Union President Receives $156,000 Sleeping on the Job

[Grunt]

This union president sleeps on the job and receives $156K in salary and does not participate in Obamacare as most unions will not have to participate.

From the Drudge Report: Union president chows down and snoozes on the job - NYPOST.com

 

[Twangbanger]

It's Bush's Fault

 

[LEaSH]

Fat ****

 

[MikeDVB]

WOW... I am not trying to be mean but I wonder how he gets to/from work in/out of the building and around...

 

[Hookeye]

If only they banned big sodas............ only skinny people are honest.

 

[indiucky]

Me thinks he needs to spend more time on the picket line instead of the buffet line.

I never understood the phrase "That's a heart attack waiting to happen" until now.

 

[giovani]

Why would the union president do any different than the rest of the union members.

 

[rambone]

Don't reelect him.

 

[steveh_131]

This article is hilarious. It reads like the Onion.

More gems:

 

[Hookeye]

Why would the union president do any different than the rest of the union members.

Threats of discrimination nonsense keep too many poor work ethic folks on the payroll...............and that sh*t goes on everywhere, not just union shops.

And it isn't just with production people, I've seen lazy/dishonest people in management, engineering, clerical etc.

People are people.

And a few really suck.

The old unions afforded some abusers of the system a bit of protection. Nowadays even the unions see them as a liability.

But like I said, even the unions are a bit leery of lawsuits regarding discrimination.

Note: not all union members subscribe to national/local socialist agendas and some are not democrats.

 

[Hookeye]

Why would the union president do any different than the rest of the union members.

Me thinks you need a union job in a foundry this summer, or on a vehicle assembly line.

...............and at Tier 2 wage, with no basic medical benefits for the first 6 months or year, and being bumped from shift to shift whenever (wow, that never has a negative effect on spouses or kids).

Some union jobs (production) are decent, some really suck. And many are with chemicals and environments that aint too healthy. Some take a surprising amount of physical exertion (often repetitive).

Union jobs.................they aren't all the gravy train some folks think they are.

 

[indiucky]

Note: not all union members subscribe to national/local socialist agendas and some are not democrats.

A buddy of mine is UAW and works at the Ford's plant in Louisville. He wears Tea Party T shirts on the line and about once a year his union boss pulls him aside and asks (very politely) if my buddy would quit being so open of his support for "the other side."

My buddy has a standard response, "Will you quit sending my union dues to people I don't support?"

Union Boss, "Man you know I can't do that."

My Buddy, "Well then it looks like another year of Bush T shirts and Gadsden Flag Tea Party shirts for me."

It's funny.

 

[Phil502]

Thats probably the best work he ever gets one.

 

[giovani]

Me thinks you need a union job in a foundry this summer, or on a vehicle assembly line.

...............and at Tier 2 wage, with no basic medical benefits for the first 6 months or year, and being bumped from shift to shift whenever (wow, that never has a negative effect on spouses or kids).

Some union jobs (production) are decent, some really suck. And many are with chemicals and environments that aint too healthy. Some take a surprising amount of physical exertion (often repetitive).

Union jobs.................they aren't all the gravy train some folks think they are.

Buddy , I work for a maintainence company that is nonunion and I have been in many union shops to repair their equip.

The amount lazy I have been witness to is nothing short of amazing.

Amazing in the fact that I don't know how some of these companys survive , and indeed some haven't.

 

[Black Cloud]

It's Bush's Fault

And we're all racists...

 

[mrjarrell]

Don't see where this is anyone's business but the union members. If they have a problem with their overweight and oversleeping leader then it's up to them to deal with it. I really don't care. He's their problem. Not mine.

 

[Indy317]

Don't see where this is anyone's business but the union members. If they have a problem with their overweight and oversleeping leader then it's up to them to deal with it. I really don't care. He's their problem. Not mine.

Such leaders are all of our problems. This guy represents public employees, and that means money taken from others and redistributed to those he represents in the form of wages and benefits. His personality and demeanor will dictate his "work." Even if he sleeps on the job and is completely lazy, if he has political clout, he can get it so the masses are taxed at higher rates to provide for higher wages and/or benefits for the workers. And while it might not be true for this guy, a union leader in Chicago was able to use the union friendly law or rule in that state to get it so his decades running the union also counted toward his state pension. Yes, his full-time spent as a paid employee of a union actually was counted as being also employed by the government.

These people are our problems, and even if we aren't paying union members, we need to do what we can to stop these types of people from running the show. I'm not against unions myself, as I am in one, but I think some unions are more corrupt and powerful than they should be. I'm all for unions helping draft policies and regulations for safety and fair treatment of employees, but when it comes to wages and benefits, why should private unions dictate what the tax levy should be? Wages and benefits have a direct connection to state and/or local tax rates, so unions do have some control over those rates when they negotiate for wages and benefits.

 

[Phil502]

Such leaders are all of our problems. This guy represents public employees, and that means money taken from others and redistributed to those he represents in the form of wages and benefits. His personality and demeanor will dictate his "work." Even if he sleeps on the job and is completely lazy, if he has political clout, he can get it so the masses are taxed at higher rates to provide for higher wages and/or benefits for the workers. And while it might not be true for this guy, a union leader in Chicago was able to use the union friendly law or rule in that state to get it so his decades running the union also counted toward his state pension. Yes, his full-time spent as a paid employee of a union actually was counted as being also employed by the government.

These people are our problems, and even if we aren't paying union members, we need to do what we can to stop these types of people from running the show. I'm not against unions myself, as I am in one, but I think some unions are more corrupt and powerful than they should be. I'm all for unions helping draft policies and regulations for safety and fair treatment of employees, but when it comes to wages and benefits, why should private unions dictate what the tax levy should be? Wages and benefits have a direct connection to state and/or local tax rates, so unions do have some control over those rates when they negotiate for wages and benefits.

No kidding, ever see the deal Mayor Daley finagled for himeself from union pensions.

 

[BigMatt]

Me thinks you need a union job in a foundry this summer, or on a vehicle assembly line.

...............and at Tier 2 wage, with no basic medical benefits for the first 6 months or year, and being bumped from shift to shift whenever (wow, that never has a negative effect on spouses or kids).

Some union jobs (production) are decent, some really suck. And many are with chemicals and environments that aint too healthy. Some take a surprising amount of physical exertion (often repetitive).

Union jobs.................they aren't all the gravy train some folks think they are.

Why would a guy do that if there wasn't a light (or carrot) at the end of the tunnel?

 

[BIGKAT9]

Last time i checked union dues couldn't be used on political contributions P.A.C. funds which are voluntary are used for that .