E&W Blog

The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) establishes minimum standards for democratic union governance. Unfortunately, some unions have largely become political machines more focused on activism than representing members’ interest in the workplace.

Today, the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions held a hearing examining how Congress can make the LMRDA work as intended.


Subcommittee Chairman Rick Allen (R-GA) started off the hearing by discussing the need to strengthen the LMRDA. "We may not all agree on the broader role of unions in society. But today, I hope we can agree on this: workers deserve a real say in the organizations that speak and act on their behalf. Strengthening the LMRDA is a step toward respecting the choices of American workers and making sure unions truly work for workers," he said.

Witnesses echoed the need for reform.

"The LMRDA assumes that when employees choose a union, the union will represent their interests. That’s why the law gives a union broad powers to make decisions on the employees’ behalf. But when the union’s and the employees’ interests are misaligned, that assumption breaks down. Employees can no longer rely on their union to carry their message. And the resulting distrust could drive more of them to resolve their grievances away from the bargaining table—for example, by walking off the job," said Mr. Alexander MacDonald, Shareholder and Co-Chair of the Workplace Policy Institute at Littler Mendelson P.C.

Democrats continued to claim that unions are already transparent, and leadership has a close relationship with its members. However, it’s clear from witnesses that this is not the case for all unions.


An exchange between Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) and Mr. Michael Alcorn, Crew Member at Trader Joe’s, proved that this Democrat notion is false. "One of the first things [my union] brought to the bargaining table was asking Trader Joe’s to include paid abortions and gender-affirming care in a contract—this is already covered by our insurance…This had nothing to do with us and our working conditions and our wages, it was all about trying to tear down my [employer‘s progressive image]," Mr. Alcorn said. "It’s important that workers know this is going on so that they can vote on whether they want these proposals to go forward."