LaborLab Analysis of Comments on Proposed Changes to the Filing Thresholds for Forms LM-2, LM-3, and LM-4 Labor Organization Annual Reports
Overview
On July 1, 2025, the Office of Labor-Management Standards (“OLMS”) of the U.S. Department of Labor published a proposed rule raising the threshold for filing two key union annual reports, Form LM-2 and Form LM-3, noting that the filing thresholds had not been updated since 2003.
Form LM-2 currently must be filed by unions with $250,000 or more in annual receipts; the proposed rule would increase the filing threshold to $450,000, which would result in 868 fewer LM-2s being filed, according to OLMS estimates. Per the current Form LM-2 instructions, in effect since 2003, an average of 530 hours is required to collect the necessary records and an average of 88 hours is required to prepare the Form LM-2. By far the most detailed of the three annual reports, Form LM-2 contains detailed schedules of assets and liabilities, the assignment of certain disbursements to functional activity categories and itemization of certain expenses over $5,000. LM-2 filers nearly always retain outside accounting assistance, which is particularly burdensome on smaller LM-2 filers. The LM-2 reports of larger unions often run into hundreds of pages.
Form LM-3 currently must be filed by unions with more than $10,000 in annual receipts; the proposed rule would increase the filing threshold to $25,000, which would result in 2,089 fewer LM-3s being filed. According to the current Form LM-3 instructions, an average of 103 hours is required to review records and prepare this report (compared with 618 for the LM-2). Form LM-3 is four pages long and itemizes payments to all union officials. Most current LM-3 filers prepare the Form themselves.
Unions with under $25,000 in annual receipts would file the simplified Form LM-4. In FY 2024, approximately 20,000 unions filed either Form LM-2, -3 or -4. The Form LM-4 instructions say the average preparation time is nine (9) hours.
Rationale for the threshold change
As stated clearly in the proposed rule:
DOL believes that the benefits of the proposed changes, particularly in the reduction in regulatory burden for filers, outweigh any loss of detail in annual reporting. By increasing the filing thresholds in a manner proportionate to inflation, this rulemaking ensures that only those unions whose total receipts have kept pace with inflation remain subject to the most detailed reporting requirements.
The present situation is similar to having individual taxpayers who don’t make much money file the long-form IRS 1040 form instead of the Form 1040EZ, which takes a lot less time to complete. Just like the IRS, OLMS has the ability to audit and investigate filers who they believe may be violating the law!
Public Comments
During the month-long comment period, a total of 299 comments were received and all can be viewed online. Interestingly, over a quarter of the comments (78) were submitted by “anonymous”, which is problematic for a number of reasons including the inability to verify whether the same commenter submitted multiple comments. Actually, of those who did identify themselves, 20 commenters filed 41 comments.
Most disturbing, however, is that there appears to have been a concerted effort to “juice” the number of comments against the rule change.
Nearly 76% of comments used the almost verbatim identical language in their comment:
I strongly oppose the Department of Labor’s proposal to raise the LM-2 reporting threshold from $250,000 to $450,000. This change would allow over 850 unions, spending over $200 million annually, to hide from detailed financial disclosure. Workers, many of whom are forced to pay dues or else be fired, and the public deserve to know how union dues are spent — not merely vague summaries and hidden expenses. This rule invites waste, corruption, and abuse, and should be withdrawn immediately.
One commenter wrote:
This is a comment that I copied and pasted from an email, but it expresses my concern extremely well. So I am using it.
We at LaborLab are confident that OLMS will pick up this scam when they read the comments. We do not expect a decision on a final rule for at least several months.
