What do the Circuit City retail chain and U.S. Senator Norm Coleman have in common? They both are undermining the American dream, participants at a rally said
…
The fired workers — who don’t have a union — earned about $12 an hour
First of all, if you haven’t read about the latest round of corporate treachery, read this article, but to see how Norm Coleman might tie in you’ll have to look elsewhere. Workday Minnesota has the scoop:
At the core of this is the so called “Free Choice Act” which follows the political BS standard of name it the exact opposite of what it is rule, much like the Patriot Act. While reform of collective bargaining law is without in doubt in order this law is a power grab by the unions. They are asking to remove the secret ballot provision to form a union. The only functional reason for this is that it allows their organizers to manipulate individuals one at a time into signing up. If the unions were truly interested in the will of the workers they would be protecting the secret ballot even if it meant fewer unions.
Good info Kerosene - as usual, neither side can be trusted and neither side truly has the workers best interests in mind. It is and always will be about power and money.
This is a load of crap. If unions cannot organize after a fair election, then they aren’t worth anything anyway. I mean, who would want to join a union with such little power they can’t even get people to sign up. All unions do is suck money from workers and redistribute the dues to Democrat politicians. And by the way, you can talk about those CEOs all you want, but the top union bosses in America make hundreds of thousands of dollars every year off of the backs of working people who are forced in Minnesota to belong to the union.
Here are the salaries of just a few union bosses:
John Sweeny, President of the AFL CIO made $291,718 in salary and compensation in 2005. Source: L-2 Disclosure to Labor Dept. Gerald McIntee, President of AFSCME made a whopping $584,980 in salary and compensation in 2005. Source: L-2 Disclosure to Labor Dept. Harold Schaitberger, President of the IAFF, made $318,574 in salary and compensation in 2005. Source: L-2 Disclosure to Labor Dept. And Reg Weaver, President of the NEA, made $417,858 in salary and compensation in 2005. Source: L-2 Disclosure to Labor Dept. The NEA union also paid in 2005 $337,867 in salary and compensation to Lily Eskelsen - Secretary/Treasurer and $329,045 in salary and compensation to Dennis Van Roekel - Vice President. Source: L-2 Disclosure to Labor Dept.
Poor CEO’s can’t catch a break.
See reality here: http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1164144.html.
Union salaries don’t even compare. Not even in the same ballpark. Get serious.
I can’t believe that you’re trying to compare the absurd compensation that CEO’s take home to the salaries of Union leaders.
Union leaders are the problem? Because those CEO’s treat their employees so fairly? With all those health benefits and livable wages?
Union leaders treat workers like human beings. CEO’s treat them like comodities; traded and disposed of on a whim.
Okay Chris. Once and for all, you open a pandora’s Box about how NAtional Union Officers make their money.
They, like any CEO of a Big Company, make more money. Their salaries are voted on by the membership for all the work they are elected to do. The larger the Union, the larger the salary.
By comparrison, Union Presidents and officers make miniscule as compared to the CEOs of Wal*Mart, Haliburton, Exxon, etc. Satisfied???
Boy, I sure hope none of you guys complaining about unions organizing aren’t over on MDE complaining about Lori Swanson for not wanting unions to organize. But I suspect you are.
No Kathy, I am not satisfied. What work do union bosses do to justify their six figure salaries? Because I don’t think they do anything that justifies those salaries.
I’d also submit that CEO positions are different than union bosses. First, union bosses make their salaries as a direct result of money that is taken out of the paychecks of union members. In other words, union bosses make their salaries off the backs of working people. Corporate CEOs are paid by the board of directors of the corporation. Most boards pay CEOs based on performance, although there are famous cases of golden parachutes given to CEOs who have tanked their companies. At least in theory a CEO is supposed to produce something of value for a corporation. Union bosses produce nothing.
There is no justification for a union boss to make ten times (or more) salary than a typical member of the union. In fact, it’s scandalous they are paid so much.
Union leaders “produce nothing?” Is that really fair?
Is it possible that union leaders produce an organized worker force, negotiate fair terms under collective bargaining and stand-up for the rights of fellow employees?
You like what CEO’s do and you don’t like what union leaders do. Just be honest about it. But don’t claim they don’t produce anything.
Sam,
I am talking about economic production. Union bosses do not negotiate contracts either. They represent their workers in the media (in a spokesperson capacity) and in political activity. But if you think John Sweeney is negotiating contracts, I think you’re kidding yourself. It is unconscionable that these guys make a six figure income off of the backs of the working people they claim they care for.
Northwest Airlines plans to award CEO Doug Steenland $26.6 million in equity.
A NWA 15-year flight attendant averages $35,433 a year.
Let’s talk about unconscionable for a moment.
26.6 million divided by 35,000 equals: 760.
Mr. Steenland gets paid 760 times the amount of a 15-year flight attendant. In an airline that just a year ago was aksing flight attendants to take pay cuts and work longer hours in order to help the airline emerge from backruptcy finanically viable. UNCONSCIONALBE!!!
You’re worried about union leaders making 5 to 10 times more than the workers they represent.
But I guess Mr. Steeland deserves his compensation because that’s what the market dictates. Right? Mr. Steeland earned every penny. Right? Flight attendants should have gone to business school and learned how suck-up to the board of directors and swindle shareholders. Right?
760 TIMES. And you’re concerned with union leaders. Get serious. You don’t like unions, just move on.
Yes, CEO’s are making WAY too much money these days.
That said, union bosses are no different than most people. They are making decisions based on their own best interests that will sustain themselves and their overall union - not the interests of every worker.
Yes, unions should be protected and the current environment allows businesses too much power to try and deny workers the right to unionize. That said, the secret ballot issue seems to be one that protects a workers right to privacy and undue influence and should be kept as a core tenet.
If the unions are admitting in the case of leadership pay that that different and more difficult jobs can demand higher salaries why should those same rules not apply to the workers and CEOs? The unions are admitting that the market is truly what should set salaries and not a failed socialist philosophy.
Back to the main point though. It doesn’t seem anybody wants to defend the “Free Choice Act” which I will have to attribute to the fact it is indefensible.
Sam,
Your statement about NWA was very misleading. Getting $26.6 million in equity (which means stock and options) is much different than getting a $26.6 million salary. CEOs are restricted under SEC rules with respect to selling the stocks and exercising the options. Mr. Steenland could not convert the $26.6 million to cash tomorrow even if he tried.
Also, you have to take into consideration Mr. Steenland’s performance as CEO. In the first quarter of 2006, NWA posted a pre-tax loss of $129 million. In the first quarter of 2007, NWA posted a pre-tax profit of $100 million. That is a swing in the black of $229 million. You cannot say that Mr. Steenland is not earning his stocks.
You say I don’t like unions and should leave it at that. My reply would be you don’t like capitalism and we should leave it at that.
Mr. Steeland does not deserve $26 million (whether it be in salarly, stock options, profit sharing, etc.) The 15-year flight attendants deserve a pay raise.
You’re so eager to give all the credit for the airline emerging from bankruptcy to the CEO. What about all the sacrifices that the flight attendants, pilots and maintenance workers made? Cuts in pay, overtime, work hours, benefits, etc.
Maybe some of the credit belongs to the employees. Maybe they deserve stock options for all the work they’ve done for the airline.
Have you ever considered that while you’re putting Mr. Steeland on his pedestal?
A true market would dictate the pay of both the CEO and the employees. The flight attendants to not naturally deserve a particular pay any more than Steeland does.
The biggest problems with the unions is that at some point they all forget that the world and the economy changes. Jobs that were once high paying because they demanded the best available people have become jobs that can be done by just about anybody. This happens with technology changes and the fact people would rather have cheap plane tickets then pillows and meals on a flight.
Same,
Do you know how much salary any of these employee groups make? Pilots make $90,000 a year (and that is a starting salary range for many - depending on the equipment). Mechanics make $60,000 a year and many make $80,000-$90,000. Flight Attendants don’t fare quite as well, but they are also not skilled employees like mechanics and pilots. You talk about sacrifices for the airline and that’s fair enough. However, the sacrifices they made were so they kept their jobs. Had any of those employee groups not made sacrifices, the airline would have gone out of business and they would all be looking for work.
I have to say that it’s not unreasonable to reward a CEO who made a swing of $229 million from negative to positive. What would you want to be compensated if you led a business that went from $129 million in the negative to $100 million in the positive?