When Nashua, New Hampshire postal worker Philip Wakeman paid dues to the National Post Mail Handlers Union (NPMHU), a division of the Laborers' International Union, he had no idea that union bosses would illegally launder his money into their political coffers.

In July 2006, Mr. Wakeman gave a check to the NPMHU union for the full amount of his annual union dues. On the "Memo" line at the bottom of the check, he wrote "Union Dues."  A union official later acknowledged receipt of the dues and everything seemed fine – that is – until he received a bizarre phone call.

In October 2008, over two years after submitting the check to the NPMHU union, a stranger informed Wakeman that she found his information on the internet and suggested he do a "Google" internet search of his name. The search results were astounding:  Mr. Wakeman found his name disclosed as making a contribution in the exact amount of his annual NPMHU union membership dues to the NPMHU Political Action Committee (PAC) – all without his knowledge.

Apparently NPMHU union bosses had illegally diverted his dues payment to the union's PAC.  Wakeman contacted the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and Foundation attorneys filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission. 

It is illegal for union officials to fund union PACs using "dues, fees, or other moneys required as a condition of membership in a labor organization."  NPMHU union bosses are also accused of violating federal election law by making a political campaign contribution in another person's name and failing to inform Mr. Wakeman that his membership dues would be used for political purposes.

To read the Foundation's media release regarding the FEC complaint, click here.

To read the FEC complaint, click here.

A recent U.S Court of Appeals ruling found several National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) union officials guilty of violating the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. The decision resolved a 1994 suit brought by David Noble, a postal worker who alleged union officials -- including a former NALC president -- funneled workers' dues into unmonitored expense accounts.

Judge Williams' concurrence features some particularly choice tidbits on the NALC's corrupt practices:

"Placing union money in the officers’ hands, solely on those same officers’ bland assurances that it will be used for union business, completely subverts the [NALC constitution] clause’s obvious goal of preserving accountability."

He also chides his two colleagues on the panel for refusing to punish union officials for excessive "per diem" expenditures:

At every biennial convention after 1964, a small group of unnamed delegates received a “per diem” payment calculated on the basis of certain estimated expenses: lost wages, hotel rooms, and meals and incidentals. Noble argued in the district court that the presidentially appointed Committee on Mileage and Per Diem asked each post-1964 convention to approve these payments without informing the delegates of two facts: (1) that the union’s officers were among those receiving per diem payments, even though they continued to earn their salaries and thus had no “lost time” (unlike rank-and-file mail carriers); and (2) that the union had already paid (in full or part) for most officers’ hotel rooms, transferring the union’s hotel discount to the officers’ benefit. Thus, the members were unaware of these costs’ peculiarities — peculiarities that might well have been material to their decision.

[Emphasis added]

Full text of the decision can be found here (pdf). More Freedom@Work posts on union corruption available here, here, and here.

While the ruling is welcomed, the fact remains that regulatory oversight of unions -- rather than simply stripping union bosses of the government-granted special privileges that facilitate the corruption -- results in little more than make-work for federal bureaucrats.