As Michigan continues to struggle through its severe and
stubborn one-state recession, the option of becoming a right-to-work state is
likely to become more and more attractive. For decades right-to-work states have
had a significant advantage in job creation and are catching up to Michigan in
terms of incomes as well. Under a right-to-work law Michigan workers could no
longer be forced to pay union dues or fees in order to hold a job; workers would
have the final say as to whether or not a union has earned their support.
(Click to enlarge)In a 2007 study, the author analyzes the economic benefits a right-to-work law would generate in Michigan.
Opponents of a right-to-work law will make all sorts of
arguments about the evils of this common-sense reform, but every argument boils
down to one thing: the claim that unions need to collect dues from every worker
they represent in order to represent those workers effectively. This argument
becomes much less compelling when one looks at union financial reports.
Every year unions across the country, from international
federations down to the larger locals, are required to file LM-2 forms with the
U.S. Department of Labor. These forms detail union finances, allowing insights
into a union’s priorities and revealing how much money they really need to
represent their members.
But even with this very generous definition of what constitutes a representation expense, our review of union financial reports reveals that a typical union local in Michigan spends little more than half of its money on representing its members.
There are a lot of unions — in Michigan and across the country —
that seem to have lost their focus. Take for example UAW Local 600 in Dearborn.
According to that local’s LM-2, it spent most of its budget representing workers
in 2007, which sounds good until one looks at what they consider a
"representation" expense, like spending $36,000 on sports, including $10,000 on
softball field rentals and $26,000 on basketball and softball uniforms. That
wasn’t a one-time expense, either. The same local spent more than $40,000 on
softball diamond rentals and uniforms, and another $8,000 on a golf outing the
year before. When one adds in expenditures for pizza, an annual picnic, a
Christmas party, and shirts and jackets, one finds more than $100,000 in
"representation" expenditures that have little to do with collective bargaining
or pursuing grievances.
Local 600 isn’t alone in trying to pass off entertainment
expenses as "representation." In 2006, UAW Locals 174 and 3000 each spent more
than $10,000 apiece on tickets to Cedar Point Amusement Park.
But even with this very generous definition of what constitutes
a representation expense, our review of union financial reports reveals that a
typical union local in Michigan spends little more than half of its money on
representing its members. Many locals report overhead and administrative
expenses that exceed spending on their core responsibility of worker
representation.
Incredible as it may seem, there are union locals in Michigan
that were forced to admit on their LM-2 reports that they spent zero dollars
representing members. And that goose-egg doesn’t just include goods and services
bought with union funds; it also includes the salaries of their officers and
staff, who apparently went through an entire year without spending any
significant time representing members.
Among those was the Oakwood Employees Association, an AFSCME
affiliate that in 2007 spent nearly $80,000 dollars of its members’ dues money
on a wide range of items: $1,700 on contributions, gifts and grants, $20,000 on
overhead and nearly $57,000 on union administration. But under "representational
activities" there is simply "$0" — none of their money or time went to
collective bargaining or grievances, supposedly the main reason workers join
unions in the first place. This wasn’t necessarily a fluke — the same local
reported no money or staff time on representation in 2006, and another AFSCME
local, the St. Joseph Mercy Hospital Employees’ Union, also reported no
representation costs for both of those years
Union claims that they must have every dues dollar in order to
represent workers effectively would carry more weight if unions were lean
organizations that focused on representing workers, but that simply isn’t the
case for a lot of Michigan locals. The unions’ own reports suggest that many
locals are unfocused and even bloated. Individual workers are in the best
position to decide what their union’s needs are; financial support for unions
should be left to their discretion.
#####
Paul Kersey is director of labor policy for the Mackinac Center
for Public Policy, a research and educational institute headquartered in
Midland, Mich. Permission to reprint
in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author and the Center
are properly cited.
