Union leaders are "THE RICH" they so disparage

  So the NEA has endorsed Obama already. 
  Probably it really doesn't matter who the Republican candidate is to the NEA because they have just revealed that they are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Democrat party. Usually the NEA, whose members' contributions go to 98% Democrats and ALL liberal candidates, has the decency to wait until there are two candidates running for office. Apparently no one could possibly match the glory and stature of Obama.
  Recently, the OEA voted to bilk assess its members $54 to pay for a campaign against the recently passed Ohio SB5, which will restructure the way unions are allowed to bargain. 
  This fee for all union members is involuntary, regardless of where the union member stand son the issue. If you oppose it, too bad. You still have to pay.
  Now the NEA has decided to assess a permanent $10  increase (additional dues) nationally on all members of the union. The union member has no choice. If the union member opposes it, too bad. He or she still has to pay.
  In fact, as the arguments over collective bargaining and the direction this country is heading accelerate in the next election cycle, it wouldn't be surprising if the NEA/OEA finds other assessments/dues that will be owed, strictly for the support and promotion of liberal candidates and the perpetuation of the union stranglehold on this state and country.
  BTW, the $10 increase in NEA dues is for a new pot of money called a "crisis fund." Evidence is already emerging that the new laws passed in Wisconsin have saved at least  one school district from fiscal crisis, a problem that only interests, it appears, the union when it affects their own salaries and power.
  The unions have also run sort of money laundering health care consortiums, as detailed in this article at Townhall.
  One wonders how the unions get away with these money snatches, in light of the Reagan era Beck decision:

In 1988, after battling through twelve years of red tape and legal appeals, a telephone lineman named Harry Beck took his case to the Supreme Court. His request was simple: that the court reaffirm his right to keep his hard earned wages, rather than have them confiscated by union officials and spent to promote a political agenda with which he did not agree. Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled in Beck v. Communication Workers of America that unions could not force workers to pay dues to support political causes and matters unrelated to the normal union duties of collective bargaining and union representation. The court ruled that political contributions must be voluntary. In Mr. Beck's case, the union spent 79 percent of his money for purposes other than ‘normal union duties.' Steve Havas, another union member, sued and got $8,877.48 back in dues that he had paid for years.

Unfortunately, this decision was ignored by the Democratically controlled Congresses of the ‘80s. Advancing the agenda of organized labor, President Clinton decided that workers should not be informed of this right. On February 1, 1995, President Clinton rescinded an Executive Order from President Bush requiring all federal contractors to post notices in the workplace informing workers of their rights under the Beck decision. The problem is that the law requires no one to tell the workers that their contributions to political causes are supposed to be voluntary. Thus, union leaders can continue to dock money from workers' paychecks for their own political use. Only when a union member objects does the union stop collecting , and even then it is only from that single member.

  So while many unions claim to spend very little on political purposes (about $10 in some districts of around $900 in dues), what they don't tell you is that they pay their own union employees extremely high wages, comparative to teachers' salaries.
  Here's a chart from ThirdBasePolitics and commentary:

 I'm also waiting for the news story where the dozens of union employees paid six figures with member dues chip in to save a bunch of teachers' jobs. Solidarity?

  Third Base Politics also notes that the 1.2 million signatures collected to repeal SB5 (were you impressed with the massive number of signatures gathered? Remember it's psyops) were engineered by the 450 full time employees of the 5 state unions, in addition to other union members around the state who have abandoned their employment to be paid by the union to work full time on the SB5 repeal.
  It's also reported that 1199 SEIU employees in Northwest Ohio have been OFF WORK (paid for by the union) since May to collect signatures and will not return to their places of employment until NOVEMBER, because they will be campaigning against SB5. 
  So there are hundreds and hundreds of people working full time, paid by union dues, to repeal state law.
  Take a look at these salaries, paid by union members' dues, from thathero:

• LARRY N WICKS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: $210,858.00
• DOUG K CRAWFORD, LRC: $189,832.00
• CECELIA M WELDON, LRC: $187,405.00
• JAMES E MARTIN, AED BUSINESS SERVICES: $171,528.00
• KEVIN M FLANAGAN, AED MEMBER SERVICES-FIELD: $169,761.00
• MICHAEL N MCEACHERN, LRC: $169,298.00
• SUSAN M BABCOCK, AED STRATEGIC/WORKFORCE: $169,148.00
• RACHELLE N JOHNSON, AED MEMBER SERVICES-PROGR: $164,525.00
• MARK E LINDER, LRC: $161,756.00
• VENITA N SHOULDERS, LRC: $158,432.00
• WILLIAM A OTTEN, LRC: $155,873.00
• PATRICIA N COLLINS, DIRECTOR REGION 1: $155,551.00
• FRITZ N FEKETE, DIRECTOR I/S & RESEARCH: $154,635.00
• MARY E SUCHY, DIRECTOR OF MEMBERSHIP: $152,636.00
• RANDALL V FLORA, DIRECTOR EI&I: $152,114.00
• RODNEY E BIRD, LRC: $152,058.00
• JEFFREY L KESTNER, LRC: $150,739.00

  Don't kid yourself. This is all about money and power. Money and power. Money and power, enriching a few select individuals.

  As former NEA lawyer Bob Chanin stated: 

"It's not because we care about children... It's not because we have a vision for a great public school for every child. ...we're effective advocates because we have power and we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year...." 

  The unions are fighting for their own sky high salaries and cushy advocacy jobs, not just for the "working man." Why do they utilize the class warfare argument against "the rich" when THEY THEMSELVES are THE RICH?
  Just as Obama's phony Twitter claims that WH salaries have been frozen have been proven to be completely untrue, the unions aren't telling the truth. NiceDeb:

  They are swimming in union members' money, supporting lavish lifestyles. THEY ARE THE RICH.
  Disaffected union members have options.
  It's about time they use them.
UPDATE: And then there's this and this:

• • NEA money spent on politics and administration:  $122,813,264

• • NEA money spent on actual member representation:  $49,260,204

• • NEA union officers making over $100,000 annually:  414 (almost double the second ranking union on this list)

• • NEA office building estimated value:  $110,207,000

  ANd this: