One of the first things they tell aides when they get to Capitol Hill is that when they’re invited to a function, it’s not actually them that’s being invited — it’s the person in their position.
The organizers or those offering gifts are not suddenly in thrall with the person — they’re courting favor with the committee staffer.
Union leaders have a hard time with this concept. They are supposed to be representatives of the hard-working members who elect them. But they control a big budget of dues that members are forced to pay as a condition of holding their jobs, and they get tempted to use that money to buy influence on their own.
TRUMP’S NEW UNION TRANSPARENCY TOOL IS A GAME CHANGER FOR WORKERS
Suddenly, a union boss becomes a political fixer, a kingmaker who can bestow money and manpower on the campaign of his choosing. That’s fine as long as all the members, who are forced to join his organization not because they endorse its political activity but because it’s a condition for employment, agree with the boss’s politics. Because if they don’t, that’s tyranny.
That is why the four largest public-sector unions spent more than $900 million on partisan elections during the 2024 cycle, more than $700 million of which went directly to Democratic candidates, according to research from the Commonwealth Foundation.
In other words, those unions — the National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers, Service Employees International Union, and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees — demanded membership dues from the teachers, maids, cafeteria staff, plumbers, and other blue-collar workers forced to join their organizations. Then they used that money to buy themselves a seat at the table with leftist candidates whom those workers might not support.
This has passed from being a side effect to a raison d’etre. In spite of the decline of the labor movement nationwide, these kingmakers with other people’s money continue to grow.
“Unions show no sign of abandoning politics anytime soon,” political observer Alexander T. MacDonald wrote in 2024. “They routinely endorse candidates, fund campaigns, adopt policy platforms, and even bargain for political goals. Indeed, those activities have become their main focus. They are less like private bargaining agents, more like political action committees.”
In fact, the activism goes well beyond campaign spending. Since January 2025, when President Donald Trump took office, unions have sued the Trump administration 60 times. The suits were not to represent the interests of their members, but to help their leftist counterparts in federal, state, and local governments make trouble for a president whom many of their blue-collar members support.
And they refuse to take no for an answer. During the 2024 election, the Teamsters Union asked its members which presidential candidate they would support. Trump carried nearly 60% of the vote, compared to 34% for Kamala Harris.
So did the union endorse Trump?
Of course not. The union ultimately decided not to endorse, saying that “neither major candidate was able to make serious commitments to our union to ensure the interests of working people are always put before Big Business,” O’Brien said later.
And this after saying: “Our final decision around a possible presidential endorsement will not be made lightly, but you can be sure it will be driven directly by our diverse membership.” Because, of course, “Our members are the union, and their voices and opinions must be at the forefront of everything the Teamsters do.”
They asked. They didn’t get the answer they wanted. So they decided there would be no answer at all.
And it’s not just about wielding the political power these leaders purchase with the hard-earned wages of their blue-collar members. It’s also a matter of seeing themselves as entitled to lavish lifestyles at their members’ expense.
The New Jersey Monitor, an independent media website, looked at the payroll of the International Longshoremen’s Association. Not the longshoremen who load and unload ships. The union leaders.
In 2023, the top 30 local leaders earned more than $9 million in salary, including 25 vice presidents whose pay reached $554,000 each. What does a union local need with 25 vice presidents? And can none be found who will do it for less than $554,000 per year?
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS DROP CESAR CHAVEZ CELEBRATIONS AFTER SEXUAL ABUSE ALLEGATIONS
This is not stewardship, and it certainly is not leadership. It is thuggery at best or theft and extortion at worst.
If unions can’t get more responsible in how they handle members’ dues payments, they should send refunds and get out of the business.
Brian McNicoll is a freelance writer based in Alexandria, Virginia, a former senior writer for the Heritage Foundation, and former director of communications for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.