us-dol-150x150-5311072A proposed rule under consideration by the U.S. Department of Labor would have the unexpected benefit of letting more New York public employees see how their union dues are spent—and negating a major union’s recent move to escape federal oversight.

Federal law requires unions representing private-sector workers to file annual financial reports, and lets members see how the money is spent by their local, statewide and national labor organizations. It also provides safeguards to make sure unions follow their own rules when electing officers, among other things. That’s in stark contrast to New York State’s Taylor Law regulating public-sector collective bargaining, which requires virtually no transparency or accountability on the part of unions for which government employers collect tens of millions of dollars in dues annually.

The potential New York impact comes from the U.S. Labor Department move this week to resurrect a rule, first proposed in 2003, expanding unions subject to federal reporting requirements to include “intermediate bodies” that don’t have private-sector members but are “subordinate” to national unions that do, such as the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). The rationale: so much money moves up and down between the layers of labor unions that a private-sector employee needs to be able to see more of the checkbooks from which his or her money might get spent. 

From the DOL filing:

“Union members concerned about payments to and from public sector intermediate labor organizations subordinate to a covered national or international labor organization do not have access to the quality and quantity of information available to members of unions that have historically filed the Department’s annual disclosure forms. Absent such disclosures, union members know less about the governance of their unions and cannot fully monitor the spending of their dues monies. They cannot fully apprise themselves of the financial commitments and obligations of their union. They are disadvantaged in their ability to make informed decisions when electing their union officers, and they do not have detailed information about the funding decisions made by incumbent officeholders.”

After the rule was first proposed early in the George W. Bush administration, it was challenged and ultimately upheld in federal court, only to be reversed under President Barack Obama before it could be enforced. 

If finalized, it will affect at least three New York-based unions representing 70,000 members, the largest of which is the 51,000-member Public Employees Federation (PEF).

PEF is affiliated with both the AFT and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), each of which have affiliates representing some private-sector employees. That makes PEF an “intermediate body” subject to added disclosure under the federal rule. PEF recently stopped representing private-sector workers specifically so it could dodge that very federal oversight. 

While DOL’s rules were crafted with private-sector SEIU and AFT members in mind, PEF members also would benefit from having the federal government keep an eye on union affairs, which have seen a string of disputed elections and embezzlement cases. PEF certainly isn’t alone in that regard: absent a state oversight regime, the past nine years has seen at least 43 publicized instances of New York public-sector union officers or employees stealing funds totaling no less than $3.5 million.

Two other New York government unions apparently covered by the Labor Department’s “intermediate bodies” definition would be AFSCME District Council 35, which represents Buffalo-area public employees, and the United Public Service Employees Union, which represents local government and school district employees in eastern New York and Long Island. All told, the move would affect about 70,000 New Yorkers.

You may also like

One of New York’s Biggest Medicaid Contractors Is Quietly Acquiring a Competitor

Author's note: This post has been updated to correct an error in the second paragraph. As state lawmakers debate the future of Medicaid home care, one of the program's bigg Read More

The Union Gave Them the Wrong Data. The Pols Cited It Anyway.

The episode shows the extent to which New York elected officials fail to question the state’s public employee unions—or look at data themselves. Read More

New York’s Home Health Workforce Jumped by 12 Percent in One Year

New York's home health workforce has continued its pattern of extraordinary growth, increasing by 62,000 jobs or 12 percent in a single year, according to newly released data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Read More

While New York’s Medicaid Budget Soared, Public Health Funding Languished

Four years after a devastating pandemic, the state has made no major investment to repair or improve its public health defenses. While funding for Medicaid over the past four years Read More

Unions are pressing bogus arguments for blowing up NY’s public pension debts

New York's public employee unions are arguing, without evidence, that state lawmakers need to retroactively sweeten the pensions of workers who have been on the job for more than a decade. In fact, state and federal data show why state lawmakers shouldn't. Read More

A Medicaid Grant Recipient Sponsors a Pro-Hochul Publicity Campaign

While much of the health-care industry is attacking Governor Hochul's Medicaid budget, at least one organization is rallying to her side: Somos Community Care, a politically active medical group in the Bronx that recently r Read More

New Jersey’s Pandemic Report Shines Harsh Light on a New York Scandal

A recently published independent review of New Jersey's pandemic response holds lessons for New York on at least two levels. First, it marked the only serious attempt by any state t Read More

Senate, Assembly Budget Plans Include $4B Pension Giveaway

A little-noticed provision in lawmakers’ budget proposals would also be the most costly: their proposal to change state retirement rules would slam New York taxpayers with more than $4 billion in new debt, and immediately drive up pension costs, by retroactively sweetening the pension benefits of public employees. Read More