Posts tagged LMRDA
LaborLab Exposes Employers’ Use of Anti-Union Persuaders in Recent Filings
July 29, 2025 // Among the notable cases, The Tustin Group in Fairfield, NJ, and American Rock Products in Yakima, WA, were found to have engaged persuader services at significant hourly rates. American Rock Products’ case is particularly striking as the union won the election, yet the consulting agreement was filed post-election. Similarly, Alro Steel Corporation in Jackson, MI, and Medix Ambulance Service in Hillsboro, OR, have also been implicated, with the former’s union losing the election and the latter’s case still open. These revelations underscore the importance of transparency and adherence to labor laws in protecting workers’ rights to organize. The delayed filings by some employers raise questions about the effectiveness of current regulations and the need for stricter enforcement to prevent undue influence on union elections
Unveiling Financial Transparency Failures in Labor Organizations
July 24, 2025 // In 2024 alone, the DOL recorded 177 union enforcement actions involving fraud, embezzlement, wire fraud, and falsified records. These are only the crimes that rise to the level of federal prosecution. Far more ethical violations, financial misuses, and questionable behaviors fall below the radar leaving union members in the dark and are quietly buried through internal repayments, hush resignations, or legal threats — all without any formal DOL investigation or public accountability. Despite 16 years as a union official, I did not become aware of the existence of LM-2 financial disclosure filings until our local filed a lawsuit against our state affiliate. Imagine that: even as a union president and past treasurer, I was unaware that both our state and national unions were required to submit LM-2 forms to the Department of Labor. If someone like me — deeply engaged in union governance — was kept in the dark, how can we expect average members to know their rights, much less exercise them?
Michael Watson: Improving Union Annual Reporting
July 3, 2025 // Especially following the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which “collection” is funding what spending is important information for union members, and they deserve ready, single-site access. (Citizens United overturned a Taft-Hartley Act–derived ban on using union dues revenues for independent expenditures on behalf of candidates.) They should not need to cross-reference Federal Election Commission (FEC) reports and Labor Department reports to infer which pot of money paid for which spending. Instead, the Labor Department or Congress should revise the LM-2 form to require labor unions to specify the funding source, perhaps by adding a new schedule for expenditures to or by the “Separate Segregated Fund” (the technical name for the “second collection” pot of money) or by requiring specification of the source of funds for Schedule 16 and 17 expenditures related to politics and advocacy.
A Taft-Hartley Roundup of Recent Labor News
June 25, 2025 // For just shy of 80 years, conservative Americans and the Republican Party that provides their imperfect electoral vehicle have sought to advance a policy consensus on labor relations based on three principles: ensuring union membership and participation is voluntary, scrutinizing unions’ operations in exchange for their government-granted powers, and protecting the public from the fallout from labor disputes. As America sits by the pool at the beginning of what might prove to be a long, hot summer, what news is there about the Taft-Hartley consensus?
Walberg, Allen Seek Feedback on Path to Give Rank-And-File Workers a Bigger Voice in Unions
May 28, 2025 // “Too often, rank‑and‑file workers lack the timely information and meaningful voice they need to hold elected leaders accountable for both fiscal and political decisions. Recent misconduct cases, ranging from embezzlement to unauthorized political expenditures, underscore the need for a modernized framework that prioritizes the rights of individual members to hold union leadership accountable and that provides individual union members with more control over how labor organizations operate.”
Why is DOL Letting Front Groups for Big Labor Avoid the Law?
October 17, 2024 // An explanation of why OLMS chose the specific worker centers that it listed in section 030.613 of the Manual. An explanation of the methodology that OLMS used in evaluating each of the worker centers listed in section 030.613 of the Manual and OLMS’s analysis for each. An explanation of the circumstances in which OLMS initiated its analyses for the worker centers listed in section 030.613 of the Manual.
Unregulated Organizing: Analysis of the Worker Center Movement
November 18, 2021 // A newly released report by the Institute for the American Worker (I4AW) provides an analysis of worker centers and how they manage to avoid legal requirements placed on labor unions but operate in a similar manner.