U.S.: Large Unions Must Disclose Finances

[bluedog]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&ncid=703&e=6&u=/ap/20031003/ap_on_go_pr_wh/unions_finances

U.S.: Large Unions Must Disclose Finances



By LEIGH STROPE, AP Labor Writer

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration issued new regulations Friday requiring the nation's largest labor unions to disclose details of their finances, including how much they spend on politics and lobbying, gifts, overhead and management.



The rules will force unions with income of more than $250,000 to provide much more financial detail in the annual forms they are required to file with the Labor Department (news - web sites). The forms haven't been updated in more than 40 years, administration officials say.


snip


The rules take effect next year, though unions will not have to file a report until March 2005.


Large unions now can lump together much of their transactions. For example, one form filed with the department said a union spent $62 million on "disbursement of grants to joint projects with state and local affiliates." Another reported $4 million spent on "sundry expenses."

more....

[hatrack]

1. But if Cheney hides Energy Task Force records . . .

a.k.a. oil maps of Iraq & Saudi Arabia, that's OK.

Oh, I see.

[pw]

2. Is that a typo?

If it truly applies to all unions with income of more than $250,000, then that's pretty much every serious union in the country. If your union dues were $20 a month, you'd need just over 1,000 members to come under the law.

(And of course for the unions toward the bottom end of the income scale, complying with the regs will probably mean cutting something nonessential like, say, the strike fund or a paid greivance officer or a bookkeeper...)

[Gman]

4. This includes every LOCAL union too

(as in Local #1234) not just entire the international unions. There are many locals with dues revenue over $250K per year.

This means every local union's finances will be scrutinized even closer. The right wing has wanted this for years. They first tried it during Bush I but it didn't fly. Things were OK during Clinton. But now, it's anything the Bush "administation" wants and everyone is fucked.

The next step will be to start nitpicking every single think in the LM reports for every local.

[demdave]

3. Transparency and accountability are good things for all.

I will be very interested in knowing where the union dues go. I see no reason to tolerate what I have always thought was a goldmine for the corrupt in the unions.

[Gman]

5. Your union's books are open to inspection any time you want

to make an appointment with the Secretary-Treasurer. No questions asked. It's your legal right as a member. If you have questions about where your money is going, go review the books. Most memberships also vote on a lot of expenditures and approve budgets in membership meetings. If you want to know, go find out, BUT.....

DON"T GIVE THE DAMN REPUBLICANS A GOOD EXCUSE TO GO THROUGH YOUR UNION"S BOOKS ANY DAMN TIME THEY FEEL LIKE NITPICKING IN THE NAME OF UNION BUSTING.......

That's the real intent of this. It's union busting in it's purest form. The people that make these regulations couldn't give a fat RAT's ass about the working people. They only care about business AND RATS (SCABS).

[24HRrnr]

15. No questions asked

but I damn near got my ass kicked asking to see the books of Teamsters Local 36!

Open the books.

[w4rma]

6. Do corporations have to disclose their finances in the same manner?

I support this for unions if corporations are treated exactly the same way.

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. Public ones do

Public corporations have huge accountability issues.

I don't see why anyone would object to unions being open. Most union members don't have time to go through the books on their own. This way, you can be sure someone will.

[pw]

8. The level of details appears greater than for public corporations

much less privately-held ones.

Depending on how the regulations are drafted, how often they change, and how arbitrary and capricious the local feds are, I can see this essentially soaking up all the dues income of smaller unions and larger locals, at least for the first few years.

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. Private companies

Are by definition private. The union is a membership organization that then seeks to influence local and national politics. I would like to see the regs treated much the same way business regs are -- stricted for bigger organizations.

[Gman]

9. NO! Corporations do NOT have to disclose their expenses

this way. Corporations disclose their expenditures under such terms as "Cost Of Goods Sold", Selling Expense, Contract Expenses and other vague to the viewer terms. Corporations can very easily hide expenses in anyway they want. Why do you think things like Adelphia or Global Crossing happen?

These disclosures are going to be very draconian on labor unions. Exact expenditures and who or what it was for will have to be listed. Corporations do NOT have to go through anywhere near this level of disclosure.

It's bullshit union busting. The sole purpose it to make it much harder for unions to operate and to neutralize union political expenditures as much as possible politically.

[pfitz59]

10. I wanna see Chao's books!

I wanna see the Bush family accounts!I wanna see the old ARAMCO's finances! I want us to invade the Cayman Islands and expose every dirty little offshore secret! Fuck the BFEE!

[Born Free]

11. Money invested in Union Trust funds goes to anti-union groups

It's ironic, as the bush team cracks down on unions, they endorse the corporations hiding the money (invested by union trust funds) they donate to right wing groups, some of which are anti-union groups trying to destroy unions.

[Gman]

13. Unions will also attend shareholder meetings

and introduce resolutions that would force the company to stop those practices. The unions usually don't win because the boards control too many shares.

[MGKrebs]

14. Large onions? Like Vidalia's?

Since when did onions start having "finances"? And how would an onion "disclose" anything anyway?




Bear with me, it's Friday. :-)