Letter to City Journal Editor or Opinion Piece – not published

California’s Billion‑Dollar Union Machine and the Invisible Men Behind It

Dear Editor:

The recent investigation, California’s Billion‑Dollar Union Machine, reveals a political and financial structure of extraordinary scale. According to the article, ten of California’s largest public‑sector unions collected more than $1 billion in dues and fees in 2024 and represent over 1 million members. These unions employ more than 1,500 staff and officers and command a voting bloc large enough to influence statewide elections.

Yet despite this immense power, the article makes one fact unmistakably clear: men’s issues are entirely absent from the unions’ political agenda, even though men make up a substantial portion of dues‑paying members.

The article documents union political spending on causes far removed from workplace representation. One union is described as “focused on securing abortion rights,” and SEIU‑UHW sent $2.2 million to support Arizona’s 2024 constitutional amendment on abortion. This is a women’s issue funded with California dues.

By contrast, the article contains no reference whatsoever to issues affecting men, including:

• boys’ educational decline
• fatherlessness and custody inequities
• male victims of domestic violence
• men’s reproductive rights
• Selective Service reform
• male homelessness
• male suicide rates

These are not fringe concerns—they are documented crises affecting men and boys across California.

Meanwhile, unions lobby aggressively for tax increases—gas taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, and wealth taxes—which disproportionately impact men, who statistically earn more taxable income, own more taxable assets, and operate more small businesses. These taxes fund programs that overwhelmingly employ women, such as nursing, caregiving, and K–12 education.

The imbalance is structural: men pay more into systems that do not represent their interests.

The article also highlights questionable internal spending—luxury resorts, boutique coaching firms, and high‑end retreats—funded by dues from workers earning modest wages. These expenditures raise legitimate concerns about whether unions are serving their members or simply expanding their own political reach.

California is approaching what the article calls a “tipping point”—a growing population dependent on government programs and a shrinking private‑sector base expected to finance them. Men make up a large share of that private‑sector base. They shoulder the taxes, yet their issues remain invisible.

As President of the National Coalition for Men, I urge policymakers, journalists, and union members to ask a simple question:

If unions claim to represent workers, why do they ignore half of them?

Men deserve representation. Men deserve fairness. And men deserve a voice in the political machine their dues and taxes help sustain.

NCFM and others stand ready to work with any union, legislator, or agency willing to address the inequities men face in California. Ignoring these issues—while expanding taxes, spending, and political influence—only deepens the imbalance.

Respectfully,

Harry Crouch

President/Chairman of the Board

National Coalition for Men (NCFM)

Data Appendix: Estimated Membership and Staff Gender Breakdown

Source: Article California’s Billion‑Dollar Union Machine (current tab). Note: The article provides totals and spending details but does not provide gender breakdowns; the membership and staff gender figures below are evidence‑based estimates derived from profession‑level gender ratios and union leadership patterns.

1. Estimated Male/Female Membership by Union

Estimated total men across these unions: ~418,000.

1. Estimated Gender Breakdown of the 1,500 Staff and Officers

The article states the unions list more than 1,500 employees and officers but does not provide a gender breakdown. Using union leadership patterns and workforce gender mixes, the best estimate is:

• Estimated men among staff/officers: ~600–750 (≈40–50%)
• Estimated women among staff/officers: ~750–900 (≈50–60%)

Rationale:

• IUOE leadership and staff are overwhelmingly male (construction/trades sector).
• AFSCME and many SEIU locals have male‑skewed leadership and political staff.
• CTA and CNA have female‑majority memberships; CNA leadership is female, CTA leadership is mixed; staff in legal/political roles often skew more male than membership.
• CSEA staff likely mirror membership more closely.
• The weighted estimate accounts for union size and leadership composition.

References and Notes

1. California’s Billion‑Dollar Union Machine — investigative article (current tab). The article provides the membership totals, the $1 billion+ dues figure, the “more than 1,500 employees and officers” statement, and examples of political spending (including the $2.2 million SEIU‑UHW transfer). The article does not provide gender breakdowns for members or staff; the gender estimates above are derived from publicly available workforce gender ratios and union leadership rosters.
2. Profession‑level gender ratios used to estimate membership composition: K–12 teachers (~72% women), registered nurses (~88% women), caregiving/IHSS and many SEIU sectors (~65–80% women), operating engineers (~90% men), and public‑sector classified staff (~55–60% women). These ratios are standard workforce estimates used to infer likely union membership gender mixes.
3. Staff/officer gender estimate methodology: weighted by union size and adjusted for known leadership gender patterns (e.g., IUOE male leadership, CNA female leadership, mixed SEIU locals).

NCFM California’s Billion‑Dollar Union Machine and the Invisible Men Behind It

Tags: California unions, civil rights, discriminatin agaist men, gender equality, human rights, justice, mens rights, news, politics, SPLC, Trending, women