Maybe he doesnt use the same formula that you espouse, such as saying that Union leaders who on average represent members who dont earn much above poverty level wages, deserve a higher salary because they have more members than a union leader who secures very high wages for his members but has fewer members, case in point TWU vs APA.
Its clear that in your view of Unionism, Business Unionism to be more precise, members are not the owners of a Union, they are a commodity to be sold for the benefit of the top officials of the union. That type of mentality justifies seeking increased membership at the expense of discounting workers labor, then using the fact that there are more members to do the opposite for the top officials. Its clear that in your view of unionism its the top officials that should reap the benefits of the Union. Look at us, we pay over $600 a year to belong to a Union that gets us lower wages than non-union, less holidays than non-union, less vacation than non-union, and work rules that are no better than non-union then you come here and say that the leader of our union should get a high wage because he sells our labor at a discounted rate. We dont need a Union to discount our labor, we join unions to prevent that.
So what benefit does the mechanic in New York, Miami, Los Angelos, Dallas or Chicago get from being in this Union if it means he is to pay $600 a year to get much less than non-union workers doing the same job in the same location? More of us making less? That to me sounds like AA benefits from us being in a union more than we do. They get more workers, and get them for below market rates thanks to the fact that we are in a union, they get the labor of more than one worker for less than the price of one worker, geat deal for the company, then, according to you, the Union leaders who cant get voted out by the members deserve a higher wage because they have more members, good deal for them, but for the worker who gets less pay for more work its not such a good deal and thats not how being a union member is supposed to work. Business Unionists like you are destroying true unionism in this country.
Seham is a lawyer, educated and licensed to practice law, and yes he probaly earns a high salary, and from this thread he has gotten favorable results. I know of a coworker here at JFK who was terminated and he went out and hired Seham and Seham got him his job back. We pay Gless, who has no college education $180 K, Videtich $150k, Conley $190K, well over half a million and they pushed and brought back the worst deal in the industry and told us only reasons, along with thinly veiled threats and other "certainties of calimity should we reject" that the pilots have proven to be uncertain, in order to get it ratified. Who is really getting the sweet deal here? YOU?
