>Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> writes:
>
>>They should tie Yokich's base pay to membership growth; that'd be a
>>spur to organizing.
>
>Heh heh, funny. In all seriousness, though, every union should do what the
>UE does and has always done: no officer gets paid more than the highest-paid
>rank-and-file member. Not that that's a spur for growth: the UE has been
>shrinking, too. But it would set a much better tone for the entire labor
>movement and would certainly deprive bosses of the argument -- which they
>often use in organizing campaigns -- that "union bosses want to take your
>dues to enrich themselves."
I wasn't sure whether I was serious when I made the suggestion, but the more I think about it the more sense it makes. Works for the bourgeoisie - the corp governance literature has, for the last 20 years, been all about aligning incentives so that managers act like shareholders. So if Yokich or any of those other hacks took a personal hit, or enjoyed a personal reward, based on what happens with organizing, maybe the working class would be better off.
And I speak as someone who helps pay Yokich's salary, thanks to my National Writers Union (UAW Local 1981) dues.
Doug