October 22, 2007

Unions Got Their Money's Worth

The unions got their quid pro quo from Congressional Democrats in this session for the millions of dollars the unions spent on their election to power. The Democrats have cut back funding on a key oversight agency for unions, helping their partners to become more opaque in their political projects and to allow corruption to twist the collective bargaining for their members:

Within the last several weeks, the AFL-CIO’s second-in-command sent letters to major accounting firms asking that independent auditors give a more thorough going-over of corporations’ financial disclosures and stock options grants. The unions are for disclosure, and they mean business (or would that be “anti-business”?).

Yet at the same time, union-funded politicians in Congress are successfully pushing forward in their campaign to slash the budget for the Department of Labor agency responsible for overseeing how union leaders spend their members’ money. Think of this organization — the Office of Labor-Management Standards — as the SEC for unions. ...

More importantly, OLMS investigates abuse of dues money and monitors compliance with accounting requirements. It’s getting the job done. Since 2001 the courts have ordered restitution of $70 million in OLMS criminal cases. That’s real union money that union bosses are really trying to keep covered up.

Perhaps union officials and their allies in Congress are embarrassed about what the public finds in the union financial disclosures overseen by the agency.

Perhaps. They always seemed beyond embarrassment in their relentless support for Democrats in elections, even when Republican policies generated economic growth and investment -- and jobs. The Democrats offer the ability to dodge transparency, however, and that has more allure for union bosses than a growing economy, which explains why workers have increasingly rejected unions over the last few decades.

The OLMS points out far too many "inconvenient truths", as one Democrat might put it. For instance, it reported that only 43 of 643 union audits showed financial compliance. That's a whopping 6%, meaning 94% of all unions can't pass a financial audit. It doesn't seem very surprising, since millions of worker dollars end up at the Democratic Party. If a group of publicly-held corporations had a 6% failure rate for their financial audits, the Democrats and unions would scream bloody murder, let alone a 94% failure rate.

Why do Democrats want to reduce federal oversight while unions have a 94% failure rate on their audits? Wouldn't that indicate a need for more oversight, and perhaps some investigations into potential fraud and other criminal conduct? If not, what kind of failure rate would Democrats need to see before enforcing the law and protecting the American worker? 95%? 96%? 100%? Or would that not be enough, either, to keep Democrats from giving their union partners a pass?

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhair.cgi/15228

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Unions Got Their Money's Worth:

» 94% of all unions can’t pass a financial audit. from Right Voices
How can that be? Well, Ed has a good analysis of the situation, and the most ethical Congress has their hands all over it. Ed: The unions got their quid pro quo from Congressional Democrats in this session for the millions of dollars the unions spent... [Read More]

» I Thought The Democrats Were All About Transparency from Liberty Pundit
Apparently not: Union officials have been feeling their oats after claiming credit for Democra… Popularity: unranked [?]... [Read More]

» BUDGET CUTS from Word Around the Net
Yet recently, Democrats found a domestic program they thought should be cut, the first in over 100 years of Democratic Party policy. What was this program? The Office of Labor-Management Standards. This is a Securities and Exchange Commission for union... [Read More]

Comments (13)

Posted by jpe | October 22, 2007 12:06 PM

I searched the site for that 94% failure rate, but couldn't find it. Specifically, I'm looking for what constitutes a deficiency.

At any rate, IIRC Bush was looking for a massive increase at OLMS, way out of proportion to other DoL increases or prior year increases to OLMS. Reducing his request is just budget management at work.

Posted by quickjustice | October 22, 2007 12:14 PM

This isn't even a surprise. The unions and the trial lawyers own the Democrat Party.

This is ONLY agency on the domestic side of the federal government that the Democrats have cut. Why is that, exactly?

Posted by Sage McLaughlin | October 22, 2007 12:15 PM

Fair enough, jpe. But if it could be demonstrated that the 94% failure rate was true, would you support substantially more oversight? Would you agree that a "massive increase" was necessary, since it's obvious that current levels are insufficient to the task? My guess is it's not the budget you object to, but the mission.

Posted by daytrader | October 22, 2007 1:46 PM

I will try to find the sats for jpe later but here is just one quick example from using a search engine to pick up one letter of repremand.

 

Posted by daytrader | October 22, 2007 1:51 PM

jpe

Here is a link to the page with all the compliance letter linked off of it, it may not be the stats, but at least you can go review some of the letters when you have time. 

 

Posted by daytrader | October 22, 2007 1:56 PM

Here is an excellent summary of the program and it's purpose and a good view of their mission statement and goals with data on some of the historic performance.

Posted by daytrader | October 22, 2007 2:07 PM

Reducing their budget is of concern because union audits are only a part of their job. The also monitor federal contractors (for the left think of all those road building and bridge contracts) also wage standard compliance and many other areas.

All this will take a hit right along with union enforcement.

Posted by unclesmrgol | October 22, 2007 2:38 PM

It sounds to me like most unions are legitimate targets of RICO.

My daughter received a mail packet from SEIU indicating that, in spite of her non-membership status in the union, as a condition of her continued employment by LAUSD she would be required to pay full union dues. The whole amount would be deducted from her paycheck unless she opted out of paying the portion due for "non-representational" costs. They also indicated that she could dispute the "representational" costs set by the union before an arbitrator if she felt they were too high.

Thoughtfully, the union included a membership application with the letter. It did not include an "opt out" form, requiring her to contact the Union office if she wished such a form, and was even more vague on how to dispute the "representational" costs (only the paragraph stating that fact was present, and no process given).

I find the whole process to be vaguely like the late and lamented "do not call" list maintained by the government -- why should I have to affirmatively "opt out" of receiving ill-mannered calls from people I do not know during my dinner time, as opposed to "opt in"?

Posted by kingronjo | October 22, 2007 3:29 PM

unclesmrgol, consider your daughter a victim. Here in FL its a right to work state. I have no idea if that goes for teachers tho.

My wife is eligible for Union membership (federal Union). She opted out (thats a whole 'nother story on that process) a few years back but since changing offices she wants to join again to show soidarity for the hard work of her steward. When she asked the steward for the forms, including the form to opt out of the 'non-representational costs' she got the blank stare.

"ALL our money goes for YOU, none to politics," was the answer. Then she went up the chain of the Union, same "who me?" BS. My wife refuses to join now until those forms are forthcoming. The claim is there are no such forms. Anywhere. She will never see them cuz once she does, the rest of the office will opt out also. And the word will spread to other offices in the area how to do it so its worth her not being a member to them to keep the djinni in the bottle.

As a side note, she contacted her Congressman (a Republican) he was clueless and unhelpful. You would think every Republican Congressional staffer would have info like that on their fingertips.

And jpe, if Pres Bush asked to double the funding for an industry with a 94% financial audit failure rate that has 12% of the work force as members, that still might not be enough.

Posted by essucht | October 22, 2007 3:52 PM

I remember a few years ago the FBI claiming that 90% of unions had mob infiltration to at least some extent - so I guess it is no surprise they are hostile to the government looking into what they may be up to.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 22, 2007 4:04 PM

"claiming that 90% of unions had mob infiltration"

Back in my day, that number would have been 100%!

Those mugs are really sleeping on the job. Pathetic.

Posted by Mwalimu Daudi | October 22, 2007 4:51 PM

I guess that it's only fair that we drop the "do-nothing" label for the current Congress. Making the country safe for union goons is an accomplishment - of sorts.

Still, this small success pales in comparison to the failure of the Democrat Congress to meet al Qaeda's benchmarks. A previous Democrat Congress managed to aid and abet genocide in Southeast Asia after the end of the Vietnam War - surely the Democrat Party’s proudest accomplishment since fighting a war to protect slavery and enacting Jim Crow laws. That is the mark the current Congress strove for (and missed so badly) in Iraq. Bad show, lady and gentlemen!

Posted by eaglewings | October 22, 2007 7:21 PM

If Bush were smart he would merge this unit with a unit with higher funding, or excess funding, and then tell them to use the excess funding to continue their good work. It should probably be move to an OSHA section or some other DOL area of the law that libs would not be able to cut funding for, without a large hue and cry from their constituents.

Post a comment