When it comes to financial transparency in labor relations, American workers face a glaring double standard. Employers and their consultants must disclose detailed information—including Employer Identification Numbers (EINs)—for payments as small as one dollar. However, unions can distribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to mysterious organizations without providing basic identifying information that would allow members or the public to verify where their money goes.
A Tale of Two Standards
Under current Department of Labor regulations, when an employer engages a labor relations consultant, both parties must file detailed reports including the recipient's EIN, the exact nature of services provided, and comprehensive financial details. This transparency requirement ensures that workers know exactly who is being paid to influence them and how much those efforts cost.
Meanwhile, unions routinely report massive expenditures on their LM-2 forms with descriptions as vague as "donation," "charity," or often leaving the purpose field entirely blank. Recently 31 separate Teamster locals, plus the international union, reported over $600,000 in contributions to the newly created Worker Solidarity and Defense Foundation. Those contributions poured in over 3 short months at the end of 2024. These expenditures were listed as “donations,” even though the instruction for reporting these expenditures requires a detailed description of the work or mission of the recipient.
In 2024, the Service Employees International Union reported over $2,000,000 in Contributions, Gifts and Grants. Nearly $750,000 of that money went to left-leaning advocacy groups and front organizations which push the union’s political agenda. This includes groups that conduct voter turnout and candidate recruitment. For example, $300,000 was gifted to a group called “All Voting” with “Support for political activities” reported as SEIU’s purpose for the contribution.
Again, this vague description doesn’t comply with the instructions on the LM form and provides no information a union member could use to better understand how their dues money was spent. Further, political contributions aren’t even supposed to be reported on Schedule 17 (there is a separate Schedule 16 for those contributions).
In short, millions of dollars of dues money flow each year into organizations that union members cannot easily research or verify.
Why EINs Matter for Accountability
Requiring EIN disclosure for union expenditures over $5,000 would serve several critical transparency functions that benefit both union members and the public:
Verification and Due Diligence: EINs allow anyone to research recipient organizations through publicly available databases, IRS records, and charity watchdog sites. Without this basic identifier, union members have no way to verify whether their dues are funding legitimate charitable work or political advocacy disguised as charity.
Preventing Shell Organizations: The ease of creating new organizations with impressive-sounding names but unclear purposes becomes much harder when EIN disclosure is required. The Worker Solidarity and Defense Foundation, for example, appeared just in time to receive substantial Teamster funding—a pattern that EIN tracking would make more transparent.
Audit Trail Creation: EINs create a paper trail that enables proper oversight. When unions report payments to "All Voting" for "political activities" or make contributions with purposes listed simply as "donation," members and regulators cannot effectively track whether funds are being used appropriately.
Consistency with Existing Standards: Most importantly, EIN disclosure would simply extend to unions the same transparency standards already applied to employers. If the goal of labor law is to ensure informed worker choice, why should workers have detailed information about employer expenditures but remain in the dark about how their own union dues are spent?
The Current Enforcement Gap
The Department of Labor's current guidance requires unions to provide "specific purposes" for disbursements over $5,000, but this requirement is routinely ignored or distorted. Without EIN requirements, there's no practical way for members or DOL investigators to verify whether reported purposes accurately reflect actual activities.
Consider the stark contrast: an employer paying $100 to a consultant for speaking to its employees must disclose that consultant's EIN and provide detailed information about the arrangement. Yet a union can pay $250,000 to an organization (like the Teamsters did) and report the purpose as simply "donation" with no way for members to verify whether their money supported genuine charitable work or political advocacy.
Beyond Compliance: Strengthening Union Democracy
Requiring EIN disclosure isn't anti-union—it's pro-member. Strong unions built on member trust benefit when financial practices are transparent and accountable. Union members deserve the same level of financial transparency from their representatives that workers receive about employer expenditures.
The current system undermines union credibility and member confidence. When unions resist basic transparency measures that employers already follow, it raises legitimate questions about what they're trying to hide. EIN disclosure would help unions demonstrate that member dues support the charitable and representational work that members expect.
A Simple Fix for a Serious Problem
The solution is straightforward: require unions to report EINs for any organization receiving more than $5,000 (or any amount, just as employers must do). This modest reform would:
Enable union members to research and verify recipient organizations
Provide DOL investigators with tools to ensure accurate reporting
Create consistency between employer and union transparency standards
Strengthen public confidence in union financial management
Union leaders who oppose EIN disclosure should explain to their members why companies must provide detailed financial information, while unions distributing member dues face no similar requirement.
American workers deserve transparency from all parties seeking to influence their workplace decisions. It's time to end the double standard and ensure that union financial disclosure meets the same basic transparency standards we already require from employers. EIN disclosure represents a simple but crucial step toward restoring balance and accountability in labor relations reporting.
