Wait, I thought you believed in pure capitalism? Shouldn't union leaders be paid whatever they can convince their membership to pay them? Which union is it that has unelected kings that serve life terms? Because otherwise, it seems like there is a mechanism to correct overpaid union leaders.
Is lobbying for favorable regulations bad when corporations do it, or only when unions do it?
And finally: this is not the first time you have mentioned "unrealistic" or "unreasonable" compensation. Who determines what is reasonable? You seem to be a staunch capitalist, so please tell me: at exactly what income level should one decide that one makes enough money?
And please, don't reach for the "budget deficits" card. Deficits are defined as a condition in which revenues < expenditures, and when one the two governing parties has made it their sole mission to reduce revenues at any and all costs, agreeing to a pay cut only means that they will push for that much more in tax cuts in the next cycle.
The deficit chickenhawks in the GOP cannot be taken seriously as long as they insist that any revenue surplus must be immediately converted into tax cuts (see: 2001).
Hey Spider (how did you come up with that?), subject is getting a little long in the tooth, but will make 1 brief comment.
I would be willing to bet that 90% of union members could not tell you the head of their union (national, not local) and 99% would have no clue how much money they made. Not sure how the compensation for leading a union is worked out, but if I had to guess I would say it is a board of 6-8 people who are ALL getting their palms greased.
Agree that everyone is entitled to try and earn the most they can. The difference is at least in theory, execs of private companies are paid based on profit, execs of organizations like unions or govt. are paid on what dues or taxes they can collect. Very simple. lol
Author