Chris Mosquera, a Maryland county government employee filed a federal lawsuit in May with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys to stop the Obama Administration from allowing union bosses to conceal lavish and corrupt union expenditures from workers.

In today's Washington Examiner, Mosquera discussed why he filed the lawsuit against Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis:

As a member of the United Food and Commercial Workers union, I'm more knowledgeable than most about the ins and outs of union finance.

In fact, I've learned some interesting things about my own local's spending habits over the years. Like the $2 million office condo they bought in Gaithersburg, or the fact that the president of my local makes over $200,000 a year, plus other undocumented benefits.

...

Disclosure is a simple but effective tool for fighting corruption and encouraging accountability. If union officials know their spending habits are part of the public record, they'll be less interested in expensive getaways and more interested in effectively managing their members' hard-earned dues.

Click here to read the entire op-ed.

For more of the Foundation's coverage of the union-boss disclosures here, click here.

National Right to Work President Mark Mix appeared on "Your World with Neil Cavuto" to discuss Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis's efforts to undermine union transparency. Check out the video below:

Union Member Seeks to Block Obama Labor Department’s Efforts to Roll Back Union Disclosure Rules

Department guts disclosure rule that has exposed numerous corrupt union boss schemes, let rank-and-file members know how dues are spent

Washington, DC (May 23, 2011) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a Maryland county government employee is asking a federal court to stop the Obama Administration from allowing union bosses to conceal lavish and corrupt union expenditures from workers.

Chris Mosquera, a member of a Municipal County Government Employee Local of the United Food and Commercial Worker (UFCW) union, filed the lawsuit against Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for rescinding a union boss disclosure rule which would make it less difficult for workers to hold union officials accountable.

Unions covered by the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) with total annual receipts of $250,000 or more are currently required to submit annual financial statements to the U.S. Department of Labor. LM-2 forms are the public disclosure documents for these larger unions and are available online on the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) website.

These forms have helped workers and citizen activists expose many unscrupulous union boss schemes, including lavish benefits to high-ranking union officials and loyalists, superfluous spending on union boss transportation (including private jets), and shady political spending (such as the Service Employees International Union bosses’ links to the disgraced political organization ACORN).

Read the entire release here.

Regular Freedom@Work readers may remember a spate of Obama Administration executive orders designed to enhance Big Labor's already-extensive special privileges. Today, the Department of Labor published a final rule implementing Executive Order 13496, which requires government contractors to post notices informing employees of their workplace rights.

At first glance, that seems pretty innocuous. However, when it comes to the union boss-dominated Obama Department of Labor, "innocuous" isn't part of the equation. Here's part of the Department of Labor's explanation of the notice's content in yesterday's Federal Register (emphasis mine):

The final notice retains the provision stating that an employee has the right to not join or remain a member of a union that represents the employee’s bargaining unit. However, the OLMS notes, “further explication of Beck rights will not be included because of space limitations and because of the policy choice, as expressed in Executive Order 13496, to revoke a more explicit notice to employees of Beck rights.”

"Beck rights" refer to the Right to Work Foundation-won Supreme Court decision Communication Workers v. Beck, which guarantees the right of employees to opt-out of union dues for politics, lobbying, and other activities unrelated to workplace bargaining. Although workers in non-Right to Work states can still be forced to pay for union 'representation', they cannot be forced to subsidize union activities that go beyond the scope of negotiating with management.

Many workers remain unaware of their right to opt-out of objectionable union dues, but the Administration's notice avoids any mention of Beck rights. It also does not mention the right to seek decertification of a monopoly bargaining agent or the right to abstain from both union membership and payment of any union dues in Right to Work states. In other words, the new notice intentionally, as a matter of White House policy, keeps workers in the dark about their basic rights, leaving them vulnerable to union bosses who have no qualms about extracting forced dues to fund political activism, lobbying, and members-only activities.

Workers in non-Right to Work states can still be forced to pay union dues just to get or keep a job, so posting Beck notices is no panacea. But informing workers of all of their rights - not just their rights to join or organize a union - provides a modicum of protection against Big Labor's well-known proclivity for redirecting unsuspecting workers' dues to political and lobbying slush funds. Unfortunately, this skewed notice is yet more evidence that the Obama White House and Department of Labor are more interested in stacking the deck in Big Labor's favor than protecting employee rights.

After spending billions of dollars to get Obama and other pro-forced unionism politicians elected, Big Labor is once again reaping its reward through a series of favorable executive orders.

The National Right to Work Foundation has submitted formal comments opposing proposed rule changes that would dramatically undermine union transparency at the Obama Department of Labor (DoL). The full comments can be found here, but the long and short of it is that the Obama DoL is proposing two major changes to union disclosure under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) of 1959:

1) The first change would exempt "intermediate bodies" from LMRDA union disclosure requirements. "Intermediate bodies" are basically state and local subsidiaries of national unions, which means that Big Labor bosses could funnel forced-dues dollars to regional affiliates to avoid DoL transparency requirements if the proposed rule changes go through. Allowing union operatives to hide questionable expenditures through local and state subsidiaries clearly hampers the ability of workers to learn how their mandatory union dues are being spent.

2) The second change, which the Foundation also opposes, would no longer require Big Labor to file T-1 disclosure forms. These forms disclose financial information about Big Labor trusts - strike funds, political front groups, and other organizations unions control through board appointments, financial ccontributions, or contributions through a collective bargaining agreement. This means that Big Labor-funded organizations like American Rights at Work, a political front group that Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis served on before her appointment, would no longer be subject to basic disclosure guidelines.

Big Labor's influence at the Obama DoL has already been extensively documented, so we can't say we're surprised by this development. Although transparency is a poor substitute for freeing employees from the burden of compulsory unionism, if workers continue to be forced to pay union dues, Big Labor should at the very least have to explain where the money is going. That's why the Foundation opposes these rule changes, as well as any other attempt to undermine union transparency at the Obama DoL. 

President Barack Obama's efforts to transition the Department of Labor into a giant, taxpayer-funded extension of Big Labor's organizing and political fund-raising machine just hit another milestone. President Barack Obama's January 30, 2009 executive order, aimed to help union bosses seize more forced dues revenue to fund Big Labor’s political agenda, was just printed in the Federal Register -- making it official. 

In a nutshell, the EO tears down posted notices to employees of federal contractors which explain they can actually refrain from paying forced union dues spent for union electioneering and the like.

Obama's directive intends to ensure millions of workers do not learn of their rights and revokes former-President Bush's February 2001 executive order which required federal contractors to post notices in the workplace simply informing employees of their right to refrain from formal, full-dues-paying union membership and pay only the documented cost of collective bargaining.

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys won these rights in their precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court victory in Communication Workers v. Beck (1988).  

Regular Freedom@Work readers may remember Obama's edict was one of the first in a long line of political paybacks to Big Labor for their use of over a billion forced-dues dollars in 2008 to elected him and his pro-compulsory unionism allies in Congress.  View some other Obama paybacks to Big Labor, including his picks on who controls the Department of Labor and the NLRB, rolling back union disclosure guidelines and reducing union boss accountability, and using taxpayer dollars to fund their forced dues operations and bail out union boss pension funds.

Union Watchdog Files Second Disclosure Request to Investigate Obama Labor Department Stonewalling

Media report indicates Department of Labor officials are “in a tizzy and freaking out” over federal lawsuit

Washington, DC (December 2, 2009) – The National Right to Work Foundation has filed new disclosure demands on the heels of its lawsuit to compel the Department of Labor (DOL) to release information related to high-ranking officials’ connections to powerful union lobbying interests.

A media report indicates DOL officials have deliberately ignored disclosure laws, and Right to Work attorneys are seeking internal DOL records backing up the report.

National Right to Work originally lodged a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request last April citing concerns about Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, who previously held a key leadership position at the Big Labor-front group “American Rights at Work,” and Deborah Greenfield, who was a lawyer for the AFL-CIO involved in a lawsuit challenging DOL union disclosure regulations that she now oversees as an administration appointee.

For the last seven months, the Obama Administration has stonewalled the Foundation’s FOIA request seeking disclosure of the high-ranking DOL officials’ contacts with union operatives. Late last month, Right to Work attorneys filed suit in federal court to force the Obama Administration to fulfill its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act.

Subsequent media coverage has revealed DOL officials apparently decided to ignore the Foundation’s FOIA request, but facing the lawsuit and negative publicity is now reconsidering. Additionally, one media report cited a high-placed source stating that panicked DOL officials “are in a tizzy and freaking out” because of the Foundation’s lawsuit.

(Read the full press release)

Right to Work President Mark Mix recently appeared on the Jason Lewis Show for an extensive interview on the Foundation's efforts to force the Obama Administration to reveal its close -- and apparently unethical -- ties to Big Labor insiders. Click here to listen or use the embedded player below.

You can also listen to the Foundation's podcast via iTunes or manually subscribe to the feed. 

Last Friday, Right to Work attorneys filed a federal lawsuit with the Department of Labor to force the Obama Administration to release any documents related to high-ranking officials' connections to Big Labor. Right to Work President Mark Mix recently sat down with nationally-syndicated radio host Lars Larson to discuss the Foundation’s push for greater disclosure. Click here to listen or use the embedded player below:

You can also listen to the Foundation's podcast via iTunes or manually subscribe to the feed. 

The National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) has released a telling study comparing Right to Work states with forced-unionism states in a variety of statistical categories. The statistics, provided by various governmental departments and agencies as well as respected non-profits, show the stunning economic and personal benefits families enjoy from their states' popular Right to Work laws.

The last five years of available data shows that workers in Right to Work states not only enjoy higher non-farm private-sector job growth (9.1% versus 3.6% from 2003-2008), but their real personal incomes are also growing faster (15.8% vs. 9.1% from 2003-2008) and they enjoy a higher disposable income ($34,878 vs. $32,811 in 2008) than their counterparts in forced unionism states.

Families in Right to Work states also benefit from lower taxes and are more likely to buy a home, send their children to college, and gain private, employment-based health insurance for parents and children alike.

While Right to Work is about employee freedom in the workplace, NILRR's analysis shows that rolling back coercive union power has undeniable economic benefits as well.

To view the full details of NILRR's report entitled "Right to Work States Benefit From Faster Growth, Higher Real Purchasing Power -- 2009 Update," click here.