Organizing Workers

So what were these organizers making who wanted a raise?

When I was in the position of trying to form a staff union at a non-profit, the staff got way under 25K. Again, the members who were hired as staff had families they had to support. The white college kids usually did not.

And as I have read, the organizing with "[your] staff" (which you apparently union-busted) went far beyond pay issues.

Look, I'd be happy to make enough to pay my bills and put a little away every year, and 50K would do just that with my standard of living. Certainly, the funds going to support politicians could be spent on hiring more organizers as well. If you're such a Class Warrior(TM) and sacrificial kind of guy, why didn't you give some of your salary back to the local? Did you really need that much to live on? If so, what did the organizers involved with the staff union make at the time?

Do you also complain about the salaries of your bosses?

Leadership
Top 10 International UNITE HERE Leaders & Staff (by Salary) Name Title Total Compensation
John Wilhelm President Hospitality Ind $ 390,023
Bruce Raynor General President $ 339,043
Sherri Chiesa Executive Vice President $ 247,010
Nick Worhaug Vice President $ 245,933
Kenneth Paulsen Vice President $ 243,208
Edgar Romney Executive Vice President $ 226,409
Mark Fleischman Executive Vice President $ 217,434
Karl Lechow Vice President $ 184,352
David Prouty General Counsel $ 171,977
Ernest Bennett Vice President $ 164,974

I do believe these are 2005 figures.

Also, wasn't there a demand that the union organizers shouldn't have to pay their liability insurance on vehicles for all the driving they do that's work-related? I imagine with the mileage and risk to vehicles, it would be sky high. Truly, I don't have all the details on this, but it seems there's more to it than the impression you are giving.

Obviously, ideal pay and reality don't always meet, and some organizations really cannot afford to pay that much. It would hopefully be no lower than the average salary in the industry in which you are working, or the standards being sought by the union. And a true "liveable wage" whenever possible, keeping in mind a lot of organizers burn out and with their resume have trouble finding other work.

I recall ACORN went in to court back in 1995 or so and claimed the First Amendment allowed them to pay less than minimum wage. They argued that they should be able to pay their employees less than minimum wage so that they could empathize with the people they would be organizing. Meanwhile, the leadership was triple-dipping their salaries. What bullshit.

You never answered pgh's question about union execs salaries, UNITE-HERE has no profile in my small city but it seems like they aren't any more progressive than the average canadian social union.

Er, but if the leaders of the union are on hundreds of thousands a year, why should you scab and help bust the union of workers on much less, who could be paid more by just docking the pay of the bureaucratic arseholes at the top?

You didn't address any of pghwob's good points above; I used to work for non-profits so am well aware of the excuses of the rich bosses there for not treating us well - you're better off than the people we help, you getting more pay/holiday time/etc. will just hurt them, etc.

At least you clarified that you are against all union workers organising regardless of what union they're in. Which shows that your position really is anti-working class bullshit. Lots of unions are just plain scab unions set up to give a working class veneer to pro-bosses scabbing, like the UDM over here, others are right-wing unions set up to combat more militant ones, like TSSA - which has never had a strike in its history. Other unions in history at least have been racist, corporatist and fascist, and more incorporated entirely into management structures - like the UAW in the US with closed shops which used to expel (and so sack) wildcat strikers, etc.

hmm that slur has 32% retracted itself without anyone having to counter it

You're pathetic, I mean you're not denying those figures, you're not even saying that the website is lying your just dodging the issue in a ridiculous manner.

And how come you care so much what staffers make whilst overlooking what your bosses salaries are? Not much of a class perspective that, eh?

What's the difference between "union workers" (i.e. as I meant - people who work for a union) and "staff who work for a union". Does staff in the US mean something different to here?

Refusing to recognise them doesn't help anyone. For example, union staff being racially abused at work should kick up a fuss about it. If the union bosses don't address it internally (which would stop the union being damaged) then the workers would have to go public or take action.

I'm a worker, it's not in my interest to manage capital. I work for a public sector body. I'm not going to set a limit for how much public sector workers should earn, it's stupid. Workers should push for as big increases as possible wherever they are until the point that capital cannot grant any more and the economy is broken.

If I worked for a bunch of rich union bureaucrats I would want more money. As a worker it's not for me to worry about where the money comes from, though it being for a union I'd say it would probably be best to demand the money came from things like bosses' wages rather than union dues hikes.

I was talking about when the UAW had closed shops in the 40s and would sack workers who asked for better wages and conditions. You're still saying people who worked for them shouldn't ask for better conditions.

What the hell are you talking about? What facts? I've never heard of that website.

How about you address what people actually say instead of talking stupid shit?

A crusty paedo cop, surely?

I'm guessing the ICC wouldn't be interested in "intervening" with chuck, as he's not part of their beloved "proletarian mileu."

Poor chuck.

This is about the most stupid argument I've ever heard. Does that mean you can't quote from CNN or the BBC websites either, because they're anti-worker? FFS, if the data's not true then there's an issue, but if it's accurate - which you don't deny - then grow up and use a decent argument.

Hmmm..... criticising union bureaucrats = being against the working class. Where have I heard that one before?

People who work for unions are somewhat different than full time hacks who aren't exactly here with any intentions of learning or discussing anything.

Fucksake like just ban the cunt, or is this forum just for any ole leftist?