Happy to take a $4,000 pay cut just to save $800 in union dues? Sounds like a Republican to me!

Apparently some conservatives are so virulently anti-union that they’re happy to take a $4,000 per year cut to take-home pay just to avoid paying $800 in yearly union dues.

Susan Flood says she will gladly subtract $4,000 in pension and health premiums from her take-home pay next year in exchange for not having to pay roughly $800 in union dues.

While Susan Flood says she’ll gladly subtract $4,000 this year from her take-home pay to avoid having to pay union dues, I can’t help but wonder if she’ll be as glad to swallow a similar cut in her take-home pay in years to come. After all, thanks to the Gov. Walker having essentially busted public employee unions, school districts like the one where Susan Flood lives will be free to continue to demand that she pay more and more of her health care and pension costs. Without any union to represent her in collective bargaining with her employer, Susan Flood could very well be forced to “gladly” subtract another $4,000 (or more) from her yearly take-home pay next year and the year after that, and the year after that…

I wonder how many years of cuts to her take-home pay Susan Flood will be glad to put up with before she finally realizes that while labor unions aren’t perfect, they do provide employees with a measure of strength and protection (especially when it comes to contract negotiations) that those employees wouldn’t otherwise enjoy.

Hopefully someone from the Cap Times will check back with Susan Flood in a year or two to see if she’s still glad to endure cuts to her take-home pay just to make a point about her dissatisfaction with her union.


Related Articles

11 thoughts on “Happy to take a $4,000 pay cut just to save $800 in union dues? Sounds like a Republican to me!

  1. …in fact that grant of 933 dollars is more than the 800 dollar dues she’s whining about, so she came out ahead that year.
    Lol @ you Suuuuusan!

    1. The portion of the $933 I received to use for a program for the students was $120. Other teachers in other districts also got grants with the remaining $813.

    1. Except that $4000 is money she is contributing to HER benefits. The amount she contributes to her pension is money she is investing and will get back. The $800 might not necessarily be going to interests she agrees with (cough cough political contributions). I would rather contribute $ to my retirement than have funds confiscated that funnel in to state Democrats and Obama.

      1. Exactly. The $120 I received, or should I say the students received since it was a program for them, is a far cry from the nearly $15,000 taken from my paychecks during the time that I was forced to be a union member.

        1. So Susan, are you saying you agree with the $834 million cuts to education that the Republicans pushed through in the budget bill? And you’re a teacher? Yikes.

          1. The $834 million in education cuts is pretty much all for salary and staff. 75% is pay and benefits, 25% is the other stuff that is more important to a child’s education than is a teacher’s insurance plan. Until you can show me a chart that children’s education has benefitted from an increase in teacher pay and benefits(which you can’t), you are merely practicing demagoguery.

  2. $4000 pay cut every year in exchange for not paying $800 in dues? This woman is clearly nuts. I’d love to see her try and reconcile this with the new math. . .

    1. You are looking at it wrong. The unions agreed to the concessions ANYWAY, collective bargaining or not. If I remember correctly, “it was not about money, but about rights.” So no matter what, she was going to lose $4000 dollars. But now that she has the ultimate right – choice, she will be gaining $800.

      So if you ask me, you’re stupid for continuing to pay into the union. Two reasons: you will be losing out $800 and because they are pretty much useless now anyway.

Comments are closed.