Perhaps I misunderstand the arrangement but it seems that the USMX is a representative at the table for DOZENS of companies (many with CEOs making in the multimillions) and NOT the source of financing for these negotiations.
So I'm not sure what you're trying to strike at in comparing the union with those guys as if the compensation of USMX executives should bare ABSOLUTELY ANY consideration to the negotiations. IT seems more that the member companies could be paying the USMX more.
Maybe the board should join a union ;-)
The highest paid CEO of the member company of USMX was the CEO for Kirby (who made a total of ~$5M per year; 40% of which was in the form of stock options)
Iluvatar before found one of the higher paid foreign members from Europe, that CEO was making around $3M (in USD equivalent)
The reason why CEO:Worker ratios are often cited is because that's often times an indicator that the top brass is hoarding all the money to themselves and not sending enough of it down the chain.
For instance when UAW struck, and Shawn Fain negotiated a new contract, you had CEO's making 500x what the production workers were making. And a sizeable number of the production workers were only making $18-20/hour. The CEO:Worker salary ratios were definitely a talking point during that labor dispute.
The same imbalance didn't exist for ILA workers.
As noted, the baseline salary (even if they worked no OT) was in the 80's
Most were clearing over 100k
One third were clearing over 200k
The union bosses are making nearly 7 figures (and owned yachts)
If we take the aspect off the table that there was a union vs. corporate management dispute, and just look at the numbers and merits.
If you heard that here was a manual labor job (that required no post-secondary education, no previous training, no specialized certifications)
That job was already being represented by a union
The job paid $84k + time and half OT + Double time for extra shifts after 3 years
The majority of workers were clearing six figures
The top third of workers were making almost a quarter of a million per year
Would your gut instinct tell you "hey these are guys that are getting ripped off and need more aggressive labor representation"?...or would you say "This is an example of some manual laborers who are already being treated pretty well"?
I touched on it before:
The average salary for a Physician General Practitioner is $248,290 per year in New York
A third of these guys were making almost as much as GPs to load and unload crates. I don't think that's the same exploitative environment that was happening in big-3 auto plants, would you agree?
I think that's the problem when identity politics gets injected into these situations. When people hear there's a "organized labor vs. management dispute", they rush to their battle stations before hearing all of the details.
There's a lot more grey area in some of these matters.
You have situations like at the auto plants where a large percentage workers were making less than 50k while the CEOs at the top were cleaning up, and they struck and said "We'd like our guys to make $70-90k by the end of this 4 year contract". That's not unreasonable.
But then you have cases like this one. Where it's a bunch of guys making six figures (some well into the six figures) demanding 77% raises on top of those six figure salaries, with their mobbed up union boss using rhetoric like, and I quote, "we'll crush them". That is unreasonable.
While one could say "Hey, it's a physically demanding job, even though I made $110k last year, given the circumstances, I think it could be a little more" reasonable people could disagree on that. However, a person making that much, portraying themselves as if they're being exploited in the same way as fast food workers, to the point where it's "I strike, I demand a 70% raise, or I'll crush your business"...again, that's not reasonable, that's strong-arming.
