Anti-union disclosures defended

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Arkansasonline

By Linda Satter

In response to an Arkansas federal lawsuit challenging the recent expansion of financial disclosure rules targeting anti-union activities, the U.S. Department of Labor argues the change is fair and in the public interest.

The department's 64-page response to the suit was filed late Thursday in federal court in Little Rock where, on March 30, state and federal industry groups led by the Associated Builders and Contractors of Arkansas filed the first lawsuit in the nation challenging the new requirements.

Like similar lawsuits that quickly followed in Minnesota and Texas, the Arkansas suit alleges that the expansion of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 is unconstitutional. Previous administrations interpreted the law to require businesses to file reports whenever they hired consultants to "directly persuade" employees, while spending on "indirect persuasion" didn't have to be revealed.

Under the department's changes, indirect persuasion -- such as hiring a consultant to write anti-union talking points -- would also be subject to disclosure.

FULL story at link.

Read more: http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2016/apr/30/anti-union-disclosures-defended-2016043/?f=news-arkansas

[Gman]

1. As a former union Secretary-Treasurer

I've always thought the LMRA was unconstitutional. It's no one's but the members business how the union spends its money. Unions are private organizations. So if the union has to disclose its spending on labor activities, so should business. If the SCOTUS throws out the LMRA, along with business reporting, union reporting goes too. They better be real careful what they're asking for. They may be freeing up unions too. They won't have one of their biggest appropriated weapons against unions. LM reports.