These comments are directed to the following portion of the LM-2 revisons noted in 29 CFR
Parts 403 and 408 RIN 1215–AB62 Final Rules published on Jan 21,2009 FR 3678 which has
been delayed until late 2009 pending comments due 21 May 2009 :
A- RE LM2 item 21, Dues and Fees and Schedule 13
Item A Dues and Fees.
Improvement in disclosure is needed in this area to be combined with Schedule 13
information. I Suggest that a monthly count of member/Feepayer and Fee or dues rates
number(s) be provided for each category of Feepayers. Expansion on this item follows. See
also attached pdf file FEEPAYERS v LM2
Some unions define monthly dues as a percentage of wages of the combined bargaining
unit, calculated on a contract year basis, which may not match with the Union fiscal year. Thus
one level of dues may be paid/deducted for 9 to 10 months, and a second level for 2 to 3
months.
The current and proposed LM2 form does NOT handle this case, and it makes it
impossible to track just how much dues are really collected on a monthly or yearly basis. It is
virtually impossible to suspect, track or determine any skimming if, as is typical, the
membership and dues rates vary during the Union Fiscal year.
Agency or other Fee payers are not properly covered or identified, providing even greater
financial black holes and opportunities for skimming. There are several related issues.
Generally, there may be 3 or 4 types of non regular member Fee payers. For example:
1) Agency Fees are often paid by employees personal check and at the same rate as
dues, depending on State law and company payroll practice. Such non-member Dues/Fees
may be paid quarterly or monthly or other schedule. There is NO traceability or chance to check
on real dues income other than a specific look at the books in careful detail, which is not likely
to happen given the majority membership apathy, peer pressure, Officer pressure, Staff pressure
or outright retaliation typical of many unions. Tacking a few transparency activist hides on the
union wall is a significant deterrent.
By existing statute, the DOL is typically forbidden to assist the member whose rights have
been violated. The member who does get stonewalled re financial documents must go to
federal court with sufficient evidence to force access to such documents, which often results in
significant financial and career limiting issues. Despite various statutes, there is NO effective
oversight of union finances without significant risk. If lucky, the member might get legal Fees
paid.
2) Beck Objectors who either pay a supposed reduced rate, or have to file for a rebate.
Again there is NO way to discern either the numbers of such people or the correctness of the so
called BECK audit which may not meet acceptable accounting standards. Beck objectors
cannot get access to union data to support or refute, and members are discouraged from asking.
Another opening to major skimming of dues.
3) Religious Objectors- While they are counted as non member Fee payers, and lumped in
with Agency Fee payers who cannot vote, etc., their real numbers are unknown. Since they pay
NO Fees, again it is impossible to correlate non member Feepayers with expected or trackable
dues.
4) Retired,Associate, or other non regular member Feepayer categories with varying dues
also impact any correlation with union "member " numbers and dues collected. In my union (
SPEEA) for example, as a retired Associate member with no voting rights, I can pay 2 different
levels of dues for yearly membership with no difference in benefits. As a result, while counted
as a class of members, I and many others pay either 1 one month of dues annually, or NO dues
if I join a local union recognized retirement club or affiliate. Other persons in the Industry but not
a previous member can pay 3 months of dues annually.
Again this shows a need for a monthly count by dues income by kind of member/Feepayer
if, as intended, the members are to have ANY chance of checking or discovering dues skimming
or even getting a hint there may be a problem.
The attached pdf file FeePAYERS v LM2 is an example of the above.
Just how many Beck objectors, Agency Feepayers, Associate members, and religious objector
make up the total non member Feepayers is unknown. So how can any member determine any
dues skimming or the amount without the sacrosanct monthly dues income breakdown?
Retired Union Associate Member, SHUPER, DON
This is comment on Proposed Rule
Labor Organization Annual Financial Reports
View Comment
Related Comments
View AllPublic Submission Posted: 04/28/2009 ID: LMSO-2008-0002-0197
Jun 22,2009 11:59 PM ET
Public Submission Posted: 05/01/2009 ID: LMSO-2008-0002-0198
Jun 22,2009 11:59 PM ET
Public Submission Posted: 05/01/2009 ID: LMSO-2008-0002-0199
Jun 22,2009 11:59 PM ET
Public Submission Posted: 05/01/2009 ID: LMSO-2008-0002-0200
Jun 22,2009 11:59 PM ET
Public Submission Posted: 05/01/2009 ID: LMSO-2008-0002-0201
Jun 22,2009 11:59 PM ET