The staggering level of wealth and income inequality has finally become a focal point of political discussion and action in the United States.  While the major problem is clearly the enormous increase in the concentration of wealth among the extremely wealthy, perhaps best described as the "top tenth of the one percent," those in the lower tiers of the one percent have benefited as well.

Several months ago, David Cay Johnston, a columnist for Reuters, published an article on the diversity of the "one-percent."  Using income data from 2009 tax returns, Johnston concluded that "Economically, those just entering the top 1 percent have nothing in common with those in the top tenth of the top 1 percent....while all those in the top 1 percent are certainly well off, the vast majority still go to work every day.  Almost half of the top 1 percent, or 1.4 million taxpayers, make $344,000 to $500,000." [1]

Unfortunately, a significant percentage of the leadership of organized labor fits comfortably within that bottom half of the top one-percent.  Many union members, including this author, would consider those salaries problematic.

There are those who take the position that the subject of union leaders' salaries should not be a matter for public discussion, that it will only give fodder to labor's enemies.  This is a legitimate concern.  The right-wing, anti-labor "Union Facts" website, for example, has for years made an issue of the differences between the salaries of union leaders and the members they represent.

But it may also be true that the levels of inequality between union rank-and-file and elected officers, as well as large differentials in salaries from union to union and sector to sector, is detrimental to labor.  There are several reasons that this may be so: First, salaries that can easily translate to a lavish lifestyle breed distrust and disgust among dues-paying members.  Second, when non-union workers become aware of exorbitant salaries paid to union officials - as when they happen upon the Union Facts website - it provides yet another reason they may want to stay away from union organizing efforts.

But, perhaps most importantly, we have to ask ourselves what the impact of outsized salaries has on the psyches of their recipients.  Can a union president earning, say, between $300,000 and $600,000, year after year, remain immune to the trappings of wealth, power, and a luxurious lifestyle?  Will an officer accustomed to a $400,000 salary maintain a burning desire to increase taxes on the wealthy or to rally his members to fight inequality?

Between $600,000 and $50,000

The highest paid labor leader in the United States may be Terence O'Sullivan, President of the Laborers International Union (LIUNA/AFL-CIO).  In 2010, the last year for which figures are publicly available, O'Sullivan was paid nearly $600,000.  O'Sullivan's earnings for the previous three years were comparable. [2]

Until last year, Richard Hughes served as the President of the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA/AFL-CIO). Hughes was elected to that position in 2007, becoming only the eighth president in the ILA's 117 years of existence. In 2010, Hughes' last year as president, the ILA paid him $464,000.  Harold Daggett succeeded Hughes as President in 2011.  In 2010, the ILA paid Daggett $399,000 in his capacity as Vice President.

In 2010, AFSCME paid its president, Gerald McEntee, over $400,000; Vincent Giblin of the Operating Engineers (AFL-CIO) received $426,000; and Randy Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT/AFL-CIO) got $389,000.  The median salary for union members in the United States is less than $48,000. [3]

There are 57 union leaders on the AFL-CIO's Executive Council, representing nine million union members.  Seventeen of the executive council's members - thirty-percent - were paid in excess of $300,000 in 2010.  Most were presidents of craft unions (ten from the building trades) and two were from the public sector.

On the other hand, the seventeen lowest paid members of the Executive Council had incomes ranging from $47,000 to $161,000.  Very few were from craft unions, but six were from industrial unions.

Inequality and diversity

That the AFL-CIO leadership is male dominated and overwhelmingly white is not new.  The federation has attempted to address that issue by creating additional positions on its Executive Council.  But those efforts have gone only so far.

Despite the fact that women make up about 43% of union members, only 19% of the AFL-CIO's Executive Council are women.  But among that top earning 30% - the $300,000+ club - there is only one woman. In 2010, the average compensation for the male members of the AFL-CIO Executive Council was $252,000 while the average for the female members was $194,000 - a 23% difference.

Of the nine black union officials who were on the AFL-CIO Executive Council, only one had earnings above $300,000. None of the four Hispanic members on the council had anything close to that level.  The average compensation for the ten black and Hispanic members who received salaries from their unions was $146,000 - nearly $100,000 less than the council average. [4]

Should we be concerned about these levels of inequality?

It is easy enough to find justifications for paying elected union leaders salaries that put them in the top one-percent: These are demanding, high-stress jobs requiring many skills, lots of travel, taxing schedules, etc.  Salaries of union officers leading organizations with hundreds of thousands of members pale in comparison to corporate executives and leaders of large not-for-profit organizations.

But, one has to wonder whether union leadership so far removed economically from the rank-and-file, can meaningfully represent the millions of members who live paycheck to paycheck and have little or no expectation of being able to retire securely.  According to a recent study that was reported on the website Inequality.org, "The life experiences of the wealthy....leaves the rich less compassionate and altruistic than people of more modest means." [5]

Union presidents have a way of staying in office for an extended period.  Gerald McEntee of AFSCME is retiring after 30 years as President of AFSCME.  Terence O'Sullivan is now in his thirteenth year as President of the Laborers. With salaries between $400,000 and $600,000 a year, one can only imagine the lifestyle they lead - and wonder how that impacts on the decisions they must make on behalf of their membership.

There are good reasons for concluding that having union leaders in the top one-percent of income earners does harm to organized labor.  We can start by asking the following questions:  Should an elected union official be paid more than the president of the United States or a member of Congress? [6] Can a certain salary level be a corrupting influence - how many people can resist the trappings of an upper-class lifestyle when they receive an upper-class income year after year?  Are the benefits of large salaries worth the costs - how much does the perception of corruption or elitism harm labor's image both within its ranks and among the population at large?  Finally, do the enormous salary differentials between building and construction trades presidents and those in other labor sectors negatively impact on the functioning of the AFL-CIO?

The Occupy Wall Street movement has not only highlighted the issue of income inequality.  It has also put forth a challenge to organized labor in the form of the implicit question the OWS movement raises:  Where has organized labor been?  In light of that question, the uncomfortable facts discussed above may provide at least part of the answer.

[The author, Mark Zimmerman has been involved with organized labor for over thirty years, and we thank him for his in-depth, well researched article]

Footnotes:

1. http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/10/25/beyond-the-1-percent/

2. 2007-10 LM2's.  See below for a full list of AFL-CIO Executive Council and CTW Leadership Council salaries.

3. Bureau of Labor Statistics - http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

4. AFL-CIO Executive Council members average union-paid salary was $239,000 in 2010.

5. Understanding Our National Empathy Deficit, http://inequality.org/empathy-and-wealth/

6. $400,000 and $174,000 respectively.

====================

AFL-CIO Executive Council 2010                   

=====================

Change to Win Leadership Council

Sources:

[7] As reported on each union's 2010 LM-2 report unless otherwise noted.   Includes salary and other compensation as listed on each union's LM2 report, Schedules 11 or 12, excluding disbursements for official business.  Benefits such as health insurance are not included.

[8] Lucy was AFSCME's Secretary-Treasurer until he retired in 2010.  This salary figure is what he received in his last full year at AFSCME (2009).  He continues to receive this salary as a pension benefit.  His AFSCME earnings for 2010 were over $800,000, presumably a severance package.

[9] The President of the Ironworkers Union, Joseph Hunt, was paid $355,000 in 2010.

[10] Salary for fiscal year ended 6/30/09 - source IRS Form 990.

[11]  It is unclear what this reported compensation represents.

* Not compensated by their unions.

** Clyde Rivers is retired from CSEA.  His current relationship with CSEA is not known.

 ^ Most recent IRS 990 (2009).