While I encourage you to celebrate Monday's smart and humane decision to allow unions to organize through a more democratic process -- see Jon Chait's take -- I also want to draw your attention to this article in Labor Notes (h/t Mike Elk) which argues that union officials' salaries are growing far too large; were they to be capped, there would be millions of dollars available to bring more workers into the union and fight for better working conditions:
Based on the 2008 data, a $100,000 salary cap coupled with a ban on multiple salaries would free up $294 million a year, while a cap of $150,000 would save $74 million. Capping total compensation at $100,000 would free up more than $500 million, while a $150,000 cap would save $143 million.Any of these scenarios would free up enough resources to triple the $29 million that the AFL-CIO spent on organizing and member mobilization in 2008. The more aggressive approaches could even generate enough resources to triple the AFL-CIO’s entire budget of $153 million that year.
While labor officials have similar responsibilities and challenges to private-sector leaders who run large, complex organizations and deserve to be paid well for the task, they shouldn't be making exponentially more than workers, just as CEOs shouldn't. Earning a salary closer to that of their members will also help union leaders be more in touch and accountable when dealing with workplace issues. The United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers unions caps its top salaries at an average of what its members make for just that purpose.
While anti-union critics will likely see the high salaries of labor officials as one more reason to oppose workplace organizing, they're ignoring or eliding the myriad benefits that come from collective bargaining and solidarity. A vital labor movement is an important part of society -- a countervailing power, if you will -- and changing the way union officials are compensated is an important avenue to strengthening that movement.
-- Tim Fernholz
