It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Union workers get by, Union bosses live quite well.

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 03:07 AM

According to the Center for Union Facts, Trumka brought home a gross salary of $264,827 in 2010, plus another $18,513 in additional compensation, to represent his union. The union leader has earned well over $200,000 every year since he was promoted to Secretary Treasurer in 2003.

In 2011, Trumka earned $293,750.

According to the recent email from Trumka’s desk, the average American worker makes about $34,000 a year.

Wow... I'm willing to bet it takes a lot of individual dues from that vast membership to cover almost $300,000 a year to a single man. I wonder, just how do all the hard working folk feel about that when his job is basically to spend the Union funds in buying more and more political influence?

I've always wondered why Union bosses are given some special disposition away from being a typical lowlife politician who burns everyone that benefits them? In looking through history, those at the top of that pyramid have always figured right into the middle of things. Running from the stories of corruption to the Teamsters and the Mafia of times past, it's always something. Yet, the membership keeps tolerating it.

Isn't it fair to ask when seeing a story like this, as much as the overall nation needs change of leadership in political office, just who made these fat cats special to be above some serious change at the head of labor leadership as well? Representing the worker doesn't require socialism. It absolutely doesn't require fat cats making 8-10 times the average wage of the working men they represent.

Here's a WILD idea...why aren't the Union leadership positions drawn FROM the working men of the Union? Oh nvm.. It's like suggesting we elect Congressmen that are really from among the normal people, huh? Such a rare event, it's hardly worth hoping to see.

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 03:13 AM
In every system, like any company, the same form will appear. Even in those organisations created to provide equality and prosperity to the poor and keep the rich from flying to high.

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 03:39 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000


The pyramid scheme,Is alive and well..........

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 03:42 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I can only speak to the union I used to work with. IATSE.
The full name: International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, Its Territories and Canada
While I have certain issues with that union's local chapter that make me search employment outside of it, it does look out for it's workers.

I was personally mentored by the President of the Local chapter on a non union gig, over the span of 5 summers. After that time, he passed his job to me.
He has wanted to retire from the position (president) for at least a decade. But the members keep insisting he run. And the few times he hasn't been the un-opposed candidate, the other candidates are even worse than our current 2 "favorite" candidates for POTUS.
And he makes so much money by being the head of the union, he took a non union gig for 17 years in the off season, so he could make ends meet.

Personally I do not see the corruption in private unions. Government unions (school emplyees, police, etc) that is where a great amount of corruption is.

Corruption continues to stem from the government. But not the private unions.
edit on 24-4-2012 by randomtangentsrme because: clarification

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 03:50 AM
reply to post by randomtangentsrme

I appreciate the perspective. One of my instructors worked as a High School teacher for his career and now doing the Political Science class at the college. It's changed my thinking about local level unions quite a bit in talking with him. I'm not necessarily as against least as misinformed as to 'how well off' the lower levels of the Unions are as I once was (and recently). The instructor here had also served as the Union that applied, for quite some time and so has told me about that. It's interesting and enlightening. It also makes seeing the top levels like this all the more annoying and I'm definitely not Union. I never have been.

Again though... It's an awful lot of dues to pile up for $300,000 in compensation on one guy. I guess it's when it gets into the top levels that it's starting to get straight political and really the same ugly mess as the top levels of Government. After all, I went through a shooting course with a former Missouri STATE Representative. He was a great guy and we got along fine.....although I haven't seen a Missouri Congressman in Washington that I thought was worth much in the time I've been around.

Local vs. National? Hmmm.. Again, thanks for the personal perspective. It's always informative!

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 04:17 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Here in the UK we have the government and then we are divided into regions that operate

'regional coincils'

Now many many years ago when i started work and got into the 'tax work self support system'

the head of the regional council was an 'ordinary employee' who was working for the good of

the local community, and paid as such. [enough to maybe afford the best house in the street]

but not excessively more than a well paid manager etc.

I don't know when it happened but NOW the salary of the 'leader of the council' is a great deal

higher than that of the Prime Minister who is responsible for the WHOLE country

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 04:19 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I actually do a lot of work going to high schools as an independent contractor teaching kids: Lighting design, scenic design, and scenic construction. I actually have about 3 old high school students, and a couple college students (I worked for a UC campus for about 6 months as a temp hire) that are high on my call list when I need multiple people on a gig.

There are quite a few good things with a union in regards to the worker. Pay, working conditions, and safety being the top of the list in my opinion.

$300,000 really is not a lot of dues. With a union 30,000 strong nationally (very small [hypothetical] union) that's $10 per year per member. I do agree it's beyond a fair salary for a top union rep, if you think about it. I believe the POTUS only makes $400,000 a year salary.

Politics always disappoint. That is why after years of drumming for churches, I no longer believe in organized religion. I've seen the politics that happen even just between a music director, and preacher.

Oh, and just to clarify, I do not take union calls at the moment, because I hate getting phone calls at 8am on my day off asking "Can you be here 15 minutes ago."

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 04:32 AM
reply to post by eletheia

That is a great deal more about the system over there than I knew before, to be sure. I really thank you for dropping by and sharing that. It's also somehow reassuring to know we aren't alone in those at the top seeing the chance and just spring boarding themselves ever higher and higher above those they once came from.

It's terrible that it's happening there too, but still, misery loves company and we're all in the same boat by the sound of things.

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 04:43 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Trumpka is head of AFL/CIO and makes a good, but reasonable, salary. It is less than 10 times the average worker's earnings. Seems the real story would be about the inequities at private corporations where CEO's/CFO's/COO's/Members of the Board/etc. earn much, much more than ten times the salary of the average employee at said company. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I'd be willing to wager that the inequity at Goldman Sachs, GE, Chevron, JP Morgan, Litton Industries, etc. etc. would make Trumpka's salary look very reasonable by way of comparison. Trumpka's salary is a non-issue and the anti-union forces will find difficulty in using that against him.

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 04:48 AM
When i was employed [retired now] The manager of the company awarded me any increases

in salary according to what he considered i brought to the company.

So by that premise Bankers work for shareholders, Governments work for the people they

represent, Union leaders work for the people they represent, and so on, should go to the

people they represent for salaries and increments and NOT be able to award them to


posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 04:54 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Actually thats the problem
While there are FAT CAT's around we are NOT ALL in this

I think the FAT CAT's need a diet of 'austerity'

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 04:59 AM
reply to post by BULLPIN

Well I figured a few would defend the salary. As one pointed out, Obama's Salary is only $400,000 himself. I certainly don't think the bad behavior of private corporations make one bit of difference either way to what would seem to be the misbehavior and excess in the national unions and upper levels of national government.

I'll agree with you 100% about the problems in corporations. Where once a mere profit was enough and everyone was proud and happy, it's become a world where MORE profit than the year before and multitudes more than a few years before that must be maintained in an upward trend or the world calls it failing. That has only one logical outcome and we're reaching it. It didn't have to ..and should never have gone this way and it sure isn't capitalism of any kind I ever learned about.

However... It still doesn't excuse the bad behavior my OP refers to. I think the tendency to say that 'everyone else' doing it makes each single case okay or somehow less offensive is how we're losing our whole society. One small example at a time, multiplied all over at once.

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 05:19 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Seems like you an i are on the same wavelength

I don't know how much you are aware of about the scandal of the UK government expenses?

But when i was employed and had expenses, my area manager went through my expenses

with a 'fine tooth comb' i was even queried on why i got less mpg than my male colleagues

I could only think i had a heavier foot on the gas
. Couldn't have got away with so much as

a paper clip
but then thats the way it should be!

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 05:43 AM
reply to post by eletheia

What you said sounds about right. If I made the rules, the highest paid person at a company would make no more than twenty times the salary of the lowest paid person at that same company. This means that the President/CEO could make up to 20 times the salary of the janitor, or cafeteria worker.

A society in which the disparity between the richest and poorest segments is too great soon discovers that the vast inequity, in itself, is a root cause of instability. This, unfortunately, is where we find ourselves today. The occupy and TEA party movements are responses to this widening chasm between the proletariat, and bourgeois pigs, if you will. The challenge for the wealthy, moneyed class, will be to restore the illusion, and sense, of fair play in the economic system while providing just enough scraps to keep the masses of little people from climbing over their castle walls. Sorry for the off-topic rant of sorts...

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 12:42 PM
reply to post by eletheia

I'd never heard about that sort of thing for a spending issue in the UK. That is something else. All the way down to MPG and paperclips? Well, I'd have to agree that is how it ought to be if it can be enforced equally. Here and there, they are working with our money and not their own. If only they had such accountability at the upper levels where paper clips come with billion dollar price tags to be tossed around and thrown out on a whim.

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 03:00 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Well for your information just a small selection of the claims made by the UK members

of the government

# On her holiday home many miles away from her constituancy and NOT even her main

residence thousands to cure wood worm and replace flooring

# Using the subsidence allowence for a mortgage, selling at a large profit when the price

went up, and then not even paying capital gains tax!

# For cleaning the 'moat' around his VERY LARGE DETACHED residence it would have to

be large to warrant a 'moat'

# Claiming for their grocery food bills!

# One even claimed for the racey video's her husband watched in her absence!

That is only a minute selection of what the public were finding out daily and if you are

interested in finding out more about the greed and sleeze of the British Members of Parliament

just google "British government expenses scandal" Not enough were proscuted for having

their 'snouts in the trough'

top topics


log in