"Labor Department figures show that investigations of union fraud from 2001-2008 resulted in more than 1,000 indictments, with 929 convictions and court-ordered restitution of more than $93 million." --The Associated Press1,000 indictments, with 92.9% convicted of wrong-doing. Now, why would the Obama administration want to rescind a regulation approved (January, 2009) during President Bush's last days in office that would have increased scrutiny of union finances to help root out financial corruption? Because the unions say that the new rule is "overly burdensome" and "would have little effect" on efforts to detect fraud.
"From our perspective, the only interest served by this rule was to harass unions," said AFL-CIO attorney James Coppess. Well, Mr. Coppess, it seems that when the unions have to report all income and expenses on their LM2's to the DOL's Office of Labor-Management Standards, the agency's criminal enforcement program uses that information to investigate embezzlement and other types of union fraud. The rule is serving the interest of union members. And with a 92.9% conviction rate, they seem rather good at protecting members and catching the right union crooks.
Why are unions really against the new rule? Well, it would have required unions to disclose even more information about compensation of union officers and employees, details about buying and selling union assets and additional information about union receipts. You'd thinks the guys that create Executive PayWatch would be all about transparency, but apparently not. Makes you wonder what it is they're hiding...
Bottom line, look for another pro-labor action from Obama's office, designed to a pay back the unions for buying him into office, as the current reporting rule will most likely be eliminated completely. This will be unfortunate, because as Senator Mike Enzi, top Republican on the Senate Health, Education and Labor Committee stated, "this rule might prevent union members from becoming the victims of fraud."

0 comments:
Post a Comment