• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Ever wonder where your union dues go?

CADsortaGUY

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
I'd hate to be a Chicago teamster

You money at work "protecting" you.
rolleye.gif


I wonder what dave will say about this....

CkG
 
You fail to realize that the union management team's wages are voted on by the members. Just another troll post.

Bleep
 
Originally posted by: Bleep
You fail to realize that the union management team's wages are voted on by the members. Just another troll post.

Bleep
Click to expand...

I don't think union members would willingly vote for that high of salary for their "leader". But then again I suppose if they believe the union "protects" them then maybe they do think their "leader" needs that high of salary to do his job - no?😉

CkG
 
At least the workers can vote him out.

There are plenty of CEO's who make a lot more than that for running companies into the ground.....companies whose employees often have no voice.
 
Great post CADkindaGUY.

This just goes to show you the complete hypocrisy of unions in general.

While they endlessly criticize "big business" for awarding huge management salaries on the backs of workers, in the next breath those SAME REWARDS are "necessary", "essential" and "justified" to compensate their own management and maintain competitiveness with other unions.

Just more proof of the pot calling the kettle black.



:beer:😀
 
At least the workers can vote him out.
Click to expand...

Riiiiiiight. Only to replace him with another six-figure union boss?
rolleye.gif


There are plenty of CEO's who make a lot more than that for running companies into the ground.....companies whose employees often have no voice.
Click to expand...

Why should they?

Employees are compensated with salaries. Don't like the organization? Work elsewhere.

The OWNERS of a corporation have a vote. Don't like the organization? Vote to change it's management.

:beer:😀
 
Originally posted by: Bleep
You fail to realize that the union management team's wages are voted on by the members. Just another troll post.
Click to expand...

How is this a "troll post"? Because you can't think of a good reason why union bosses' wages are similar to those of a corporation's executive management?

You fail to realize that a CEO's wages are voted on by a Board of Directors, whose members are elected by owners (shareholders).

Like it or not, large unions operate just like any other large corporation - large salaries are intended to compensate a talented management team, and keep their loyalty by making it difficult for a competitor to lure them away with a larger salary.


:beer:😀
 
I agree that a Union boss might be compensated similar to a corporate executive.

However neither one could possibly deserve the amount mentioned--no matter how talented.

Union dues kept many striking workers and their families afloat through a 6 month strike in California--just recently.
 
yeah, that union boss guy is getting paid like a Japanese CEO (who make an average of 12x their company's average worker). while the average American CEO earns 400x the company's average employee

Ex: CEO of AT&T Wireless just revealed his bonus doubled to $1.2 million (not including stock opt), while the company had a miserbly aweful quarter.
SBC head got $10 million cash bonus while laying off workers left and right.
Dell CEO just got 400,000 options worth up to $12 million, gotta give the top brass a bonus for saving money by moving all the call operations to India right?

i mean, they save the company money so it's only fair that they take twice or three times the amount that they saved the company
 
Originally posted by: fjord
I agree that a Union boss might be compensated similar to a corporate executive.

However neither one could possibly deserve the amount mentioned--no matter how talented.

Union dues kept many striking workers and their families afloat through a 6 month strike in California--just recently.
Click to expand...

Huh? Sure they got paid for picketing and such with "striking money" but what did pay? Do you really think they were even close to their "normal" income during those 6 months? How much did they gain by striking? (not much to nothing).

dave is right(for once😉) - just another form of "Corporate Corrupt Bastard Thugs"

CkG
 
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: fjord
I agree that a Union boss might be compensated similar to a corporate executive.

However neither one could possibly deserve the amount mentioned--no matter how talented.

Union dues kept many striking workers and their families afloat through a 6 month strike in California--just recently.
Click to expand...

Huh? Sure they got paid for picketing and such with "striking money" but what did pay? Do you really think they were even close to their "normal" income during those 6 months? How much did they gain by striking? (not much to nothing).

dave is right(for once😉) - just another form of "Corporate Corrupt Bastard Thugs"

CkG
Click to expand...

Hey, what can I say I don't discriminate between Thugs unlike the current Administration.


 
Yeah--Ca supermarket worker got a shiiity contract.

Their union dues, however, were in-fact put to use for one its intended purposes (No-one expects to get paid their ususal pay--that would be imprudent--I think for the first 5 mos. workers got $100/week = $400/month).

I have no doubts Union lawyers could have waited the strike -out for another 3-5 years. It was workers who were calling for an end to the strike--can't say I blame them--6 mos. is a historic high duration.

Your friendly neighborhood Big corporation did heir hatchet job right.

The big guns won--American workers lost. No surprise here.

No fed help again for California (remember the energy buggering). Looks like W. has it in for the left coast.

Nice administration we got.

Time to fire them.
 
A measly $ 630K for the Union Boss, compared to the multi millions that Ken Lay
and other 'GOP' supporters made.
A fair price - if they let you keep your knees,
and don't teach you to swim in the East River.
 
Originally posted by: fjord
Yeah--Ca supermarket worker got a shiiity contract.
Click to expand...
WRONG - their contract is inflated. They were whining about actually having to pay a tiny portion of their health insurance. Oh the horrors - actually having to PAY a little for your health coverage - yeah - it's a "shiity contract"
rolleye.gif

Their union dues, however, were in-fact put to use for one its intended purposes (No-one expects to get paid their ususal pay--that would be imprudent--I think for the first 5 mos. workers got $100/week = $400/month).

I have no doubts Union lawyers could have waited the strike -out for another 3-5 years. It was workers who were calling for an end to the strike--can't say I blame them--6 mos. is a historic high duration.

Your friendly neighborhood Big corporation did heir hatchet job right.

The big guns won--American workers lost. No surprise here.
Click to expand...
What did they "lose"? They lost 6 months of WORKING because the Union thugs were whining about actually having to PAY for something they aren't entitled to and wouldn't let the workers work. How exactly did the "big guns" win? Seems to me they lost business atleast partially due to the picketers and their tactics
No fed help again for California (remember the energy buggering). Looks like W. has it in for the left coast.

Nice administration we got.

Time to fire them.
Click to expand...

The energy "crisis" was the left coast's fault - not Bush's, plus it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

CkG
 
"The big guns won--American workers lost. No surprise here.

No fed help again for California (remember the energy buggering). Looks like W. has it in for the left coast."

UPS Strike Settlement:
  • ...President Clinton resisted calls from businesses to intervene, however some labor leaders praised President Clinton's effort to stay out of the dispute. The President refused to intervene saying that the strike did not threaten national security, or health and therefore was unnecessary for him to get involved. He believes that the solution to such labor dispute lies on the bargaining table.
There's a HUGE difference, when the company can't replace strikers readily. That might just have something to do with the amount of skill involved. I've always said, if your employer can quickly replace you with someone who only needs a couple day's training, your job certainly isn't worth that much in wages. That's why the UPS strikers were successful, though I still consider the tactic to be extortion.
 
Ok CAD, I'll pencil you (and W) in as a friends to and of American workers.

Thanks for clearing that up.
 
Look like the "unions" are out to do nothing more than fleece the workikng class under the banner that they are there to help the working class...sounds just like Kerry.
 
Unions have to be regulated. There are too many instances where the bosses at the top milk the system and get away with it. This is incredibly unfair for the working class.
 
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Look like the "unions" are out to do nothing more than fleece the workikng class under the banner that they are there to help the working class...sounds just like Kerry.
Click to expand...

Like Bush is any better.



rolleye.gif
 
Originally posted by: tec699
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Look like the "unions" are out to do nothing more than fleece the workikng class under the banner that they are there to help the working class...sounds just like Kerry.
Click to expand...

Like Bush is any better.



rolleye.gif
Click to expand...

~but Bush....
rolleye.gif


Anyway this is neither about Bush nor kerry TYVM.

CkG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top