Yes they do and more. Just as Labor is the top cost for US so it is for the IAM. Here are some numbers
IAM FINANCIAL INFORMATION . The information provided is almost 3 years old but change the names and give 3 years of increases then refigure these amounts. Give the page on this link a good look, click on the more detailed financial information. Canale and his crew spent large amounts of dues money on irrelevant. pointless, and unnecesary union business. That is probably why they were voted out. The current 141 survey is almost as pointless. Bottomline is most members want more for less. If the New Direction continues this costly 'Canaleist' exploitation of members in regards to how dues money is spent then members should understand ND08 were not men and women of their word to change in the right direction for IAM 141 members.
According to this link and correct me if I am wrong but the second biggest cost for the IAM was for attorneys. If attorneys were and continue to be the second biggest cost the question would be, why does the IAM need as many GLR's and DLR's as it does at a cost of 100k to 300k each? It seems the best way to keep and gain membership would be for the IAM heirarchy to cut salary and or layoff GL and DL reps or eliminate the DL all together and expand the duties of the LL officers with a lesser amount of lower paid DL business reps that could help coordinate and administrate the business between the GL and LL's to help reduce the cost of dues for members. In order for the IAM to grow it needs to cut away the many additional, avoidable, extrinsic, useless costs with dues money. The so called "vote" to increase dues did happen at a GL level which includes all departments of the IAM and the transportation department that US IAM 141 members belong to. 141 members that took cut after cut were included in the same vote with members of departments that continue to get normal increase after increase. With no help from the GL and RR jr seems 141 will have to come up with a way to deal with costs internally and it seems the best way to do this and properly represent the members is to cut officer salary and pass that savings on to the members of the LL's they represent to reduce the amount in dues per month.
Lastly it only makes sense to have the elected officials who negotiate your contracts make the same amount as the people they represent so to have them negotiate with person priority as well as for the members they took an oath to represent. Seems when negotiators make a large difference in pay compared to the people they represent negotiation times are extended and pay scales are weaker due to a lack of concern. Let me know if I you believe I am wrong or right.