Postal Worker Files FEC Complaint for Illegal Union PAC Money Laundering Scheme
Granite State union bosses illegally diverted postal employee's membership dues to fund political coffers
Nashua, New Hampshire (July 28, 2009) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) asking it to investigate charges made by a Nashua-area postal worker who discovered his annual union membership dues were illegally diverted into the union’s political action committee (PAC).
In July 2006, United States Postal Service employee Philip Wakeman paid $429 in membership dues to join the National Postal Mail Handlers Union (NPMHU), a division of the Laborers’ International Union. On the “Memo” line at the bottom of the check, he wrote “Union Dues.” A union official later acknowledged receipt of the union dues.
In October 2008, over two years after submitting the check to the NPMHU union, a stranger called Wakeman on an unrelated matter and informed him that she found his information on the Internet. The stranger then suggested that he do a “Google” Internet search of his name. After doing so, Mr. Wakeman was astounded to find his name disclosed as making a contribution to the NPMHU PAC in the exact amount of his annual NPMHU union membership dues – all without his knowledge.
Apparently NPMHU union bosses had illegally diverted his dues payment to the union’s PAC. Mr. Wakeman contacted the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, and Foundation attorneys filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission for him and the Foundation.
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 soliciting political contributions under false pretenses while failing to inform Mr. Wakeman that his membership dues would be used for political purposes.
“This union money laundering scheme makes a mockery of the right to political autonomy,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Foundation attorneys intend to trigger prosecution of this NPMHU union boss political fundraising fraud and an investigation into whether there is a larger scheme afoot. We urge the FEC to take decisive action.”
Comments
NPMHU will be vindicated
As a 29-year member of the NPMHU, a 2-term union branch officer at Local 301(and a registered Republican living in Massachusetts,) I'd like to offer readers a few points to consider while reading the histrionic language of the article:
Anything can be asserted on the WWW -- which is why stupid claims of impropriety such as this one get the attention they do. Most claims are under the cloak of anonymity -- the mystery research prompting this claim is all too pedestrian.
While the American free market has allowed for us our enviable lifestyle and personal freedoms-- ANY human endeavor (including those by capitalists and labor leaders) requires checks against abuse. In this case, the abuser is the self-styled watchdog of unions.
This claim of an illegal diversion of $429 by an organ with a multi-million dollar budget is a laughable farce. There's no there, there. (Produce the cancelled check, "Brother" Wakeman.)
All bargaining unit jobs of the USPS are 'open-shop': There is no compulsory nature to employment. Thus, there is no requirement for union membership -- There can be no "compulsory unionism abuses" as per the mission statement of NRTW.
Hell, because of CBA Articles 15, 17 & 18, the NPMHU's stewards are generally paid by the employer, can not organize strikes and must ultimately resort to arbitration (an expensive proposition)to resolve disputes with the USPS.
The NPMHU has a stellar record of cleaning its own messes because of a strong constitution and an active membership. I have personally witnessed such corrections at the Branch, Local and National levels over these past 29 years.
In this case, there is no mess to clean.
Therefore, there is no basis for NRTW involvement, here -- unless there is a driving desire for using malicious mischief to attack a relatively small union.
I was there.
The reason Phil needed the union to help him was to get his MH job back after a short stint as a Supervisor. Phil PAID the dues for one year IN ADVANCE. I heard the branch president say that he knew it was just to get the union to help him, then expected Phil to drop out. I was there! Since then, the union president has been extremely rude to him.
Read on Mr. Flanthers.
http://www.nrtw.org/files/nrtw/NPMHU_FEC_Complaint_07272009.pdf
Commit to apologize
How about a commitment from the authors to a big apology when it comes to light that the check was not for union dues (even though he may have written "union dues" in the memo line)? Sounds like a set-up.
If the union did in fact do
If the union did in fact do this they would be breaking the law-no doubt. However, isn't it ironic that the "Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation" is going to bat for this person against his union when in fact, as an organization they would support the employer in a heartbeat for firing him from his job for no reason at all? It's true and it's called "Employment At Will". It's what you are stuck with if you don't have a union representing you at your place of employment. The "Right to Work" groups are in fact fronts for big business and their goals are to keep wages and benefits as low as possible while not allowing workers any rights on the job. Thus, the unions stand in their way as the unions aim to improve wages and benefits while giving workers a voice at work. They jump at every chance to go after the unions whether it is warranted or not.
I completely support
I completely support socialism for the rich and super rich and demand that the other classes pay their own way,
Labor unions are only criminal syndicates formed to deprive the corporate person their constitutional rights.
They obviously have too little work if they have time to harass their employer.
Something is not adding up
Something is not adding up in this matter.
Joining a postal union requires the filling out of a membership form which is processed by the postal service for automatic biweekly dues deductions.
You don't pay a years due in advance in the form of a check!
I don't know if this is
I don't know if this is still in effect, but here is how it was years ago when I was a clerk and wnated mail handler insurance. I paid the MAIL Handlers union a lump sum as an associate member in order to have mail handler insurance. I did this for two years. THE ASSOCIATE MEMBER DUES WERE i THINK were less than $200.00 a year, but this was back in the early 80's, or I could have taken out a monthly allotment using form 1187. I chose the lump sum payment.
You people must be
You people must be Demo-crooks. You are condemning the person who uncovered this chicanery. I knew people who paid their union dues in cash monthly? I hope they check out the other Postal Unions, they all work the same
Agreed
I agree that something doesn't add up. You have to fill out SF 1187 to join a union and each postal union's by-laws and constitution requires that dues be deducted from your postal pay. Even associate member dues for the mail handlers is less than that for annual membership. There is absolutely no need to write a check for dues.
something stinks with the
something stinks with the right to work assertions
No, this doesn't add up at
No, this doesn't add up at all. Dues are paid by payroll deduction. You don't pay an initiation fee to join. The only case I've known of someone paying their dues by check is when they want to run for office and they've been off work and they want to be a qualified member in good standing in that period. I've given money to the PAC and it's all been up front and I knew where it was going. Looks like someone is just trying to make the Union look bad.
Oh, come on!
You couldn't possibly be suggesting that the National Right to Work committee is a bunch of lying, dishonest, irresponsible closet republicans who will say or do anything to portray unions in a bad light, are you?
Lets see tha back of the
Lets see tha back of the check
Funny, I just did a "google"
Funny, I just did a "google" search of his name, a guy with that name in Kentucky gave $200 to Kerry in 04, thats it....
Funny I just did a google
Funny I just did a google search and found the entry the article is about. See Fund Race 2008 The Huffington Post. I am not saying that Mr. Huffington is correct in his claims, just that the google search did yield the correct finding.
Mony PAC Money laundedring
There is need for many more Americans to challenge every item of wrong money handling, whethure a local bank, church, school or ones own accounts. THE PLACE TO START IN WITH CONGRESS, STATE LEGISLATURES, UNIONS, SCHOOLS, AND THE "INFAMOUS FED!"
Joe Spenner http://www.tldm.org
this is a good guy with no reason to lie !
he is the most honest mailhandler at the nashua l&dc i concider mr wakeman a true brother unlike most that hide and sit in the union room all nite to avoid pulling there fair share of the work with one exception the the union pres who in fact does work his ass off ! he just needs to sweep the people hideing out of his office !