues forms
President Biden has worked hard to give UFCW bosses and other union officials across America drastically more coercive power over workers. So it’s no wonder UFCW officials are trying to illicitly funnel employee money into union PACs.
DETROIT, MI – Union bosses in states without Right to Work laws are granted the extraordinary legal power to demand that workers pay dues or fees just to keep their jobs. But this perk doesn’t stop many union chiefs in those states from going beyond what is legally permitted to funnel more worker cash into their political activities or other agenda items.
Two recent cases National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys are litigating for Kroger Grocery employees Roger Cornett, who works just outside Detroit, Michigan, and James Carroll, who works at a store in Fairfield, Ohio, represent just the latest examples of union officials’ tactics designed to require employees to pay for union political activities without obtaining legally-required consent.
In both cases, United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union officials demanded employees agree to formal union membership and to pay full union dues to keep their jobs, which decades-old Supreme Court cases forbid even in non-Right to Work states. In fact, Cornett states in his federal charges against Kroger and the union that UFCW union officials lack a legal basis to demand money from any worker at all.
Neither situation is helped by the fact that Kroger, a supermarket company with a long history of being complicit when union officials violate its employees’ rights, not only did nothing to defend the rights of its employees but actually threatened the employees for not going along with union schemes.
Union Socks Away Worker Cash for PAC, Despite No Legal Authority
Cornett’s charges recount that he asked Kroger officials in February if there was an updated version of the union contract that would require him and other nonmembers to pay dues as a condition of employment in light of the repeal of Michigan’s Right to Work law. Neither UFCW nor Kroger provided Cornett with such a contract in response to his request.
The lack of a contract eviscerates the UFCW’s ability to demand any money from workers. Under longstanding federal law, even in a state without Right to Work protections, union officials can only require employees to pay dues as a condition of employment if there exists a contract with a valid forced-dues clause.
Union officials also told Cornett and other workers that it was a condition of employment for employees to become union members, authorize direct deductions of union dues from their pay, and “sign all or part of the three-part Union membership application and checkoff form” — the latter of which included a page authorizing deductions for the union’s Political Action Committee (PAC).
The Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision forbids union officials from forcing nonmember workers to pay money for any expenses outside the union’s core bargaining functions, while federal law prevents union bosses from requiring workers to authorize payroll deductions of union dues (as opposed to less intrusive methods) or to pay money to a union PAC used to fund union boss-backed political candidates.
Cornett says in his charges that he decided to sign the three-part form in order to keep his job, but Foundation attorneys are fighting to ensure he will be vindicated for each and every violation by union officials and Kroger.
Ohio Worker Duels UFCW Over Illegal ‘Dual-Purpose’ Membership Form
In Ohio, Kroger employee James Carroll has charged UFCW union bosses with coercing him into signing an illegal “dual-purpose” membership form, which seeks only one employee signature for authorization of both union membership and dues deductions.
Federal labor law requires that any authorization for union dues deductions be voluntary and separate from a union membership application, as workers have the right to abstain from forced union membership even in non-Right to Work states where some fees can be required. In his case, Carroll is also battling Kroger’s continuing deduction of full union dues from his paycheck at UFCW chiefs’ behest, despite his lack of consent.
“Not only did UFCW bosses present me with a form that clearly violates federal labor law, but they also threatened that I would lose my job if I didn’t sign it,” commented Carroll. “This only serves to show me that UFCW bosses don’t care about my rights and are simply interested in getting union dues out of me, and it’s sad to see my employer going along with this as well.”
Right to Work Protects Worker Freedom Where Federal Law Doesn’t
“Even where Right to Work isn’t in effect, federal law protects the right of workers not to be forced into formal union membership that includes support for union politics. But union bosses regularly seek to exploit their power to demand payments that go beyond what the law allows,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “We’re proud to help Mr. Carroll and Mr. Cornett defend their rights, but ultimately Ohio and Michigan workers need the protection of Right to Work so union financial support is fully voluntary and employees have a clear right to say ‘no’ to any union demand for payment.”
DHS Security Guard’s Federal Lawsuit Forces IGUA Union Bosses to Stop Illegal Forced Union Dues Demands
After union officials did not provide legally required financial disclosures, guard wins reduction in mandatory union fees
Washington, DC (June 6, 2024) – Rosa Crawley, a security guard at the Department of Homeland Security’s Nebraska Avenue Complex, has triumphed after filing a federal lawsuit charging the International Guards Union of America (IGUA) with unlawfully demanding and seizing union dues from her paycheck. Crawley, who is employed by Master Security, forced the union to back off its illegal dues demands with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Crawley is not a member of the IGUA union, but is still subject to IGUA’s monopoly bargaining power over the security guards at the DHS Nebraska Avenue Complex. As part of the settlement, IGUA union bosses must reduce the compulsory fee that they seize from Crawley as a condition of keeping her job. Before she filed suit, union bosses demanded the equivalent of full membership dues from her.
In her federal lawsuit, which she filed at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Crawley sought to defend her rights under the 1988 Right to Work Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision.
While union officials can force private sector workers in non-Right to Work jurisdictions like the District of Columbia to pay dues or fees just to keep their jobs, the Beck decision prevents union bosses from forcing employees who have abstained from union membership to pay for anything beyond the union’s core bargaining functions, such as union bosses’ political activities. Full membership dues often contain charges for these unrelated items.
Beck also requires union bosses to furnish nonmembers who invoke their rights under the decision with an independent audit of the union’s finances and a breakdown of how union officials spend forced contributions.
Beck protections aren’t necessary in Right to Work states like neighboring Virginia, where union membership and all union financial support are fully voluntary.
IGUA Union Bosses Took Full Dues from Guard, Provided No Financial Disclosures
According to the suit, Crawley sent a letter to union officials resigning her union membership back in July 2023. Instead of immediately providing her with her Beck rights, union officials informed her that she would be charged a so-called “agency fee” which “is the same exact cost as what the union members pay.”
“So there will be absolutely no change in a financial sense,” the union’s reply letter stated.
Not satisfied with that explanation, Crawley in September 2023 formally invoked her Beck rights and asked union officials to reduce her dues payments in accordance with the decision. She also asked them to “provide [her] with an accounting, by an independent certified public accountant, that justifies Local 160’s calculation of its agency [forced] fee,” according to her lawsuit.
In an October 2023 reply to her Beck request, union officials used a confusing percentage averaging calculation to determine a fee amount that contradicted what they told Crawley when she resigned her membership. An independent audit of the union’s finances was nowhere to be found. Despite that, Crawley’s lawsuit reported that IGUA bosses continued to collect full union dues from her paycheck, and tried to impose extra steps that would need to be completed if she wanted to see the union’s financial info.
Workers Must Be On Guard for Illegal Union Uses of Worker Funds as Election Nears
After the filing of her lawsuit, Crawley expressed concern that her money was flowing toward union politics while IGUA bosses dragged their feet on honoring her Beck rights. “I shouldn’t have to pay for the IGUA union’s political activity just so I can continue to do my job,” commented Crawley. “Union officials have a legal obligation to stop charging me for politics and provide me with an accounting of how they are using my money, and so far they have done neither. This isn’t how they should treat the workers they say they ‘represent.’”
“We’re pleased that Ms. Crawley was able to terminate IGUA union officials’ outrageous seizure of full union dues from her paycheck,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “However, IGUA union officials’ inability to follow even the modest limitations that Beck places on their ability to impose mandatory dues on workers is ridiculous, and no worker should have to file a federal lawsuit to force union bosses into recognizing those rights.
“Workers’ right to prevent their money from going toward unwanted union activities, particularly politics, is especially important as union bosses try to push forward their agendas in advance of the 2024 election,” Mix added. “So workers should be vigilant of Beck violations, and remember they can contact Foundation attorneys for free legal aid in exercising their rights under that decision.”
Another MIT Grad Student Hits GSU Union with Federal Labor Charges for Illegally Seizing Money for Radical Union Agenda
Charges: Union officials imposing so-called ‘window period’ restriction to forbid civil engineering grad student from cutting off dues for politics
Boston, MA (April 26, 2024) – Following five Jewish students filing federal religious discrimination charges against the union, the MIT Graduate Student Union (GSU-UE) is now facing new federal unfair labor practice charges from civil engineering graduate student Katerina Boukin. Boukin’s charges, filed at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, maintain that union officials are unlawfully seizing money from her research compensation to support union political activities she abhors.
Boukin seeks to enforce her rights under the 1988 Right to Work Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision. The Court held in Beck that union officials cannot force those under their control to pay dues or fees for union expenses not directly related to collective bargaining, such as political expenses. Nonmembers who exercise their Beck rights are entitled to an independent audit of the union’s finances and a breakdown of how union officials spend forced contributions.
Beck rights are only relevant in non-Right to Work jurisdictions like Massachusetts, where union officials have the legal power to compel the payment of some union fees in a unionized environment. Because of controversial rulings by the Obama and Biden NLRBs, graduate students at private educational institutions like MIT are treated as “employees” who can be subjected to forced union representation and mandatory payments. In jurisdictions that have Right to Work protections, in contrast, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
“GSU union officials are going above and beyond what is legal and are forcing me to pay for their political activities, including their opposition to Israel and promotion of Leninist-Marxist global revolution, that I find deeply offensive,” commented Boukin. “The GSU’s political agenda has nothing to do with my research as a graduate student at MIT, or the relationships I have with my professors and the university administration, yet outrageously they demand I fund their radical ideology.”
Union Still Seizing Dues for Politics Under Guise of ‘Window Period’ Restriction
According to Boukin’s charges, she and other graduate students resigned their memberships in the GSU union, revoked their dues “checkoff” authorizations, and objected under Beck to paying anything going toward GSU’s “political and non-representational agenda and expenditures.”
Despite these requests, the charges note, union bosses have “refused to process those Beck objections, refused to immediately reduce the amount of dues and fees collected from Charging Party’s and other graduate students’ [compensation], refused to stop the dues checkoff, and refused to provide Charging Party” with an independent audit explaining the union’s expenses and reduced fee calculation.
Instead, a GSU vice president told Boukin that she had missed an annual “window period” in which to exercise her Beck rights and that her objections would not be considered until November 2024. “In fact, the UE union has adopted an unlawfully restrictive Beck objection policy, precisely to diminish and destroy [the students’]…rights,” says the charge.
The charges note that the union’s unlawful dues scheme restrains and coerces the graduate students from exercising their right under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to refrain from union activity. MIT is also charged for its role in enforcing the union scheme and continuing to collect dues.
Previously, another MIT graduate student, Will Sussman, filed NLRB charges against the UE union for violating his rights under Beck. Sussman filed the charges on his own but later obtained free legal representation from the National Right to Work Foundation.
GSU Also Faces Religious Discrimination Charges, May Be Violating Past Beck-Related Settlement
Sussman’s case concluded because UE settled with the NLRB. As part of that settlement, GSU union officials are required to “notify [all graduate students] of your rights under…Communications Workers v. Beck” and email notices informing students of those rights and post a notice for 60 days. Despite still being within the 60-day notice-posting period, as Boukin’s case shows, GSU officials appear to be violating the spirit if not the letter of that settlement.
Boukin’s unfair labor practice charges come as federal discrimination charges are pending at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for five Jewish graduate students who requested religious accommodations to paying money to the GSU union. Among other things, these students oppose the union’s advocacy for the anti-Israel “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” (BDS) movement.
“Freedom of association is apparently a foreign concept to GSU union officials, who are flouting layers upon layers of federal law to compel students to fund their radical political agenda,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “However, both this case and Foundation attorneys’ case for the five Jewish MIT graduate students show on a deeper level that the choice to provide support to a union should rest solely with workers, who may have sincere religious, political, or other objections to funding any or all of a union’s activities.”
Northern PA Metal Worker Prevails in Federal Case Charging CWA Union with Illegal Dues Deductions
CWA officials also refused worker’s membership resignation and sought to force him to remain union steward
Galeton, PA (March 3, 2023) – Curtis Coates, an employee of metal corporation Catalus, has successfully forced Communications Workers of America (CWA) union officials to stop illegally seizing money from his paycheck for union politics and ideological causes. National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys represented Coates for free before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Coates charged CWA union officials in May 2022 with unlawfully snubbing both his request to resign from his position as a union shop steward and his request to formally end his union membership. Full union dues deductions also continued to flow out of his paycheck even after his requests. Coates argued that CWA bosses violated his rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
Because Pennsylvania lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, unions can legally coerce workers into paying union fees just to keep their jobs even if they choose not to become union members. However, under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in CWA v. Beck, won by Foundation attorneys, this is limited to only the part of union dues that union officials claim goes toward a union’s core “representational” functions, and excludes deductions for union political or ideological activities. In contrast, in states with Right to Work protections, union membership and all union financial support are both strictly voluntary.
A Foundation-won settlement now requires CWA union officials to post a notice at Coates’ workplace declaring that they “will not fail and refuse to honor your request to resign your union membership,” and “will not fail and refuse to honor your request to resign your role as a union steward.” CWA union officials have also stopped siphoning money for union politics and ideological activities from Coates’ wages.
CWA Forced Dissenting Worker to Remain Shop Steward, Took Full Dues Illegally from Paycheck
According to his charge, Coates sent a message to CWA union officials on October 20, 2021, declaring that he was resigning from his position as shop steward and terminating his union membership. A union official rebuffed both of Coates’ requests the next day, insisting that he had to remain both a union member and a shop steward.
In December 2021, January 2022, and February 2022, Coates followed up with union officials several times via email and mail. He asked when union officials would cease taking dues money from his wages and what process he had to follow to revoke his dues deduction authorization.
Coates’ charge asserted that CWA union officials, by refusing his repeated requests to resign his union membership, violated his rights under Section 7 of the NLRA, which recognizes workers’ right to “refrain from any or all” union activities.
Foundation President: No Place for Compulsory Union Support in Federal Law
“CWA officials summarily denied Mr. Coates’ valid exercise of his right to refrain from union membership, unlawfully seized money for union politics, and even forced him to remain a union shop steward,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The extreme aversion CWA union officials seem to have to any kind of dissociation with the union shows where their focus lies: maintaining forced worker subsidization of union activities and not on respecting workers’ individual rights.”
“Such union malfeasance is only buoyed by federal labor law, which permits states to deny Right to Work protections to private sector workers,” Mix added. “No American worker should be forced to fund any kind of unwanted union purpose as a condition of keeping his or her job, which is why securing Right to Work protections for all Americans is absolutely vital.”
General Motors Worker Forces UAW Bosses to Stop Seizing Dues for Politics
Illegal seizures came after multi-billion-dollar Big Labor political spending
A massive UAW embezzlement scandal didn’t stop UAW officials from ignoring at least two attempts by Roger Clemons to exercise his right to stop subsidizing union political activity.
ROCHESTER, NY – Even after a sweeping federal corruption probe that has resulted in jail sentences for at least 12 union executives, it seems some United Auto Workers (UAW) officials haven’t learned their lesson regarding misuse of worker funds.
Rochester General Motors employee Roger Clemons this January won a settlement forcing UAW officials at his plant to stop illegally funneling money from his paycheck into union politics. Clemons filed federal charges in September 2021 against UAW Local 1097 and the UAW’s international branch, after union agents ignored his requests to opt-out of funding the union’s political agenda. He received free legal representation from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
A Foundation-won settlement required UAW international and local officials to give back to Clemons all money that was deducted from his paycheck in violation of the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision. Beck forbids union officials from forcing workers under their control to fund union politics.
Because New York State lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, union officials can legally force workers to pay a reduced amount of union dues under threat of termination. In Right to Work states, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
UAW Chiefs Repeatedly Violated Worker’s Beck Rights
Clemons stated in his September 2021 charge against UAW Local 1097 officials that UAW officials had a history of flouting his Beck rights, failing to reduce his union dues even after he ended his union membership and became a “Beck objector” in October 2019. “Only after Mr. Clemons filed an [earlier] unfair labor practice charge . . . did the union comply with the requirements of the law,” the charge noted, detailing that union officials finally sent him rebate checks in June and July 2020 for excess dues they took from his paycheck.
However, UAW officials continued to create obstacles for Mr. Clemons’ Beck rights. The September 2021 charge asserted that despite Clemons renewing his Beck objection in October 2020, he then did not receive “a single rebate check or a reduction in the dues deducted from his wages” for almost a year.
Clemons also charged General Motors for its role in enforcing the illegal dues deductions.
The settlement now forbids UAW officials from “accept[ing] dues or fees which have been deducted from the paycheck of Roger Clemons, or any other Beck objector, which are in excess of the amount we can lawfully charge to Beck objectors.” UAW officials also have returned dues that they seized from Clemons above the reduced Beck amount.
Union officials devote enormous sums to political activity. A report the National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) released in 2021 revealed that union officials’ own Department of Labor filings show over $2 billion in political spending during the 2020 election cycle, primarily from dues-stocked union general treasuries. Another study found that actual union spending on political and lobbying activities likely topped $12 billion during the 2020 cycle.
Union Bosses Likely to Splash Cash on 2022 Midterm Elections and Beyond
“Rank-and-file workers should know they have a right to refuse to fund union politics, especially with union political spending in 2020 having approached record numbers and midterm elections coming up,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse. “Workers under UAW control, like Mr. Clemons, have special reason to be on guard, given the UAW’s perennial interest in politics, and because several UAW officials now find themselves behind bars for embezzlement and corruption.”
Boeing Technician Files Federal Lawsuit Against Machinists Union Over Illegal Forced Dues Demands
Instead of reducing nonmember worker’s payments in accordance with Supreme Court precedent, union bosses charged him arbitrary higher amount
Seattle, WA (May 24, 2022) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Seattle Boeing technician Don Zueger is suing International Association of Machinists (IAM) union officials in federal court for violating his right to refrain from paying for unwanted union activities.
Zueger, who is not a member of the IAM union, is defending his right under the Foundation-won 1988 CWA v. Beck U.S. Supreme Court decision, in which the Court ruled that union officials cannot charge full union dues to objecting private sector workers who have abstained from formal union membership. Under Beck, union officials can only charge union nonmembers “fees” which exclude expenses for things like union political activities.
Because Washington State lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, nonmembers like Zueger can be forced to pay the reduced amount under Beck as a condition of keeping their jobs. In Right to Work states, in contrast, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
IAM Officials Continue to Overcharge Worker in Violation of His Rights
According to Zueger’s lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, he submitted a request to IAM union officials in February resigning his union membership and asking for his dues payments to be reduced under Beck.
Zueger’s lawsuit reports that IAM officials’ response to his Beck request claimed that, under IAM’s nationwide policy, the portion of union dues he is required to pay is based on averages of selected audits that in each case include nine other local and district IAM affiliates. This means the forced union fee amount is not calculated using the actual amounts determined in the audits of the local and district IAM affiliates that Zueger is required to fund as a condition of employment. Unsurprisingly, this resulted in Zueger’s dues reduction being significantly less than it would have been had union officials only used the audits for the district and local affiliates Zueger is forced to fund.
According to his lawsuit, union officials are still demanding from Zueger dues in excess of the amount Beck permits. The lawsuit seeks to force IAM union bosses to return all money demanded in violation of Beck and to properly reduce his future union payments in accordance with Beck.
Workers Should Be Wary of Illegal Union Dues Schemes as Union Political Activity Increases
Zueger’s lawsuit comes after union bosses spent near-record sums on politics during the 2020 election cycle. A report by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) released in 2021 revealed that union officials’ own Department of Labor filings show about $2 billion in political spending during the 2020 cycle, primarily from dues-stocked union general treasuries. Moreover, other estimates strongly suggest that actual union spending on political and lobbying activities actually topped $12 billion in 2019-2020.
“It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out when union officials are trying to strong-arm employees into subsidizing union activities, including politics, against their will. IAM officials’ nonmember dues scheme doesn’t pass the smell test,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “While we’re proud to help Mr. Zueger defend his Beck rights, ultimately no American worker should be forced to pay fees determined by the whims of union officials simply in order to keep their jobs.”
“This case shows why Right to Work laws are needed nationwide to ensure that the decision to join or financially support a union is strictly a matter of each individual worker’s own conscience. Workers should be especially aware of attempts by union officials to force them to fund union activities as union political activity heats up in advance of this year’s elections,” 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.