Union fact.com

[BajaBabe]

Do you ever wonder why anyone would like to work at AFA-CWA$$$$$$$$$$$ Go to Union Facts.com <_<

 

[Furloughd4now]

Cripes ... Administrative Assistants get over $100K/year, and that's more than the attorneys .... :blink: Sign me up!!! I was an Admin before I took up stewing ... I feel so good to see where my money is going 😛h34r: AFA union members are lucky to get food on the table and their mortgages paid. Shameful :down:

 

[Dog Wonder]

Union "Facts" is just Wal-Mart's way of keeping their own workers in poverty and in fear of moronic management.

Go work there.

 

[Furloughd4now]

Are you saying that it's BS? and and CWA employees don't earn that amount? I see where you're coming from with "unionfacts.com" and their angle. However printing mis-information such as they post, could probably get them in a bit a trouble.

Union "Facts" is just Wal-Mart's way of keeping their own workers in poverty and in fear of moronic management.

We have that now at good ole U!

 

[700UW]

Your best bet to find the real accutate numbers is the department of labor's web page, under enforcement and use the Landrum-Griffith Act links to find the LM forms that list actual compensation.

Ask yourself why a union has to account for every penny paid to an employee and report it pubically but a company doesnt?

Unionfacts.com is an anti-union web page.

 

[HPearlyretiree]

Ah yes, the calls of "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

Face it, Unions need the same transparency that they ask of corporations.

Unionfacts is a good website, information is good for everyone.

In the real world, the large majority of us are not union.

Nor do we want to be.

 

[700UW]

Once again, companies are not held to the same reporting requirements of a labor union.

Lets see some real data to prove that, guess you never been to Europe, have you?

 

[ClueByFour]

Once again, companies are not held to the same reporting requirements of a labor union.

Public companies are held to a similar standard.

But why, particularly when you have closed or agency shop requirements should an organization that they must pay in order to work not have to reveal what it pays people?

What interest does a union have in not disclosing that information? There is zero compelling argument for not making that information public, unless the union has the intent of enriching those that run it at the expense of it's dues paying members which pretty much goes against the whole reason of having a union to begin with.

Let's not forget that Landrum-Griffin came about because of the rampant abuse and fraud in the Teamsters, the Longshormen and the Mine Workers in the postwar 40s and 50s. Frankly, this type of behavior (which nicely mimics the behavior of corporate raiders) is exactly why unions are treated, to a certain extent, like public companies--so they don't screw their proverbial shareholders.

Edited to add:

I get why union officials (or someone in 700's shoes) does not like unionfacts.com--it's clearly anti-union. OTOH, a spot check indicates that their data matches the data from the feds. However, they do things like point out that there are 313 people at the CWA earning more than 75k/year. That's a rather damning statistic and would otherwise be harder to find by simply combing thru the LM-1/2/3 data.

 

[700UW]

Clue if I am paid one dollar from the IAM it is reported on the LM2 and is public record, the same does not happen at a publically traded company.

Every cent a union spends is public record, it is not the case with companies.

A prime example is when US cancelled the 757s and 737s from Boeing, Boeing sued US and it was settled out of court not in any document filed with the SEC including the 10k annual report disclosed the dollar amount paid to Boeing.

I have no problem with a union being required to account for every penny paid and have it public record, but a company should be forced to do the same.

And remember unions are a non-profit organization.

 

[Kev3188]

NOW if you want to debate the agenda of those behind this particular web site then that's a very different subject

It certainly is. For those that are interested in vetting the information they receive, ramble on over to Google, and do a search for Rick Berman, the operator of that site.

Ah yes, the calls of "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

In this case, you *absolutely* should pay attention to the man behind the curtain. This is a man who among other things has ran smear campaigns against MADD for chrissakes.

Face it, Unions need the same transparency that they ask of corporations.

... And they have it. You can look at any LM2 you'd ever want at www.dol.gov

Unionfacts is a good website, information is good for everyone.

No it's not. It is a biased site run endowed by corporate dollars to further their anti-worker agenda.

If that's your definition of "good" so be it.

 

[700UW]

Great post Kev!

 

[ussnark]

Public companies are held to a similar standard.

As a former union official who counts Mr. Buffett as a friend, I can say, with every assurance, that you are wrong. In fact, Mr. Buffett complains about how closed corporate literature is getting, requiring more and more research on his part to find out, even, if they are solvent or not.

 

[700UW]

Berman info

Center for Union Facts (CUF)
Berman launched this effort in February 2006 with a multimillion dollar PR effort aimed at damaging the public image of unions, depressing workers’ rights, pushing legislation that would make it more difficult for workers to join unions, and furthering an anti-union business climate.

Impartial huh HP?

Guess it is good to know who is behind what and their hidden agendas.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

In fact, Mr. Buffett complains about how closed corporate literature is getting, requiring more and more research ... ... ...

Just try to see how 'open' Berkshire is.

 

[ussnark]

Just try to see how 'open' Berkshire is.

Why don't you ask? It would help to be a shareholder, though.