« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

CA union boss pays wife and mother out of union treasury

When you give money to your spouse, aren't you giving money to yourself?

Regular readers will know that I hate corruption, especially by elected officials and unions. The press seems to love the stories about the elected officials, but rarely focuses on the unions. The LA Times breaks the mold:

Advocates for low-wage caregivers called on authorities Monday to investigate the spending practices of a Los Angeles union and a related charity that have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to firms owned by the wife and mother-in-law of the labor organization’s leader. …

It gets tastier:

In addition, the union last year spent nearly $300,000 on a Four Seasons Resorts golf tournament, a Beverly Hills cigar club, restaurants such as Morton’s and a consulting contract with the William Morris Agency, the Hollywood talent shop, records show.

The union paid a combined* $219,000 in 2006 and 2007 to a video firm whose principals include a former employee of the local, according to Labor Department filings and interviews. And *a now-defunct minor league basketball team that Freeman’s brother-in-law coached received $16,000 for what the union described as public relations.

The local paid about $106,000 to a firm called the Filming, for which no incorporation record, business license, address or telephone listing could be found.

And:

The Times reported Saturday that the payments to the company owned by Freeman’s wife, Pilar Planells, were among the local’s largest single expenses last year, at about $178,000. Planells has said she did not personally profit.

With all that money, no wonder they could afford such a swank destination wedding.

For more, try the LAT story from the weekend too.

COMMENTS

  • Achance

    You could bring similar charges against the vast majority of unions in the Country. The ones that represent only public sector employees are almost totally unregulated; USDOL only has authority over those who represent private sector employees under the National Labor Relations Act. USDOL regulation depends entirely on the will of the Administration. Under Democrats there is no regulation; the unions hardly even filed their LM-2 financial reports under Clinton and those that were filed could have won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction. There is a little, a very little, more scrutiny under Republicans. Early in the Bush Administration, DOL took steps to make the unions file their LM-2s and also published LM-2s on the Web. It was important enough that when the Ds took over the Senate, they put language in the budget prohibiting expenditures for financial disclosure enforcement.

    As I’ve said here before, there are few unions in the Country whose dues structures could withstand Constitutional scrutiny. Any AG in the Country could cut off their dues. The Ds won’t because the Democrat Party runs on illegal dues. The Rs won’t because they simply don’t have the courage and many think if they’re just nice to the unions, the unions will like them more – sorta like abused children.