You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
10

[–] rndmvar 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Actually, a bit part of the union problem is allowing non-working people to hold union leadership roles.
The states that allowed that, handed over the reins of the union leadership to Gibs'me'dats and Mafia types.
Many of the states that do require union members and leadership to be employed in the field they are a union of, don't have as many problems with union strong-arming.
That's because the union leadership, as employees of the industry, have a personal stake in keeping the businesses running.
A secondary clause that helps keep this in check, is limitations on union leadership pay for union leadership work.
That specifically prevents the leadership from getting dependent on union member dues.
A good implementation of that, is limiting the leadership pay to a percentage of the average union members' pay.
This prevents the role from being slave labor, but also naturally enforces a type of term limit.
As, leadership will be most vied for by the mid-range to junior level members.
All of whom are to be most impacted by long term decisions made by union leadership.