A group of workers at Eaton’s International Association of Machinists union plant in Trenton, Illinois, just across the Missouri River, say they were threatened with illegal “reinstatement fees” and possible termination after resigning from the IAM union in late 2024. The controversy centers on an October strike ordered by IAM, when dozens of employees – including Robert Jacobs – resigned their union membership specifically so they could cross the picket line and keep working.
The real trouble began after the strike, when these employees received letters demanding $306 “reinstatement fees,” warning that “if you do not remit the total sum … within 30 days … the Union will be required to seek your termination from employment.” Jacobs, with help from the National Right to Work Foundation, filed a federal complaint alleging the union’s conduct was not only coercive, but outright illegal.
“They’re threatening our jobs and livelihoods,” Jacobs told the St. Louis Business Journal. “IAM officials are going even further and hitting us with hundreds of dollars in made-up fees just because we exercised our right not to be union members.”
Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation, noted that the IAM union is notorious for these tactics.
“IAM has a long history of pressuring workers with excessive fees and penalties when they choose to exercise their rights,” he said. “This case is just one example of a pattern of union overreach that we continue to see across the country.”
Legal Context: Union Fees and Worker Rights in Illinois and Missouri
Mix calls the union’s response a clear case of retaliation. “This could be reprisal from the union for people exercising their rights under the law,” Mix said.
Both Illinois and Missouri are not right-to-work states, so workers can be required to pay certain union fees. But Mix stressed that under federal law and Supreme Court precedent, unions cannot require non-members to pay for political, lobbying, or ideological activities – only for collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment. “And retaliating against workers for resigning is still prohibited,” Mix emphasized.
Mix pointed to Supreme Court rulings like General Motors v. NLRB (1963) and Beck (1988): “Unions are not informing workers of their rights, and union officials are still trying to require them to pay dues and fees that are no longer chargeable.” He added that unions are supposed to notify workers about which expenses are chargeable, but “that didn’t happen here either.”
The Supreme Court Crisis That Set the Stage for Modern Labor Law
During Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidency, the Supreme Court initially struck down key New Deal labor reforms, including the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which was designed to protect workers’ collective bargaining rights. Roosevelt responded by proposing a controversial court-packing plan aimed at adding justices who would support his agenda.
However, before the plan could be implemented, two Supreme Court justices shifted their positions in a landmark decision, effectively upholding the NLRA and resolving the central legal obstacle. With the Court’s reversal, Roosevelt abandoned the court-packing proposal, as the threat that prompted it had dissipated.
This moment established the foundation for the modern legal framework governing union powers and workers’ rights, setting the stage for decades of labor law and Supreme Court rulings that continue to shape the boundaries of union fees and employee protections.
Mix also cited the 2018 Supreme Court decision in Janus v. AFSCME, a case originating in Illinois and backed by then-Governor Bruce Rauner. That ruling made it unconstitutional to compel public sector employees to pay union fees if they are not members. “After Janus, no government employee anywhere in America, whether you’re in a right-to-work state or not, can be forced to pay dues to a government union just to keep their job,” Mix explained. But Janus doesn’t extend to the private sector, where workers like those at Eaton remain vulnerable to union security agreements and, Mix argues, union overreach.
Investigation Underway as Union Blames Employer
When the National Right to Work Foundation intervened, IAM blamed Eaton’s HR department for the demand, but Mix is skeptical. “That would be something the employer would have no interest or involvement in,” he said, noting reinstatement fees are not a standard part of union contracts. “The fact that we still have to litigate these cases 35 years later is really the big story.” He also flagged confusing contract language requiring a “member in good standing,” which the Supreme Court has said doesn’t mean formal union membership but still misleads many workers. The National Labor Relations Board is now investigating the complaint.
Beyond these disputes over union fees and worker rights, union political spending remains a hot topic. In related reporting, SNIPS NEWS details how the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association allocates 99% of its political spending to left-leaning causes and advocacy groups, shaping policy in ways that benefit its membership. Private sector trade union membership, as opposed to leadership, turned out in droves for President Donald Trump in November in 2024.
“Unions don’t always represent the views of their members. Just look at the 2024 election — millions of union members voted for Donald Trump, despite leadership overwhelmingly backing the other side,” Mix said. Meanwhile, Mix is watching a related battle at the federal level: Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer’s proposal to raise the LM-2 reporting threshold for unions, which would reduce financial transparency for hundreds of unions nationwide. “Less transparency means less accountability,” Mix warned.
AFL-CIO Supports Raising LM-2 Thresholds with Calls for Inflation Indexing
The AFL-CIO submitted comments supporting the Department of Labor’s proposal to raise LM-2 reporting thresholds, calling the current thresholds outdated. They noted that a union with $250,000 in annual receipts typically has fewer than 500 members, while a union with $450,000 in receipts averages about 900 members. Under the proposal, small unions with fewer than 1,000 members would still file the most detailed LM-2 form.
While endorsing the inflation adjustment, the AFL-CIO urged the Department to include automatic annual indexing of the thresholds based on the Consumer Price Index to prevent future delays in updates. Alternatively, they proposed increasing the thresholds further – to $575,000 for LM-2 filing – to account for inflation until the next rulemaking.
The federation emphasized that the LM-2 form’s administrative burdens, expanded significantly in 2003, disproportionately affect smaller unions. Many reported hiring consultants or additional staff to comply. Raising the thresholds would relieve these smaller organizations, allowing them to focus more resources on member representation and collective bargaining. The AFL-CIO also argued the Department’s cost estimates underestimate true expenses, as many unions engage professional accountants.
Critics Warn Raising Thresholds Could Undermine Union Transparency
Among the critics is the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW), representing employers and employees across industries. CDW cautioned that raising reporting thresholds could reduce transparency just as union members demand greater insight into dues spending and union operations. They recommended further reforms to enhance transparency, including separating reporting of representational versus organizing activities, stronger enforcement of financial reporting, disclosure requirements for worker centers that act like unions, and reporting on “salts” – union employees who infiltrate nonunion workplaces.
Another critic, the nonprofit Institute for the American Worker (I4AW), highlighted the LMRDA’s origins in addressing labor corruption and stressed the importance of robust financial reporting. I4AW expressed concern that the current proposal focuses too heavily on reducing paperwork rather than preserving oversight. They recommended reconsidering OLMS’s 2020 proposal, which raised thresholds more moderately and introduced a “long form” LM-2 for the largest unions. I4AW also cited recent criminal convictions for embezzlement and financial misconduct involving union officials whose unions would have benefited from the proposed threshold increase, underscoring the need for strong reporting to prevent abuse.
These concerns echo a broader opposition among commenters, many warning that raising the threshold would let over 850 unions – spending more than $200 million annually – avoid detailed financial disclosure. One typical comment reads: “This rule invites waste, corruption, and abuse, and should be withdrawn immediately.” Many comments share similar, even identical, language.
As Mix concluded, “letting others know in the workplace that they have these rights is the obvious next step.” Advocates like Mix are also closely watching legislative efforts such as Senator Rand Paul’s Right to Work Act, which aims to prohibit mandatory union fees nationwide. Meanwhile, Jacobs and his colleagues await the outcome of the federal investigation as the broader debate over union transparency, worker rights, and union accountability continues to unfold.