International Longshore and Warehouse Union

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
940577594
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4157750533
Rating
37
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,222,523
Expenses
$8,503,316
Assets
$8,825,483
Liabilities
$1,064,142

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

32 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT OLVERA JR (PRESIDENT)
  • RYAN WHITMAN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • BRANDON WOLFF (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • LINDSAY NICHOLAS (GENERAL COUNSEL/EXEC ADMIN): $370,680 total reported compensation
  • ROBERT OLVERA JR (PRESIDENT): $325,564 total reported compensation
  • EDWIN FERRIS (SECRETARY TREASURER): $312,109 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization's primary function is to represent and unionize workers. The organization maintains five offices to organize and to render assistance to over 50 locals and union members when called upon to do so.

What it reported doing in 2025

Research and education - the research department provides a variety of services in support of a wide spectrum of union activities including, but not limited to, contract negotiations and enforcement, trade union training and education, legislative analyses, and internal union administration.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 85% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

REVIEW - Most voting board members are independent and revenue has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 53
  • Accountability: 78
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 76.4%; rating input score 76; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.2%; rating input score 85; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 30.4%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.04; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 30.4%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 23 of 27 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $371K · 32 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 16 of 18 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.