Home Politics

Liberal Union Fat Cat Raking in the Cash Despite Losses

tagtag Posts: 9,138 Admiral
National Education Association president Dennis Van Roekel received a huge pay raise this year while the teachers union lost more than 40,000 members.

Van Roekel, who retired this summer, was paid $541,632 during NEA’s fiscal year ending Aug. 31 — a $130,000 increase from last year, driven by a gross salary hike from $306,286 to $429,509. NEA membership dropped from 3,003,885 last August to 2,963,121 this August.

NEA, the nation’s largest labor union, has lost 272,014 members since 2009. The union paid Van Roekel $2.2 million from 2010-2014.

Losing more than a quarter of a million members didn’t keep Van Roekel from getting a huge raise this year, and taking millions of dollars from workers didn’t prevent Van Roekel from being praised by union advocates in a series of videos recorded for an NEA meeting in July.

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees president Lee Saunders called Van Roekel “a force for unity in the labor movement, and for protecting all public services — helping bring NEA, AFSCME, AFT and SEIU together in an unprecedented partnership to face our challenges.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/26/teachers-union-boss-loses-40000-members-gets-raise/?intcmp=latestnews
«1

Replies

  • WaterEngineerWaterEngineer Posts: 24,415 AG
    greggl will be along in a few minutes to tell us how groovy unions are and how great they are for society. Hence he is a union organizer.

    Fact is, unions have outlived their usefulness, especially public sector unions....that is for everyone except that management teams that prey on the rank and file members. Sadly, the rank and file member do not see this.
  • phlatsphilphlatsphil Posts: 14,632 AG
    It's a good gig if you can get it. Why are you opposed to Dennis Van Roekel making a great salary but maybe not opposed to these people making great salaries on the backs of their employees?

    Charif Souki $141949280
    Mario J. Gabelli $85049800
    Lawrence J. Ellison $78440657
    Tom L. Ward $71119765
    Anthony G. Petrello $68246187
    Leslie Moonves $66932581
    W. Nicholas Howley $64214656
    Don A. Mattrick $57814391
    Richard C. Adkerson $55260539
    John H. Hammergren $51744999
    Daniel R. Hesse $49077699
    Jeffrey Weiner $49071363
    John R. Charman $46024661
    Gerald J. Rubin $41639281
    Stephen Kaufer $39014227
    Martine A. Rothblatt $38218255
    Philippe P. Dauman $37165750
    Gary Friedman $36456559
    Leonard S. Schleifer M.D., Ph.D. $36272665
    Robert A. Iger $34321055
    David M. Zaslav $33349798
    Ronald F. Clarke $32858320
    Jeffrey L. Bewkes $32501715
    Hock E. Tan $31867129
    Fabrizio Freda $31598679
    Brian L. Roberts $31367254
    Marc Benioff $31333332
    Larry J. Merlo $31330162
    Mark Bertolini $30725409
    Christopher P. Albrecht $30494966
    Tony Aquila $29895831
    John J. Legere $29245708
    Paul A. Ricci $29226829
    Brian McAndrews $29167388
    R. W. Tillerson $28138329
    Donald E. Washkewicz $27440888
    Brian Goldner $27440726
    Irwin D. Simon $26426555
    Ralph Lauren $26157178
    David M. Cote $25973246
    D. N. Farr $25318952
    Marillyn A. Hewson $25155799
    Steve Ells $25116871
    Marissa A. Mayer $24935712
    John C. Plant $24466286
    Charles W. Scharf $24201851
    Erik Olsson $24073209
    J. S. Watson $24017303
    Richard A. Smith $23996109
    Mortimer B. Zuckerman $23821829
    R. M. Lance $23437415
    Clarence P. Cazalot Jr. $23293664
    W. James McNerney Jr. $23263562
    R. Stephenson $23247167
    Alan Mulally $23204534
    A. M. Cutler $23097458
    James E. Meyer $23065307
    P. Kibsgaard $22837540
    Trevor Fetter $22734127
    Carol Meyrowitz $22514033
    Robert D. (?Doug?) Lawler $22423367
    Sandeep Mathrani $22102608
    K. I. Chenault $21837420
    Brian D. Jellison $21368796
    J. Michael Lawrie $21288188
    Joseph V. Taranto $21287058
    David W. Nelms $21171839
    John T. Chambers $21049501
    Robert J. Hugin $20995785
    Miles D. White $20865668
    David J. Lesar $20865214
    Lamberto Andreotti $20847746
    Miles S. Nadal $20679263
    Andrew N. Liveris $20452877
    Paul E. Jacobs $20448940
    Paul Galant $20428883
    Muhtar Kent $20380660
    Louis Ch?nevert $20274316
    Albert L. Lord $20179567
    Martin J. Barrington $20139967
    Sean M. Healey $20007855
    Lewis W. Dickey Jr. $19955769
    Lloyd C. Blankfein $19928813
    George L. Chapman $19843772
    Greg C. Garland $19842205
    Jeffrey R. Immelt $19776716
    James M. Cracchiolo $19752269
    H. Lawrence Culp Jr. $19705455
    Roland Smith $19649273
    Stephen A. Wynn $19601381
    David Calhoun $19494877
    John G. Stumpf $19320409
    Richard J. Kramer $19190500
    Samuel R. Allen $19148372
    James E. Lillie $19121667
    Phebe N. Novakovic $19033073
    I. Read $18947747
    David R. Lumley $18864041
    Glenn Murphy $18726912
    Robert A. Niblock $18714193
  • CobiaCobia Posts: 564 Officer
    That thread became a raveling very quickly. Phil, why did you do this? This was an attempt to castigate unions and you just ended it. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME.
    Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that is even remotely possible. Homer Simpson
  • Grady-ladyGrady-lady east of the river, west of the woodsPosts: 5,282 Admiral
    Cobia wrote: »
    That thread became a raveling very quickly. Phil, why did you do this? This was an attempt to castigate unions and you just ended it. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME.

    No, Cobia he didn't 'end it' - put apples and oranges in the same bowl and all you get is fruit salad.
    I find my peace out on the sand...Beside the sea, not beyond or behind. R.A. Britt

  • Team SabatageTeam Sabatage USA, USA, USAPosts: 13,014 AG
    Because conservatives don't accept golden parachutes, right?
    They never accept a severance after leaving a company because it collapsed under their direction, right?
    Strap me in, tie me down and roll me a bone, I'm getting on an airplane and I'm flying home...
  • phlatsphilphlatsphil Posts: 14,632 AG
    tag wrote: »
    National Education Association president Dennis Van Roekel received a huge pay raise this year while the teachers union lost more than 40,000 members.
    Grady-lady wrote: »
    No, Cobia he didn't 'end it' - put apples and oranges in the same bowl and all you get is fruit salad.

    No, it's apples to apples my dear. The complaint is Van Roekel received a huge pay raise while teachers unions lost 40,000 members, from 3,003,885 last August to 2,963,121.

    WOW, that's a whopping 0.0001, or 0.01% change in membership.

    My company execs give themselves bonuses when they cut "costs" by laying off a few people.

    Apples to apples.

    I'll ask again. Why is it OK for the top 100 paid CEOs to get $18.7M to $141.9M salaries and not OK for Mr. Van Roekel to get a $541,632 salary?
  • Grady-ladyGrady-lady east of the river, west of the woodsPosts: 5,282 Admiral
    tag wrote: »
    National Education Association president Dennis Van Roekel received a huge pay raise this year while the teachers union lost more than 40,000 members.

    This country does not need public sector unions - they have become nothing more than political action committees donating huge amounts of cash to candidates chosen by a very small group of people.

    Why do we need public sector unions anyway?...is the government such a lousy employer that they can't be trusted to treat their employees fairly? This is another example of a labor union and the government divvying up taxpayer spoils. (Two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner.)

    Another point - to those who try to obscure the fact that government employee unions are scamming the American taxpayer by pointing to big-salary CEO's of private companies:

    Some folks are talented athletes, artists or writers who earn enormous salaries because people willingly spend money on their product - entertainment - why, then, when someone's talent lies in business management, whose talent produces jobs because people willingly buy what they're selling (usually something tangible), the rewards from their talent is considered 'ill-gotten'?

    Another point - there are areas of this country in which a teacher is forced to join a public sector union and pay dues in order to teach. Indefensible.
    I find my peace out on the sand...Beside the sea, not beyond or behind. R.A. Britt

  • phlatsphilphlatsphil Posts: 14,632 AG
    Grady-lady wrote: »
    This country does not need public sector unions - they have become nothing more than political action committees donating huge amounts of cash to candidates chosen by a very small group of people.

    Why do we need public sector unions anyway?...is the government such a lousy employer that they can't be trusted to treat their employees fairly?

    AND....This country does not need private companies - they have become nothing more than political action committees donating huge amounts of cash to candidates chosen by a very very small group of people.

    Why do we need private sector companies anyway?.... they are such lousy employers they can't be trusted to treat their employees fairly without government oversight.
  • Grady-ladyGrady-lady east of the river, west of the woodsPosts: 5,282 Admiral
    Public sector (public employee) unions ≠ private enterprise.

    If you think they do, then the confusion is understandable. This thread is about an enormous salary from union dues, some of them forced, paid to a public employee labor union leader...it has nothing to do with salaries of CEO's. You might just as well complain about the salaries of actors and professional athletes.

    Apples and oranges still only makes for fruit salad.
    I find my peace out on the sand...Beside the sea, not beyond or behind. R.A. Britt

  • Team SabatageTeam Sabatage USA, USA, USAPosts: 13,014 AG
    Forced to join a union?
    You are confused. Not in America, dear.
    Strap me in, tie me down and roll me a bone, I'm getting on an airplane and I'm flying home...
  • ParkerboyParkerboy Posts: 7,045 Admiral
    phlatsphil wrote: »
    No, it's apples to apples my dear. The complaint is Van Roekel received a huge pay raise while teachers unions lost 40,000 members, from 3,003,885 last August to 2,963,121.

    WOW, that's a whopping 0.0001, or 0.01% change in membership.

    My company execs give themselves bonuses when they cut "costs" by laying off a few people.

    Apples to apples.

    I'll ask again. Why is it OK for the top 100 paid CEOs to get $18.7M to $141.9M salaries and not OK for Mr. Van Roekel to get a $541,632 salary?
    The CEO's responsibility is to maximize profits for shareholders, nothing else. If the CEO does so by cutting costs he is performing his job even if the increased profits are from cutting the workforce.

    Your example is entirely flawed as the union boss is not required, or expected, to generate profit for anyone.
    Deo Vindice
  • Team SabatageTeam Sabatage USA, USA, USAPosts: 13,014 AG
    Parkerboy wrote: »
    The CEO's responsibility is to maximize profits for shareholders, nothing else. If the CEO does so by cutting costs he is performing his job even if the increased profits are from cutting the workforce.

    Your example is entirely flawed as the union boss is not required, or expected, to generate profit for anyone.

    How do you figure?

    A union boss is expected to generate profit for the union members, ie. it's shareholders.
    If a union is not getting me more pay, better security, more time off, better benefits or something to my advantage for my money, I quit the union, same as I sell the stock.
    Strap me in, tie me down and roll me a bone, I'm getting on an airplane and I'm flying home...
  • ParkerboyParkerboy Posts: 7,045 Admiral
    How do you figure?

    A union boss is expected to generate profit for the union members, ie. it's shareholders.
    If a union is not getting me more pay, better security, more time off, better benefits or something to my advantage for my money, I quit the union, same as I sell the stock.
    So when the unions "give back" wages and benefits the union bosses are fired? Not in this lifetime.
    Deo Vindice
  • Team SabatageTeam Sabatage USA, USA, USAPosts: 13,014 AG
    Let me spell it out for you,

    B-E-T-T-E-R S-E-C-U-R-I-T-Y,

    See it, right there in my post and where you quoted it.

    That's twice you missed it.
    Strap me in, tie me down and roll me a bone, I'm getting on an airplane and I'm flying home...
  • White DogWhite Dog Posts: 5,343 Officer
    When did they become his "employees"?
    The White Dog.........R.I.P..........1996 - June 2nd, 2011
  • gregglgreggl Posts: 21,594 Officer
    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/overtime-pay-obama-congress-112954.html#ixzz3KaktYIv

    "Only workers earning an annual income of under $23,660 qualify for mandatory overtime. You know many people like that? Probably not. By 2013, just 11 percent of salaried workers qualified for overtime pay, according to a report published by the Economic Policy Institute. And so business owners like me have been able to make the other 89 percent of you work unlimited overtime hours for no additional pay at all."

    Morons.
  • Grady-ladyGrady-lady east of the river, west of the woodsPosts: 5,282 Admiral
    Forced to join a union?
    You are confused. Not in America, dear.

    True, while public sector employees don't have to actually join the union - they still must pay to fund it's activities. (sans PACs, which few know) It is money taken out of the employee's pocket involuntarily. It is 'dues' money taken from the employee by an agreement between the employer, in this case the government, and a union.

    ps - not in right to work states, tho', where workers have a choice...as it should be.
    I find my peace out on the sand...Beside the sea, not beyond or behind. R.A. Britt

  • Team SabatageTeam Sabatage USA, USA, USAPosts: 13,014 AG
    That is correct, now are these government employees free to move about America and locate in a right to work state?
    Why, yes they are, so paying union dues is a choice. They make the choice by choosing to live and work in a non right to work state.

    Thanks for playing.
    Strap me in, tie me down and roll me a bone, I'm getting on an airplane and I'm flying home...
  • tagtag Posts: 9,138 Admiral
    That is correct, now are these government employees free to move about America and locate in a right to work state?
    Why, yes they are, so paying union dues is a choice. They make the choice by choosing to live and work in a non right to work state.

    Thanks for playing.

    This has to be the dumbest argument for legal theft of workers hard earned wages that I've ever heard.
  • tagtag Posts: 9,138 Admiral
    Do you realize that these full-time government union official goons are paid for with taxpayer money and provide no service except to promote the union and stur up the workers.
  • LuckyMrSwLuckyMrSw Posts: 3,208 Captain
    T.S. is also the same guy who says people should have goverment micro-chips implanted
    tag wrote: »
    This has to be the dumbest argument for legal theft of workers hard earned wages that I've ever heard.
    Please stop derailing my thread.
    `Forum Moderator`

    Don't call each other names
    `Same Forum Moderator`
  • Grady-ladyGrady-lady east of the river, west of the woodsPosts: 5,282 Admiral
    That is correct, now are these government employees free to move about America and locate in a right to work state?
    Why, yes they are, so paying union dues is a choice. They make the choice by choosing to live and work in a non right to work state.

    Thanks for playing.

    That is poor justification for forcibly taking money out of employees pockets to pay union 'fees'- especially when those folks salaries are paid by the American taxpayer. Again, is the government so abusive an employer, with such miserable working conditions, ignoring all Labor Laws, that workers need protection from it?
    Is your state a 'right to work state'?...Utah is, they all should be 'right to work states'.

    If the union produces a product that workers like or need - then unions will thrive - it should always be a voluntary association.
    I find my peace out on the sand...Beside the sea, not beyond or behind. R.A. Britt

  • gregglgreggl Posts: 21,594 Officer
    Demand a raise. Wages are too low in the US.
  • phlatsphilphlatsphil Posts: 14,632 AG
    tag wrote: »
    Do you realize that these full-time government union official goons are paid for with taxpayer money and provide no service except to promote the union and stur up the workers.

    No they are not paid with taxpayer money.... they are paid with employee's money, many of whom might actually be taxpayers.

    Public sector unions are not-for-profit organizations, formed by public sector workers to represent them in matters of pay and benefits. Workers contribute to the unions from which union employees are paid. Union employees work for the employees, not the taxpayers.
  • ParkerboyParkerboy Posts: 7,045 Admiral
    phlatsphil wrote: »
    No they are not paid with taxpayer money.... they are paid with employee's money, many of whom might actually be taxpayers.

    Public sector unions are not-for-profit organizations, formed by public sector workers to represent them in matters of pay and benefits. Workers contribute to the unions from which union employees are paid. Union employees work for the employees, not the taxpayers.

    Again you are somewhat less than accurate. First, you state the employees contribute money to the union(s) to be represented while some may see it as contributing others see it as having the money confiscated. Second, many of the people who represent the government employees are government employees themselves and are paid with taxpayer funds to conduct union business rather than the public's business.

    Sent from my KFJWA using Tapatalk
    Deo Vindice
  • Team SabatageTeam Sabatage USA, USA, USAPosts: 13,014 AG
    tag wrote: »
    This has to be the dumbest argument for legal theft of workers hard earned wages that I've ever heard.

    It's the righties argument Tag. If you don't like the conditions of the job, you are free to quit. We've heard it a thousand times on this board. If you don't like the laws where you live, move.
    It's not theft, theft is against the l;aw. What is taking place is within the law, if you don't like the law, get it changed. Where has this board heard that before? Coming from which side?

    Oh, the hypocrisy.
    Strap me in, tie me down and roll me a bone, I'm getting on an airplane and I'm flying home...
  • Team SabatageTeam Sabatage USA, USA, USAPosts: 13,014 AG
    Grady-lady wrote: »
    That is poor justification for forcibly taking money out of employees pockets to pay union 'fees'- especially when those folks salaries are paid by the American taxpayer. Again, is the government so abusive an employer, with such miserable working conditions, ignoring all Labor Laws, that workers need protection from it?
    Is your state a 'right to work state'?...Utah is, they all should be 'right to work states'.

    If the union produces a product that workers like or need - then unions will thrive - it should always be a voluntary association.

    Poor justification? The "law" is now poor justification, Noted. Grady Lady says that the law is poor justification for things. Which things G-lady? Owning guns? Voter Identification? Late term abortions?

    Oh, the hypocrisy, again.

    The American taxpayer? Kind of a broad stroke. Is the same stroke to be applied to construction workers on highways? What about their unions, are those workers being forced to contribute too? What about pilots and their unions? They land at airports owned by the government, Delta owns no airport, they pay for use of a government airport and their pilots are union. Are they such a bad employer that a union is needed to protect and bargain for them? Must be, huh.

    Yes, Utah is a right to work state and you do not have to join a union even to work as a steelworker, electrician or firefighter, but most with a union available to them do. Why would that be? Could it be because of the wages paid to union workers? The benefits? The hall they can go to and get work from when the project they were working on ends? Or is it again because the employers are so awful?
    Let me tell you about Cache valley Electric, one of the largest commercial electrical contractors in the state. The do most every big project in the state, public or private. They are a privately owned company, union shop, the law says that you don't have to be in the union, ,but if you are not, you don't get hired by them. Not illegal, there is no law against discriminating in hiring against non-union workers, just a law that says if it is a union shop that you cannot be forced to be part of the union by the union. Private employers can do what they want to as far as who they hire and who they fire with or without cause.
    Now, how do you suppose that a Union company, with such high paid workers gets so many of the public low bid jobs?
    I'll tell you how. They are the best electricians in the state, good, fast, hard working. They can bid less because they can get it done and everyone still makes good money. They are a national company with 5,000 employees.
    Read what it says on their website, http://www.cve.com/about-cve/employment-opportunities/ Union shop in a right to work state. Huh, who would have thought.
    Strap me in, tie me down and roll me a bone, I'm getting on an airplane and I'm flying home...
  • Grady-ladyGrady-lady east of the river, west of the woodsPosts: 5,282 Admiral
    Poor justification? The "law" is now poor justification, Noted. Grady Lady says that the law is poor justification for things....

    Oh, the hypocrisy, again.

    Oh, the dishonesty, again. :blowkiss
    I find my peace out on the sand...Beside the sea, not beyond or behind. R.A. Britt

  • tagtag Posts: 9,138 Admiral
    phlatsphil wrote: »
    No they are not paid with taxpayer money.... they are paid with employee's money, many of whom might actually be taxpayers.

    Public sector unions are not-for-profit organizations, formed by public sector workers to represent them in matters of pay and benefits. Workers contribute to the unions from which union employees are paid. Union employees work for the employees, not the taxpayers.
    Parkerboy wrote: »
    Again you are somewhat less than accurate. First, you state the employees contribute money to the union(s) to be represented while some may see it as contributing others see it as having the money confiscated. Second, many of the people who represent the government employees are government employees themselves and are paid with taxpayer funds to conduct union business rather than the public's business.

    Sent from my KFJWA using Tapatalk

    Phil you are wrong. Union officials for government unions are paid for with the operation funds of that agency - taxes. They do no work other than full time union work. The dues paid by the BUEs goes to the union.
  • tagtag Posts: 9,138 Admiral
    Here is just one example

    Phil Barbarello insists his federal salary has nothing to do with his job as a top union official. What matters, he says, is his experience as an air traffic controller.

    But it has been years since Barbarello, eastern regional vice president for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, spent much time monitoring flights in a control tower.

    His full-time job with the Federal Aviation Administration is working for the NATCA union, and has been since at least 2009.

    As for his salary, $166,362 in 2012, that and his lucrative federal benefits are all paid by taxpayers.





    Barbarello and hundreds of other federal employees are released from their regular jobs to do union work under what is known as “official time.”

    Allowed in federal law since 1978, official time cost American taxpayers an estimated $155.6 million in 2011, the most recent available year, according to the federal Office of Personnel Management, which manages the government workplace.

    Union representatives spent about 3.4 million hours doing union work while drawing their regular paychecks from the government.

    Barbarello refused to discuss his job with the union or his paycheck from the government.

    “My salary has nothing to do with official time,” he said when contacted by the Washington Examiner. “It has to do with my longevity as an air traffic controller. Obviously, you are on a witch hunt.”

    Then he hung up the phone.

    Air traffic controllers are not the only highly paid federal employees exclusively doing union work. There are nurses and pharmacists at the Department of Veterans Affairs, scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency, judges at the Social Security Administration and lawyers scattered throughout just about every agency.

    It's a waste of taxpayer money, said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who has struggled for years to get answers from agencies about official time spending and has co-sponsored bills to limit the practice.

    “I just don’t think the federal taxpayers ought to be paying for that,” Coburn said. “That’s what union dues are for. What’s irksome to me is that we are paying someone to be a pharmacist or a nurse, but they’re not doing that. They’re doing union work.”
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/too-big-to-manage-taxpayers-fund-top-dollar-federal-employee-union-reps-through-official-time/article/2543204
Sign In or Register to comment.