Should unions be forced into transparency?

[Riftaxe]

This is on the assumption you are familiar with Robert Kennedy, some of you might not remember that particular clash with organized labor, but he was not able to bring transparency to union financing. (If you are not, then shame on you)

Should unions be legally mandated for public disclosure of finances?

on edit I mean full public disclosure not the LMRDA, but books open to the public.

[mikehiggins]

1. Sure. Right after Goldman Sachs, etc.

Are you kidding? What possible good would something like that serve, unless giving ammo to the GOPukes and their liars-in-residence is a good thing?

Give me a break.

[Riftaxe]

10. I right behind you on that!

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madrchsod]

3. why? if so then a company should open their books to the public.

[dkf]

5. Yes they should. They all should.

[Riftaxe]

11. Hard to argue with that

we definitely agree on that

[Petrushka]

4. Ah-h, yes! Those were the good ole days . . . when a pension fund became "the mob's bank".

Talk about "brotherhood"! (Oh, Jimmy, dear Jimmy, where art thou?)

http://www.onlinenevada.org/central_states,_southeast,_southwest_areas_pension_fund


:shrug:

[Riftaxe]

12. No one is denying that there was a sniff of corruption

back then, hence why we needed men like RFK to stand up to it, these days it is more white collar crap.

[Sherman A1]

6. Excuse me, but my question is

are they not already? They are democratic institutions who elect their leaders by a vote of the membership. They have to keep books just like any other institution and are responsible to their MEMBERS.

Should they become transparent to all... NO. If you are not a member and the Union is acting within the law, then it is none of your business what the Union is doing or not doing.

[Riftaxe]

15. Technically they don't

They need to open their books to the legislative branch, which by some bizarre happenstance, they also send lots of money to.

[Ikonoklast]

7. Should your buddies the Koch brothers open their books to the public?

Their private holdings aren't subject to outside scrutiny, either.

and if you aren't a union member, and your union is not doing anything illegal (just like any other private organization, church, club, fraternal association, Chamber of Commerce, etc.) you have no right to look at the books without a court order for probable cause.

Unrec.


Your thinly-veiled anti-union sentiment is noted.

[Riftaxe]

16. You put me in a stratosphere far above my station

I am hardly a corporatist. I would love nothing better to drag the corporations into transparency.

[LiberalFighter]

8. Why?

It is member dues and only members are allowed to decide with their vote the financial transactions. The public or government agencies do not make any contributions to labor organizations. Unlike charitable organizations that rely on contributions from the public and businesses to carry out their mission without being members.

All financial transparency would do is provide a means for anti-union businesses and groups to attack labor unions using arguments that appear to be legitimate enough for the public to believe. Remember, the public is too stupid for their own good. Anti-union businesses and groups will only provide info that will put a labor union in a bad light unless the whole picture is provided. i.e. teachers only work 7 hours day.

Businesses that are involved with a labor union on organizing their employees will employ union busting means one of which are individuals mainly from law firms that use illegal means and fail to file required NLRB reports. Not much transparency there.

There are two types of businesses. Publicly owned and Privately owned. Publicly owned are companies that are traded on the stock exchange. They have provide certain information including salaries, income, expenses, etc. They only have to reveal what the SEC and federal law requires. Privately owned businesses do not have to open their books to just anyone to the extent that publicly owned businesses are required.

Publicly owned businesses have stock-owners. They meet generally once a year to vote mostly on non-financial issues. Labor unions generally meet once a month to hear reports, vote on financial and non-financial issues. And they communicate with all of their members on a regular basis through in-plant and mail.

When outside organizations want financial transparency with labor unions they are only interested in total annihilation of union members having a voice.

[Riftaxe]

14. A thoughtful response at least and something

we can kind of agree and disagree upon.

Full financial transparency would provide public and MEMBERS to see how where the money is going.

I was no mean suggesting that we are anywhere near back in the days when union bosses had to decide between nantucket or aspen for their 4th home. Those days are long gone thanks to thoughtful labor laws.

However, I don't see why the only people who get to see union financial are those in the government they pay off, they should open the books to the rank and file, and yes the public.

[LiberalFighter]

17. Members do get to see the finances.

A financial report is given at each monthly meeting. And any member can request to review it during working hours. Sometimes they may be posted at the union hall each month. It is the members that determine at their monthly membership meetings how those funds are spent.

The public does not provide the finances for the labor unions. The members do. It is their organization. And just as finances the public is not entitled to attend labor union meetings unless given a special invite. And usually Regular Order of Business will be suspended and Sergeant-at-Arms brings the guest into the meeting to present any information they wish to give. Then they must leave when they are finished.

As far as those in the government they pay off. Did you forget that since 1953 Republicans have controlled the WH for 9 terms while it will be at least 6 terms for the Democrats?

And Labor Unions don't have bosses. You are using the Republican terminology. Bosses don't get elected by their employees. Union members are not employees. Union members elect their officers for a set number of years usually 3 year terms. And some unions might have additional limitations on how long they can serve. Unlike bosses, who keep their job until they retire, resign, or booted out by board members.

[Kingofalldems]

9. OP should be transparent also

Unrec for anti-union tone.

[Riftaxe]

13. How the hell do you get anti union

from my post?

on edit, kneejerk braindead response, i forgive you.