Thursday, October 26, 2006

Union Rebate Check

It's amazing what happens when you're compelled to tell the truth.

Last year I wrote a post about receiving my first union rebate check--anyone who's been a reader here for over three days or so knows I'm not a union member anymore. Under California law, though, I'm required to pay the union my "fair share" since they, by law, are still required to represent me before my employer. (I have lots of qualms about that, but this isn't the post for those.)

This year's check was a lot bigger than last year's check. Here's what last year's rebate letter said:

As noted in our prior letter, the rebate percentages are:


In other words, those percentages of the dues I pay to those three labor unions were refunded to me, to the tune of over $300. In other words, well over 1/3 of my union dues were being spent on issues not directly related to collective bargaining and related issues--in other words, all that money was going to politics, and to politics with a severe left-wing bent.

Here's what this year's letter says:

As noted in our prior letter, the rebate percentages are:
NEA - 49.06%
CTA - 46.8%
Local - 46.8%

Those are some pretty significant jumps from last year. Can it all be attributed to the fact that it's an election year? I don't think so. I think part of it can be attributed to the new requirement that unions file form LM-2 with the IRS, which identifies how they're spending their money on politics. It's a lot harder to lie when you have to itemize your expenditures to the feds.


Anonymous said...

Thank God I live in a right to work state.

Wait. I don't any more. Better do something about that.

Anonymous said...


Not to be picky, but the LM-2 is filed with the Department of Labor. But you are right, when there is transparency about spending by unions, you get a much better picture of how union dues are spent. If I were running Congress, I would require that summary LM-2's be sent to each and every union member so that all union members get an idea of how their dues are spent.

I personally love reading Mike Antonucci's discussions of the NEA's LM-2 when filed.

Darren said...

You're correct about the filing of the LM-2. My bad.

And yes, Antonucci is among the best!