Retired Union Associate Member, SHUPER, DON

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?