Please explain to this humble soul how, exactly, "public union bosses" aren't "representing their members correctly"?
Have they not bargained for their members and increased the average rank and file member's pay over the years?
Sounds like "correct representation" to me...
I detect a little bit of class envy at work here.
Don't think you are getting a fair shake from management at work? maybe you need to join a union?
Just sayin...
That's a great question!
I think they have represented them in a most luxourious way. If I were in that reality, and commited to it, I would be very motivated to defend it.
But 60%, 90%, 75% etc, of the last three years on average of someones income for their retirement pension,
0%, 5%, 10%, etc, out of pocket healthcare costs for an individuals personal commitments to their own healthcare, the right to not be discriminated against by not getting the job if I choose to not belong to the union, or to not pay the union dues because of,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, let's say, "the way the money is being spent politicaly", and on, and on, and on, is something that I (as the tax payer {slave}) can't afford.
If that's not bad enough; think of the great number of people (tax payers) who have nothing at this point,,,,,,, that had something a few years ago, and have to be sympathetic to a bunch of people who want their cake and eat it too at their (the tax payers) expense.
Union protesters sympathetic to, and standing hand to hand with others who hold a sign that display a "hammer & sickle" on it are the worst images for support the union worker could ever have.
Maybe somewhere else, but not here in the USA.
Not in Texas.
