Transparency, reform bills killed by unions

PRESS-ENTERPRISE EDITORIAL

May 31, 2016 

The California Legislature had a rare opportunity to offer public employee union members some transparency and choice, but chose, instead, to cave to the interests of union bosses.

Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, introduced two reform bills after being approached by a number of disenfranchised union members, who helped draft the legislation. Assembly Bill 2753 would have required public employee unions to offer union members access to an itemized and updated budget on their websites. It also stipulated that public unions must provide timely answers to members’ financial questions. AB2754 would have offered public union members the opportunity to vote to reauthorize or replace their unions every two years.

“America is a beacon of freedom to the world because its people have real choice when picking their leaders and real transparency on how those leaders spend public money,” Ms. Grove said in a statement announcing the measures in February. “Why shouldn’t public union workers have the same freedoms regarding the unions that represent them?”

Nonetheless, the bills were rejected last month by the Assembly Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security Committee without a single Democratic vote in favor of either bill.

Mariam Noujaim, a Department of Motor Vehicles employee and 20-year member of the Service Employees International Union Local 1000, has been suing her union for three years because it has refused to show her how it is spending the more than $60 million it receives in member dues and representation fees.

“I give you my money,” Ms. Noujaim said at a news conference the day of the committee hearing. “Show me how you spend my money, I will know how much you care for me, how much solidarity, and how much you work for us.”

Rick Gay, formerly a steward for SEIU Local 721 in the Inland Empire, became dissatisfied with the union’s leadership and joined an alternate employee association, the Regional Employees Association of Professionals. “Unions have a stranglehold on our political system, and complete unfair advantage,” he asserted. “No one body should have this much influence and power. There needs to be a legitimate alternative to removing bad organizations. … Unions, like politicians, should be re-elected on their merit, not how deep their pocketbooks are.”

If the leadership of the public unions is as wonderful and effective as they claim to be, then why are they afraid of transparency and competition? Perhaps they fear they would be exposed as being out for themselves more than for the interests of the members they represent. Their opposition to the reform measures only corroborates the need to offer union members real choice in their representation and openness about how their dues are spent.