House subcommittee weighs tightening LMRDA disclosures to boost union member access and police anti‑union consultants

At a House Education and Labor subcommittee hearing, Chairman Allen said the panel would examine ways to strengthen the Labor‑Management Reporting and Disclosure Act so union members can participate more fully in governing their unions.

Nathan McGrath, president and general counsel of the Fairness Center, told the subcommittee his practice often represents employees who "seek answers about how the union was using its money or its influence" and then find themselves stonewalled. "Employees want to know how their dues are spent to participate in fair elections and to trust that union officials act in their best interest," McGrath said.

Michael Alcorn, an 11‑year crew member at Trader Joe's who described himself as a visiting fellow at the Institute for the American Worker, recounted his experience at a unionized store in Hadley, Massachusetts. He said organizers misled workers about card signing and that officer elections and contract ratifications were held with limited notice. "We were signing a blank check when we were signing that union authorization card," Alcorn said, urging Congress to require greater disclosure, including posting collective bargaining agreements, constitutions and bylaws online or mailing them to members.

Bob Funk, executive director of LaborLab, urged the subcommittee to focus not only on unions but also on employers and anti‑union consultants who he said routinely evade disclosure and enforcement. Funk cited enforcement reports and compliance figures presented to the committee, saying unions file annual financial disclosures on time at far higher rates than employers and consultants. "When a union buster is hired ... they're supposed to disclose that within 30 days. Only 20% of union busters do that," Funk said, and later described tactics he said are used in the field—surveillance, collecting personal information and "captive audience" meetings.

Witnesses and members discussed several pieces of legislation referenced in testimony, including the Union Members Right to Know Act and bills described in testimony as requiring secret‑ballot officer elections, ratification votes on collective bargaining agreements and member authorization for strikes. Proponents said the measures would give members clearer rights and access to documents; opponents, including several Democratic members, called the hearing an attempt to "target unions" and argued enforcement of existing law against corporations and consultants should be a priority.

On process, Chairman Allen noted committee rules that keep the record open for 14 days for members to submit written statements. The hearing closed with members restating competing views on whether statutory guarantees for member votes and expanded disclosure will strengthen or undermine unions.

The subcommittee did not take a formal vote on legislation during the hearing; the record will remain open for 14 days for additional materials.