Submitted via email. This public comment is in response to the House Education and Workforce Committee’s Request for Information (RFI) on improvements to the Labor‑Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA). 

Dear Chairmen Walberg and Allen,

Thank you for the opportunity to submit feedback on improvements to the Labor‑Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA). My name is Margaret Poydock and I am a Senior Policy Analyst at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), where my research focuses on the issues of unions and labor law reform. In my comments, I would like to address whether reporting requirements under the LMRDA are adequate and discuss ways to improve the LMRDA to provide workers with the most transparency.

First, I would like to address the issue of union members having a voice, both at work and in their union. By forming a union and engaging in collective bargaining, workers have a voice in their workplace, which can help improve their wages, benefits, and working conditions. For workers, this means higher wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions.1 For employers, this results in less worker turnover, higher productivity, and better communication within the workplace.2 Research also shows that these positive effects of unionization can spillover to nonunionized workplaces as employers must meet certain standards to attract and retain workers.3 In addition to providing workers with a voice at their workplace, union members also have a voice within their own unions. For example, the LMRDA outlines election protocols for unions that are subjected to the law.4 This includes a timeframe for holding national officer elections, defining candidate and vote eligibility, and requiring secret ballot elections. In addition to LMRDA requirements, unions have constitution and/or bylaws that outline further election procedures. For example, some unions will have national officers elected directly by the union members while others elect delegates to vote for national officers on their behalf. In either case, unions adhere to the principle of “one person, one vote,” whether that member is directly voting for the officer or if they are voting for the delegates on their behalf. For these reasons, unions can be best described as democratically organized groups that give members a meaningful voice in their workplace and their union.5

Second, I would like to address whether reporting requirements under the LMRDA provide workers with adequate information. The LMRDA requires unions, employers, and labor relations consultants to submit financial disclosures. For unions, the information on these disclosures is very detailed and can be hundreds of pages long. For example, the requirements for LM-2 forms, which are required to be filed by larger unions, can be more demanding than publicly traded companies.6 In contrast, many employers fail to report if they have hired labor relations consultants. EPI estimates that employers spend more than $400 million each year on these consultants, which is likely a gross underestimation of the union avoidance industry since employers do not need to report any legal advice they receive from labor relation consultants unless it coincides with reportable persuader activity.7 Research from LaborLab finds that 43 percent of employers who hired a labor relations consultant in 2024 failed to file a financial disclosure in the timeframe outlined in the LMRDA.8 This “advice” loophole and employers’ blatant disregard to filing timely financial disclosures make it harder for workers to fight for their collective bargaining rights because they do not know the extent of their companies’ investments in opposing the union. Further, this financial information is vital for workers while they are at the negotiating table when employers claim they can’t afford to increase pay and benefits. Simply put, the LMRDA requirements for employers do not adequately provide workers with timely or transparent information about expenditures employers make to oppose workers’ right to organize and collectively bargain.

Finally, I would like to provide recommendations to help ensure workers have timely information and a meaningful voice in their workplaces under the LMRDA. Your letter mistakenly suggests that there are significant deficiencies in transparency for unions under the LMRDA. However, research shows that employers are failing to provide workers with financial transparency under the LMRDA. Therefore, Congress should call on the Department of Labor to increase and prioritize the enforcement efforts for employers to comply with the LMRDA. In 2024, only 43 percent of employers who hired labor relations consultants filed a financial disclosure in a timely manner. In contrast, more than 80 percent of unions filed their required financial disclosures within a timely manner.9 Further the Department of Labor should investigate and prosecute instances of employer non-compliance with the same rigor they apply to unions. Enforcing employer compliance with the LMRDA would be a significant step towards ensuring that workers have timely information and a meaningful voice in their workplace.

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this information.

Sincerely,

Margaret Poydock
Senior Policy Analyst
Economic Policy Institute

1. Heidi Shierholz, Celine McNicholas, Margaret Poydock, and Jennifer Sherer, Workers Want Unions, But The Latest Data Point To Obstacles In Their Path, January 2024.

2. Kate Bahn and Joe Peck, How Unions Can Increase Firm Productivity and Strengthen Economic Growth, WorkRise, September 2023.

Harry Katz, Unions Are Having a Moment. Here’s How That Can Be Good for Labor and Business, Cornell University ILR Scheinman Institute on Conflict Resolution, April 2022.

3. Asha Banerjee, Margaret Poydock, Celine McNicholas, Ihna Mangundayao, and Ali Sait, Unions Are Not Only Good For Workers, They’re Good For Communities And For Democracy, December 2021.

4. 29 U.S.C. 481

5. David Madland, Malkie Wall, Danielle Root, and Sam Berger, Unions Are Democratically Organized, Corporations Are Not, October 2020.

6. Erica Jang, “How Politics Ruin Union Financial Reporting,” OnLabor, June 1, 2022.

7. Celine McNicholas, Margaret Poydock, Samantha Sanders, and Ben Zipperer, Employers Spend More Than $400 Million Per Year on ‘Union-Avoidance’ Consultants to Bolster Their Union-Busting Efforts, March 2023.

8. LaborLab, One-Sided Reporting: The Growing Gap Between Required Annual Union Versus Employer and Persuader Filings and OLMS Compliance Efforts Continues to Widen, July 2025.

9. LaborLab, One-Sided Reporting: The Growing Gap Between Required Annual Union Versus Employer and Persuader Filings and OLMS Compliance Efforts Continues to Widen, July 2025.