Much has been written in recent years about the growth and legal status of nontraditional labor organizations, often referred to as “worker centers,” “alt-labor” groups, or “union front organizations.” But other than some congressional hearings, little has been done.
A new complaint filed with the Department of Labor by the Freedom Foundation and Center for Union Facts against Seattle-based labor group Working Washington provides an opportunity to apply federal regulations properly to these organizations.
No matter the organization, accountability is essential to succeed and thrive in the long term. In business, the market provides accountability via customer demands and competition from rivals. Make a lousy product or provide substandard service and watch your customers disappear.
Though often thought of as the opposite of corporations, labor unions and similar organizations exist to provide a service — workplace representation — and collect dues to do so, just like any business.
However, labor laws insulate unions from competition. Unions are exempt from antitrust laws, changing or removing an unwanted union is exceedingly difficult, and many states permit unions to force employees to pay union fees to keep their jobs.
Consequently, federal regulations, such as the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, provide the primary means of promoting unions’ accountability to their members.
Congress passed the LMRDA in 1959 following a lengthy investigation into abuses of power, financial mismanagement, and other malfeasance perpetrated by labor union officials.
The law, administered by the Labor Department, seeks to protect employees’ interests by regulating labor organizations’ internal affairs. Among other things, the LMRDA requires that labor organizations make their governing documents and annual financial reports publicly available, create a “Bill of Rights” for members, and abide by basic democratic standards when electing officers.
The ongoing federal corruption investigation into the United Auto Workers involves, in part, LMRDA violations.
To evade such regulations, traditional unions back a growing network of nonprofit organizations that, although not formally labor unions, provide many similar functions.
Worker centers have so far managed to avoid LMRDA compliance, meaning employees involved in these organizations lack even basic protections and accountability mechanisms.
The complaint against Working Washington, however, offers the agency an opportunity to address this compliance gap.
The complaint says that Working Washington, a Seattle-based nonprofit organization with strong ties to the Service Employees International Union, satisfies the LMRDA’s definition of “labor organization” and should, therefore, comply with the act.
To be considered a labor organization, an entity must be “engaged in an industry affecting commerce,” involve the participation of employees, and exist, at least in part, for the purpose of “dealing with employers” regarding terms or conditions of employment. While this definition encompasses traditional unions, it covers other entities as well.
In Working Washington’s case, the organization may be best known for its advocacy for job-killing employment regulations in the Pacific Northwest, but as thoroughly documented in the nearly 600-pages of material submitted to the Labor Department, its stated purpose is to change employees’ “wages and working conditions.”
Further, it has “members” who “contribute” monthly amounts to the organization in exchange for specific services and resources related to their employment. These member employees also participate in the organization as leaders.
And the employers with whom it has dealt, such as Amazon, Starbucks, Alaska Airlines, and Subway, are indisputably involved in “industries affecting commerce,” a broad definition excluding little other than the public sector.
One of Working Washington’s recent campaigns, for example, involved pressuring Starbucks to make changes to the company’s parental leave policy for baristas.
Working Washington has even coordinated formal organizing drives for traditional unions.
In a free country, this is all well and good. But if organizations, such as Working Washington, provide workplace representation services to employees, then those employees deserve the same protections their counterparts in traditional unions have benefited from for 60 years.
For their part, labor partisans are crossing their fingers that a Democratic victory in November will save union front groups from federal scrutiny.
While certainly possible, the issue isn’t a matter of administrative policy preferences but rather of faithful application of the law to specific organizations. Either an entity satisfies the statutory definition of “labor organization” or it doesn’t.
At least in Working Washington’s case, the extensive factual record should satisfy officials in any administration acting in good faith of its status as a labor organization. To reach any other conclusion for political reasons would make for both bad law and poor policy.
Maxford Nelsen is the director of labor policy for the Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy organization that promotes individual liberty, free enterprise, and limited, accountable government.
