Imagine being forced to write a check for hundreds of dollars each year to an organization, only to discover that it distributed your money to shadowy groups you don’t recognize or mysterious purposes like “Corona sponsor.” In addition, you have no practical way to find out what these recipients actually do with your contribution. This is the reality facing millions of union members today, thanks to the Office of Labor-Management Standards’ failure to enforce basic reporting requirements that are supposed to shed light on how unions spend member dues.
While workers receive detailed disclosures about every dollar employers spend on labor consultants, union members remain largely in the dark about substantial union expenditures that could be funding political activities, advocacy campaigns, or questionable organizations that bear little resemblance to the charitable work members expect their dues to support. This transparency gap exists not because the law permits it, but because OLMS fails to enforce existing reporting requirements with the same rigor it applies to employers.
The Schedule 17 Problem
Schedule 17 requires unions to report “Contributions, Gifts, and Grants” and mandates that unions “give the specific purpose for each disbursement of over $5,000.” This isn’t a suggestion–it’s a clear regulatory requirement. Yet a review of union filings reveals systematic disregard for this mandate that would never be tolerated from employer reports.
Consider the evidence: Unions routinely report substantial payments with purposes listed simply as “donation,” “contribution,” or worse—leaving the purpose field entirely blank. When 32 Teamster entities contributed over $600,000 to a newly-created organization in late 2024, most provided no meaningful purpose description beyond generic terms like “donation” or “funds to support mission.” One local even reported a $25,000 payment with the cryptic purpose of “Corona sponsor.”
This isn’t isolated non-compliance. It’s systematic disregard for reporting requirements that OLMS actively enforces against employers.
The Enforcement Disparity
When employers and consultants file Forms LM-10, 20 and 21 reports, OLMS demands precision. Vague descriptions are rejected, incomplete forms trigger follow-up investigations, and non-compliant employers face enforcement actions. The office maintains detailed guidance documents, conducts compliance reviews, and holds employers accountable for accurate, complete reporting.
Where is this same enforcement rigor when reviewing union Schedule 17 filings?
SEIU headquarters reported $2.1 million in contributions and grants in 2024, with nearly $750,000 flowing to left-leaning advocacy groups and political organizations. Yet many of these substantial disbursements included purpose descriptions that would never pass muster on employer forms. A $300,000 payment to “All Voting” was described with the vague purpose “Support for political activities”–hardly the specific description required by regulation. Technically, political contributions aren’t even supposed to be reported on Schedule 17, but instead have their own schedule (Schedule 16).
More Than Technical Compliance
This enforcement disparity matters beyond mere regulatory consistency. Union members deserve to know how their dues are being spent with the same level of detail that workers receive about employer expenditures. When unions report payments with generic descriptions like “donation,” members cannot determine whether their contributions support legitimate charitable work or fund political activities they might not personally endorse.
The Department of Labor’s own guidance emphasizes that adequate descriptions should focus on the specific work of recipient organizations: “Medical research, community development, job retraining, education, disaster and relief assistance.” Yet unions routinely ignore this guidance, instead offering meaningless catchall terms that obscure rather than illuminate how member funds are used.
Equal Enforcement for Equal Requirements
OLMS has both the authority and the responsibility to demand the same reporting standards from unions that it enforces against employers. The agency should:
Reject Non-Compliant Filings: Just as OLMS would reject an employer form with vague expense descriptions, Schedule 17 reports with inadequate purpose statements should be returned for correction.
Issue Compliance Guidance: OLMS should provide unions with the same detailed guidance it offers employers, including specific examples of acceptable and unacceptable purpose descriptions.
Conduct Targeted Audits: Unions with patterns of non-compliant Schedule 17 reporting should face the same audit scrutiny applied to employers with reporting deficiencies.
Pursue Enforcement Actions: Persistent non-compliance should trigger formal enforcement proceedings, just as it would for employer reporting violations.
Protecting Congressional Intent
The LMRDA established reporting requirements to ensure transparency in labor relations. When OLMS selectively enforces these requirements–holding employers to exacting standards while allowing unions to operate under relaxed compliance expectations–the agency undermines Congress’ intent and creates an unjustifiable regulatory double standard.
Union members pay dues with the expectation that their representatives will operate transparently and accountably. They deserve to know whether their money supports genuine charitable work or funds political activities and advocacy campaigns. Current Schedule 17 non-compliance denies members this basic information.
Time for Consistent Standards
Labor transparency cannot be a one-way street. The mission of OLMS is to ensure accurate labor reporting. It’s time to apply that commitment equally to union Schedule 17 compliance. Union members deserve the same transparency about their representatives’ expenditures that workers receive about employer activities.
The solution isn’t complicated: Enforce existing rules consistently. OLMS should demand from unions the same reporting precision it requires from employers. Union members and the American public deserve nothing less. Anything less perpetuates a double standard that serves no one except those seeking to obscure how union member dues are actually spent.
