4 ms·

This doesn't seem shocking to me? Per [0] Oracle has ~100,000 employees and $6B in income. Per [1] the United Brotherhood of Carpenters has ~500,000 members;

This doesn't seem shocking to me? Per [0] Oracle has ~100,000 employees and $6B in income. Per [1] the United Brotherhood of Carpenters has ~500,000 members; per [2] (yes, I'm aware this doesn't cover all of the occupations represented by the union, and some members will not be in the US) they have a mean income of ~$60,000, meaning the total income represented by the union could be ~$30B. That the union barely edges Oracle for political spending suggest that they punching well below their weight, relative to income. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_Corporation [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Brotherhood_of_Carpenters_and_Joiners_of_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Brotherhood_of_Carpente... [2] https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes472031.htm https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes472031.htm

Eumenes 3y ago
Yeah but Oracle is a for-profit corporation and the union is funded by workers ... That money should be going to improve pay, benefits, working conditions, etc. Not funding political campaigns for causes the workers may not even support (its actually really difficult to even find out what/whom the Carpenter union is funding, just vague PACs). I'd rather see that money go back to the workers. Unions should disclose, if they don't already, how their money is spent (and not just 1 line item on their paycheck).
- InitialLastName 3y ago
  By that argument, Oracle is owned by shareholders, so that money should be either getting reinvested or returned to the shareholders, not funding political campaigns that their shareholders may not even support. (The rest of your comment can be similarly reinterpreted). In reality, both organizations know that at the scale they operate (super-national), one of the legitimate means to advocate for their constituents' interests is to ~~bribe lawmakers~~ make political contributions, so they dedicate some of their resources to that.

Eumenes 3y ago

Yeah but Oracle is a for-profit corporation and the union is funded by workers ... That money should be going to improve pay, benefits, working conditions, etc. Not funding political campaigns for causes the workers may not even support (its actually really difficult to even find out what/whom the Carpenter union is funding, just vague PACs). I'd rather see that money go back to the workers. Unions should disclose, if they don't already, how their money is spent (and not just 1 line item on their paycheck).

InitialLastName 3y ago
By that argument, Oracle is owned by shareholders, so that money should be either getting reinvested or returned to the shareholders, not funding political campaigns that their shareholders may not even support. (The rest of your comment can be similarly reinterpreted). In reality, both organizations know that at the scale they operate (super-national), one of the legitimate means to advocate for their constituents' interests is to ~~bribe lawmakers~~ make political contributions, so they dedicate some of their resources to that.