Being a Union Shill is Quite Lucrative for Lib Talker Ed Schultz


Why, you didn’t believe liberal radio host Ed Schultz really gives a darn about union workers did you? Ha! He gets paid for his advocacy of unions – and quite handsomely, at that.: NewsBusters: has the scoop:

In fiscal 2011, Schultz received $190,000 from the Communications Workers of America for what the: U.S. Department of Labor: categorized as “representational activities.”

For swag like that, you’d think Schultz could at least get it right about the CWA name. Instead, he invariably refers to it as the “Communication” Workers of America when its president, Larry Cohen, is a guest on Schultz’s radio show, as Cohen often is.

Schultz also received $9,900 in fiscal 2011 from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), putting his union haul for the year at almost $200,000. (Read More)

Oh my! Who would have thought this lefty windbag shill would have enough listeners to warrant such a large payout?

Thank goodness for new media, if we had to rely on the MSM for our news none of this would ever come out.

***

Speaking of Ed Schultz, did: Gloria Allred ever demand: that he be arrested after he called Laura Ingraham a “right wing slut?” No, I didn’t think so. Come to think of it, the unions didn’t seem to care, considering how they continue to line his pockets.

Cross posted at TLC

Trending Today

Tags assigned to this article:
CWAEd SchultzIBEWpayoff

Related Articles

0

WaPo/ABC Poll: Obama Lying About Benghazi, IRS Targeting ‘Inappropriate,’ Media Still Distrusted

A new poll conducted jointly by The Washington Post and ABC News revealed some interesting trends. Among other findings, more

0

Communist Mandela Chose to Side With Despots, Murders Like Castro, Arafat, and Ghadafi

Everyone has turned to star-struck mush on the death of former South African President Nelson Mandela, but it should be

0

Too Many Republican Congressmen Giving Unions Free Tax Dollars

For such a blue state, Illinois has some rather good Republicans in Congress, but on one issue many of them