The AFL-CIO's recent lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Labor over new financial disclosure rules underscores a deeper problem: even when transparency laws exist, union officials often ignore them and government agencies rarely enforce them.
Nathan McGrath, president and general counsel at the Fairness Center, a nonprofit law firm that represents public workers harmed by union misconduct, says his clients have learned this lesson the hard way. He argues that a right that depends on voluntary compliance or sporadic enforcement is essentially no right at all.
Connecticut's 67-Year-Old Law Largely Ignored
Connecticut has required public-sector unions to file annual financial reports with the labor commissioner since 1957. Unions must make those reports available to members, who can also request state audits. In theory, this empowers workers who pay roughly $1,000 or more annually in dues to see how their money is spent. But for decades, most unions simply didn't file the reports, and state officials did nothing.
Connecticut's labor commissioner previously acknowledged she had no plans to enforce the law, deeming it not worth her staff's time. That inaction frustrated state corrections officer Ryan Bilodeau and Professor Earl Ormond, both lifelong union members who wanted to track their unions' spending.
Bilodeau, a former union shop steward, spent years asking his AFSCME-affiliated corrections officers' union for credit card statements and details on political spending and paid union leave—with no success. “When you can’t get straight answers about where your money is going, your trust in the union starts to break down,” he said.
Ormond, a retired police officer now overseeing a community college criminal justice program, grew concerned about his faculty union's activism on issues like immigration enforcement and a resolution accusing Israel of “genocide” and “apartheid,” which he viewed as antisemitic. He wanted to know how much money was funding those campaigns, “even if it requires the Connecticut Department of Labor to do some paperwork.”
Only after Bilodeau and Ormond sued their unions did the state begin acting. Last month, the labor department sent public-sector unions a reminder to comply and created an online portal for filing reports. Official guidance also requires unions to provide hard copies to employees and hold meetings to discuss them.
McGrath notes that his clients are pleased with the first steps but remain cautious, waiting to see whether the state will actually penalize noncompliant unions.
Broader Implications for Reform
The Connecticut case offers a warning for other states that have recently passed or proposed transparency reforms. Florida, for example, now requires public unions to prove verifiable support from workers they represent. Idaho prohibits school districts from automatically deducting dues from teachers' paychecks or sharing personal data with unions without permission. Arizona is considering a constitutional amendment to ban automatic payroll deductions for teachers, and Oklahoma lawmakers have advanced legislation allowing teachers to resign union membership at any time, rather than during narrow opt-out windows.
But as McGrath argues, these reforms will only work if enforced. The same dynamic applies to the new federal disclosure rules that the AFL-CIO is challenging. Without consistent enforcement, union-represented employees may have to take legal action themselves to hold their leaders accountable.
