Enclosed is our check representing the rebate of 2005-06 agency fees not related to collective bargaining and employment conditions.
As noted in our prior letter, the rebate percentages are:
In addition, 100% of the temporary CTA $60 dues increase for 2005-06, (sic) has been included in the rebate. (boldface in original)
So what they're saying is that that NEA spends 49% of its money on expenses not related to collective bargaining and employment conditions, and CTA and my local union each spend over a third of their money on such expenses. Understanding that the union rags (which I will no longer receive) contribute a small part to such expenses, I'm still amazed at how much they're spending on things not directly related to Darren's pay and working conditions.
As it stands right now, there's only one political issue that I can think of that NEA and CTA should be spending money on--and that's because it relates directly to my pay and working conditions. Any efforts they expend on repealing the Windfall Elimination Provision in Social Security law are reasonable to me. But somehow I don't think NEA is spending 49% of its money on that. They're too busy trying to fight the No Child Left Behind Act while simultaneously hiding behind "the children" the law actually helps. I've identified before the odd issues on which the unions have spent money. John Kerry for President, anyone?
You members of those unions, look at the figures above. If you think you're getting your political money's worth from those unions, look how much of *your* money they're spending. Roughly 40% of your dues money is going into the hands of politicians and lobbyists, much of it for things (gay marriage, for example, which I support but don't want my money spent promoting) completely unrelated to your pay and working conditions.
On a related note, I encourage all NEA members to go here and read EIA's report on the NEA. It's well-researched and quite illuminating.
Joe Thomas, are you out there? Can you defend these figures?