BUDGET CUTS

“There is something about a Republican that you can only stand him for so long; and on the other hand, there is something about a Democrat that you can't stand him quite that long.”
-Will Rogers

The Democrats have long had a reputation for always growing the federal government and refusing to cut anything, unless it was related to the military or intelligence (you know, things the US Constitution permits the government to do, that protect its people). In past years, however, the Republican party has demonstrated it's not interested in cutting anything and loves to grow the government in all sorts of ways.

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 unions, it in essence oversees union activity to make sure that they are not violating the law, are using their union dues properly, and so on. The Examiner has the story:

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.

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.

Captain Ed at the Captain's Quarters examined this story and pointed out an inconsistency in union politics:

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.

According to the Examiner article, only 6% of union audits showed financial compliance. In other words, 94% couldn't pass an audit. This might have something to do with why the unions want this office's budget slashed. Readers at the Captain's Quarters discussed the news:

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.
-by jpe

[The OLMS stats were from a freedom of information act request gathered by the Center for Union Facts]

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.
-by daytrader


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"?
-by unclesmrgol


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.
-by Kingronjo

The examiner story had a couple examples of union misuse of funds:

There was the union boss who drove off with a $50,000 parting gift — a Cadillac — as his retirement gift. There are the tens of thousands of dollars spent at steakhouses, including $13,000 from one transportation union alone.

Don’t even ask about the resorts (though UFCW members should ask why their officials spent more than $1 million at a luxurious Florida resort over the last two years). Those are just the cases when the unions comply with current financial disclosure guidelines.

That's just two samples of misuse of funds, the most common and egregious is the use of union dues to pay lobbyists, advertisers, and donate to politicians. Technically members are able to opt out of these payments but that's easier said than done. According to the Weekly Standard, Department of Labor data indicates that there have been almost 760 convictions in the last six years by OLMS for stealing union funds, a 26 percent increase, and over $70 million worth of restitution has been court ordered.

By comparison, the budgets of many other labor-related government agencies were increased, such as the Bureau of International Labor Affairs, for which President Bush requested a $14 million increase, and congress handed a $70 million. This cut was not out of some fiscal restraint or concern over a budget being too big for a certain office. It was out of loyalty to the unions who wanted less oversight. Nice work, congress.

What I find particularly odd is that as commenter daytrader points out, part of the OLMS purview are federal contractors, the people building and working on federal projects like, say, the bridges that are in such need of rebuilding and replacement. The fact that this budget was slashed in the face of the very recent 35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis is something that ought to be given some press and attention, I'd think.

The question any good conservative ought to ask here is this: is the OLMS constitutional? Well, that's up to some debate, although federal oversight of trade organizations that are in more than one state is a reasonable interpretation of the interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution. In any case, a constitutional argument would call for the bureau to be closed, not crippled.

The Democrats in congress are actually getting a few things done; they're just not very good things for America, or you. Again, something to consider.

Democratic Party, US Congress, Unions, Budget