Workers Need More Transparency from Unions

D o workers like me deserve more transparency from labor unions?

On May 27, Representatives Tim Walberg (R., Ill.) and Rick Allen (R., Ga.) formally asked unions, businesses, and workers to answer this question. My answer is a resounding yes. I lived through a unionization election that was shrouded in secrecy, and the stonewalling by union officials continued after the union had won. I hope Congress moves to give me and every worker in America greater insight into what unions are doing. It’s workers’ money they’re spending, and our careers are on the line.

Until last year, I worked at the first Trader Joe’s store ever to unionize, in Hadley, Mass. When the process started, in 2022, the organizers said that they were independent and not aligned with a bigger labor union. I doubted that because some of the organizers talked about their ties to Workers United, which proudly declares that it’s an “affiliate” of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), one of the largest unions in North America.

The organizers’ claims kept changing. Sometimes they said they would eventually affiliate with the SEIU; other times they said they’d stay independent. The shifting story made it impossible to know the truth. But the truth is exactly what my co-workers and I needed before making the monumental decision on whether to be represented by a union.

The lack of transparency didn’t stop a majority of my co-workers from voting to unionize. While many of us thought we’d get more information once the union was in place, we were wrong. The original organizers held an officer election with no notice, electing themselves without any opposition. I was barred from attending bargaining sessions, and the union president tried to stop me from publicizing how much union officials make. Surely my colleagues had a right to know that.

Within two years, about half the bargaining unit supported a petition to hold an election to decertify the union. The National Labor Relations Board refused the petition on questionable grounds. In any case, in December, I left Massachusetts for a Trader Joe’s store in another state. I think that if we’d had all the facts back in 2022, my colleagues would probably have chosen not to join a union.

My story is far from unique. At Starbucks stores across the country, many workers who’ve unionized have been frustrated to learn that many of their co-workers were union plants. Unions don’t have to disclose when they do that. Nor do they have to disclose what their subsidiaries and affiliates are doing, even when send them dues money. And since unions have to file federal reports only annually, the information that workers receive is often pretty old.

To be clear, federal law already requires unions to disclose many much-needed details about their spending and revenue. The law has been in place since the 1950s to improve accountability and stop corruption in labor unions. Clearly, it’s still needed, since union officials across America continue to be convicted of crimes such as embezzlement and money-laundering. It’s a testament to the effectiveness of current regulations that the rules have been maintained through multiple Republican and Democratic administrations.

But federal disclosure should also be strengthened and modernized for workers’ sake. I can attest that it’s hard to decipher what unions are saying in their annual financial forms. Most people don’t have the time to dig through the data. We’re not labor experts or lawyers. We’re too busy doing our day jobs. Unions should be required to disclose a lot more information. Things such as who funds unionization drives, which other unions or groups they’re affiliated with, and whether they’re paying workers to push unionization. This information could have changed the outcome at my old Trader Joe’s store. The best system would equip workers with the facts well before they’re expected to vote.

If workers unionize, unions should be required to more regularly provide some of this timely information. Additionally, the Department of Labor should publish the data more often and in a more user-friendly format. For instance, at my old store, we didn’t know that the union officers would be taking salaries from the union — we only found out 18 months later, and we had never agreed to them, which upset many of my co-workers who had supported unionization.

In my experience, many workers feel intimidated by unions and won’t ask for this information. The onus should be on the unions to proactively provide it. That includes new unions, which currently don’t have to file detailed reports until they meet a certain financial threshold. That threshold should be lowered or eliminated so that workers know exactly how unions are spending their money.

Transparency matters for workers because unions say they represent us. We’re the ones who pay the dues that unions spend. Given that our futures and our money are at stake, we deserve the facts — and not in broad brushstrokes but in vivid detail. It’s good that Congress is asking what workers like me need. It will be even better when we get new policies that give us the transparency we deserve.