Would you pay someone a lot of money if they could get you a lot of money?
It probably depends on how much money, you're saying.
Let's say a salary increase of 2 percent or so. Now, would you pay someone to get you that? People do. They're called unions.
And that's about the increase these unions are securing for their workers so far this year.
2 percent. Barely inflation. Barely a trickle.
And this is with union help.
Jeez, what would have happened without it? Maybe, oh, I don't know, 2 percent?
I don't know about you, but if I'm paying someone dough to help me make a lot of dough and I don't make a lot of dough, I feel like a dolt.
So why do so many put up with so little?
Don't get me wrong, some unions are good and some unions do look out for their workers.
But many are busier looking out for themselves.
The New York Daily News reports some staggering, eye-popping salaries for some union honchos.
Are you ready for this?
The head of the American Federation of Teachers takes home $523,000.
Randi Weingarten, the head of the United Federation of Teachers, draws $240,000.
Scores of others at the Teamsters and American Postal Workers Unions comfortably ensconced over $100,000, $200,000 even $300,000 -- several times what their average member makes.
And these are the guys blasting overpaid managers? I don't think so! Something's wrong here.
Exactly who is serving whom? The fat cat union chiefs who wouldn't pry themselves out of a corner office chair to join striking workers if their sorry lives depended on it. Or the workers themselves, naively assuming their union dues are being well spent.
If I'm gonna fork over money to someone, I want results. I want better than average results. Certainly better than two percent results!
And I want them now. Otherwise, you can stick your dues where your cushy union-paid expenses don't shine.
What do you think? Send your comments to: email@example.com
Watch Neil Cavuto's Common Sense weekdays at 4 p.m. ET on Your World with Neil Cavuto.