What I’m saying is that if they can set “$0.50 above union rates” as the company policy for everyone, they can also set “$5 above union rates” as the company policy for everyone and then cut union rates by $5. It’s essentially just bribing people to not join a union or penalizing them if they do. It being company policy for everyone is irrelevant.
They can’t cut union rates since they have a contract. So they can, within reason, pay non union workers more but not lower the pay of union workers. One of the benefits of being in the union is that they can’t just lower your wages and they may have issues firing you for bad reasons.
There’s a limit to how much they can pay the ununionized workers before it becomes clear they’re trying to interfere with the workers rights to free organization. In the image, it’s quite likely that the extra 50¢ is union dues, or could be explained as related to costs.
The workplace is deducting the union dues from union workers checks automatically.
Unions loosing membership causing them to be weaker in negotiations is entirely irrelevant to why companies don’t just lower union pay outside of negotiations.
There’s no faster way to get downvoted than to complain about being downvoted, particularly if you’re weirdly smug about it.
Unions loosing membership causing them to be weaker in negotiations is entirely irrelevant to why companies don’t just lower union pay outside of negotiations.
OK, here’s the source of the confusion.
What the fuck did I say that made anyone think I was talking about cutting union pay outside of negotiations? Literally where is anyone getting this from??
There’s no faster way to get downvoted than to complain about being downvoted, particularly if you’re weirdly smug about it.
Most of the downvotes I got (so far) came before I added that part.
Because referring to changing pay rates for union workers as a policy change pretty heavily implies it’s not a negotiation, and “why wouldn’t the company just get the union to agree to a significant pay cut” is an even more asinine point. They obviously would have if the could have. The assumption that you didn’t know unions negotiated contracts seemed more charitable than thinking you didn’t know how bargaining worked.
Most of the downvotes I got (so far) came before I added that part.
Because referring to changing pay rates for union workers as a policy change pretty heavily implies it’s not a negotiation, and “why wouldn’t the company just get the union to agree to a significant pay cut” is an even more asinine point. They obviously would have if the could have. The assumption that you didn’t know unions negotiated contracts seemed more charitable than thinking you didn’t know how bargaining worked.
But that’s not how bargaining works. What unions are able to negotiate is a function of how large, powerful, and organized they are. Rejecting what the company offers can mean going on strike, and if they aren’t powerful enough for that to be a credible threat (because people left the union for higher pay rates), then that means they have very little power to negotiate or say no to what’s offered.
So it’s more like, you don’t understand how bargaining works, so you jumped to the completely absurd conclusion that I didn’t know unions negotiated contracts? What?
At this point I’m fairly certain you’re just trolling, since you asked a dumb question, responded to answers with nonsense scenarios and indignation, and then responded to clarification as though your scenario were a given.
Aren’t people with college educations more likely to end up in a union? One of the reasons some places don’t want to hire “overqualified” people is because they’re afraid of unionization.
There’s a variety of reasons for the decline of unions in the US, the main ones being:
Anti-union laws and propaganda (Mike Rowe being a big one)
Offshoring of manufacturing jobs
Major unions defanging themselves by purging radicals/communists to prove they’re “one of the good ones”
Literally not what I said at all. I said that you are more likely to be in a union if you have more education. Do you bother looking anything up before trying to incorrectly correct others?
At this point it’s extremely obvious that you’re just trolling.
Technically, yes, on paper, they do expire, gets cancelled and renewed every 2-3 years.
In practice, no. They can’t not be renewed. If the employees don’t accept the agreement there will be a strike, and if the employers don’t accept the agreement they can make a lock-out. If the strike or lock-out leads nowhere, and society comes to a halt, the government can sign a law to require the work to resume on previous terms.
The individual employer has no more say in the negotiations than an individual employee. The negotiations happen between the employer union and the employee union.
Keep in mind that some companies actually want to have a union agreement.
It’s really only the most unprofessionally run and privately owned companies who believe they can somehow save money from not having a proper agreement with their employees.
Professionel companies focus on making money instead of wasting resources fighting their own employees.
The union contract covers the business license generally, so long as that exists the It’s a union shop. They would have to shutdown or mutually enter union termination which happens but it’s incredibly rare. They get renegotiated but generally no one is going to accept less and the company can’t go around the contract to cut pay, they can however provide incentive not to join.
Legit, not answering your questions isn’t trolling, asking questions you should find out on your own is trolling. Making dumb comments about shit you clearly don’t understand is trolling. Go back to .ml or bother to research the subject you’re all worked up over.
Other people are incorrect as well, you’ve been notified and provided sources for how and why you’re wrong as well as why they are wrong. Again dunning kruger, go back to daycare.
Show me a single comment providing me with a single source. Not one has been provided, and I even double-checked on .world in case there was one I wasn’t federated with. You are a liar and a troll.
The main article is a source, literally call Nina turners office and people there will eli-a very slow 3yr old just for you and your oh so special need to have everything spoon fed to you.
They can’t cut union wages that’s the whole point of collective bargaining and they’re just maintaining competition with union rates which is legal. That competition might be specifically devised to draw potential employees away from union contracts and people may be dumb enough to go for it but that’s capitalism however dumb that may be.
The issue here is that if more people choose not to join a union for the pay raise in the short term, unions become weaker in the longer term. The capitalist in this case is paying a premium now to divide up labor for the chance down the line to save more money on labor overall in the long term.
Great, they increased pay for non-union workers, the workers leave the union for increased pay, now the company cuts union pay, and now there’s no organization for the workers to do anything about it. “Mission accomplished” indeed.
Literally what have I said anywhere that suggests I’m in any way, “baffled?” I’m just pointing out how fucked up it is to others who don’t understand, such as the person I replied to.
if salaries depend on union decisions then surely they are following the union’s demands.
i think the thing that makes it confusing is the missing context of whether unionised workers at that site are being paid less than non-union workers. i assumed the answer was no because it sounded like they had a CBA that the person was not aware of, since the alternative would have been immediately struck down by any union worth its salt.
My guess would be that this person is part of the collective bargaining block, but does not pay dues (possibly public sector). So the contract she describes was negotiated by the Union, and is the same contract that everyone in her position gets, union or otherwise. She probably just doesn’t realize it.
Could be wrong, but the above situation is unfortunately pretty common.
sounds like their pay is based on union rates. that’s probably just a company policy for everyone.
What I’m saying is that if they can set “$0.50 above union rates” as the company policy for everyone, they can also set “$5 above union rates” as the company policy for everyone and then cut union rates by $5. It’s essentially just bribing people to not join a union or penalizing them if they do. It being company policy for everyone is irrelevant.
They can’t cut union rates since they have a contract. So they can, within reason, pay non union workers more but not lower the pay of union workers. One of the benefits of being in the union is that they can’t just lower your wages and they may have issues firing you for bad reasons.
There’s a limit to how much they can pay the ununionized workers before it becomes clear they’re trying to interfere with the workers rights to free organization. In the image, it’s quite likely that the extra 50¢ is union dues, or could be explained as related to costs.
Not until everyone leaves the union to get extra pay and the union loses all its bargaining power.
That doesn’t make any sense. If it’s about union dues, the union pay is what should be higher.
I love how people downvote my comments with absolutely zero explanation of why I’m wrong.
The workplace is deducting the union dues from union workers checks automatically.
Unions loosing membership causing them to be weaker in negotiations is entirely irrelevant to why companies don’t just lower union pay outside of negotiations.
There’s no faster way to get downvoted than to complain about being downvoted, particularly if you’re weirdly smug about it.
OK, here’s the source of the confusion.
What the fuck did I say that made anyone think I was talking about cutting union pay outside of negotiations? Literally where is anyone getting this from??
Most of the downvotes I got (so far) came before I added that part.
Because referring to changing pay rates for union workers as a policy change pretty heavily implies it’s not a negotiation, and “why wouldn’t the company just get the union to agree to a significant pay cut” is an even more asinine point. They obviously would have if the could have. The assumption that you didn’t know unions negotiated contracts seemed more charitable than thinking you didn’t know how bargaining worked.
Okay.
But that’s not how bargaining works. What unions are able to negotiate is a function of how large, powerful, and organized they are. Rejecting what the company offers can mean going on strike, and if they aren’t powerful enough for that to be a credible threat (because people left the union for higher pay rates), then that means they have very little power to negotiate or say no to what’s offered.
So it’s more like, you don’t understand how bargaining works, so you jumped to the completely absurd conclusion that I didn’t know unions negotiated contracts? What?
At this point I’m fairly certain you’re just trolling, since you asked a dumb question, responded to answers with nonsense scenarios and indignation, and then responded to clarification as though your scenario were a given.
Replace leaving the union with going to college instead and you get why we have a 3 generation straight loss in union membership.
People told their kids to chase more money and then spent that money on cheaper foreign products and the whole house fell down within 20 years.
This was the plan by the way for capitalists.
Aren’t people with college educations more likely to end up in a union? One of the reasons some places don’t want to hire “overqualified” people is because they’re afraid of unionization.
There’s a variety of reasons for the decline of unions in the US, the main ones being:
Anti-union laws and propaganda (Mike Rowe being a big one)
Offshoring of manufacturing jobs
Major unions defanging themselves by purging radicals/communists to prove they’re “one of the good ones”
No most higher education jobs aren’t union. Do you bother to lookup anything by yourself before you speak about things?
Literally not what I said at all. I said that you are more likely to be in a union if you have more education. Do you bother looking anything up before trying to incorrectly correct others?
At this point it’s extremely obvious that you’re just trolling.
I’m not going to raise time to look, Im fairly sure someone did but regardless it’s widely known easily available information.
https://aflcio.org/what-unions-do
https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/employer-union-rights-and-obligations
It’s extremely obvious you are trolling or legitimately ignorant on basic civics, take your pick.
They can’t cut union rates.
Not until everyone leaves the union to get extra pay and the union loses all its bargaining power.
In my case, even that wouldn’t matter. The only way for an employer to get out of a union agreement is to shut down the business completely.
Your union agreements last until the end of time and never get renegotiated?
It’s a union shop on Union contract. Again you just don’t understand basic facts of life you should have learned in civics.
I’ll ask again, since you comletely ignored the question: so their contracts never expire and never get renegotiated?
Technically, yes, on paper, they do expire, gets cancelled and renewed every 2-3 years.
In practice, no. They can’t not be renewed. If the employees don’t accept the agreement there will be a strike, and if the employers don’t accept the agreement they can make a lock-out. If the strike or lock-out leads nowhere, and society comes to a halt, the government can sign a law to require the work to resume on previous terms.
The individual employer has no more say in the negotiations than an individual employee. The negotiations happen between the employer union and the employee union.
Keep in mind that some companies actually want to have a union agreement. It’s really only the most unprofessionally run and privately owned companies who believe they can somehow save money from not having a proper agreement with their employees.
Professionel companies focus on making money instead of wasting resources fighting their own employees.
The union contract covers the business license generally, so long as that exists the It’s a union shop. They would have to shutdown or mutually enter union termination which happens but it’s incredibly rare. They get renegotiated but generally no one is going to accept less and the company can’t go around the contract to cut pay, they can however provide incentive not to join.
Legit, not answering your questions isn’t trolling, asking questions you should find out on your own is trolling. Making dumb comments about shit you clearly don’t understand is trolling. Go back to .ml or bother to research the subject you’re all worked up over.
That’s just union contract negotiations.
Not providing cost of living increase is effectively a pay cut FYI, and we’re speaking colloquially here.
Congrats you just figured out capitalism, .ml is speaking volumes here.
Thank you, yes as an .ml I do understand capitalism better than most of the people replying to me, it seems.
Dunning Kruger in action. Yes facts don’t matter your beliefs do, head on back to daycare and let the adults talk in peace.
Which facts are you talking about, exactly?
You yourself said:
So you agree with me, lots of people in this thread disagree with me 1 2 3, but you’re attacking me because??? I’m on .ml???
Other people are incorrect as well, you’ve been notified and provided sources for how and why you’re wrong as well as why they are wrong. Again dunning kruger, go back to daycare.
Show me a single comment providing me with a single source. Not one has been provided, and I even double-checked on .world in case there was one I wasn’t federated with. You are a liar and a troll.
The main article is a source, literally call Nina turners office and people there will eli-a very slow 3yr old just for you and your oh so special need to have everything spoon fed to you.
sure, but whether or not they know it they have caved to the union’s demands by doing that
What kind of 5th dimensional chess are you trying to play where penalizing someone for joining a union is “caving to the union’s demands?”
They can’t cut union wages that’s the whole point of collective bargaining and they’re just maintaining competition with union rates which is legal. That competition might be specifically devised to draw potential employees away from union contracts and people may be dumb enough to go for it but that’s capitalism however dumb that may be.
One of the main goals of unions is to increase worker pay. Mission accomplished.
The issue here is that if more people choose not to join a union for the pay raise in the short term, unions become weaker in the longer term. The capitalist in this case is paying a premium now to divide up labor for the chance down the line to save more money on labor overall in the long term.
Thank you, this is exactly what I said, but since you don’t have a .ml next to your name people might not just randomly attack you over it.
Great, they increased pay for non-union workers, the workers leave the union for increased pay, now the company cuts union pay, and now there’s no organization for the workers to do anything about it. “Mission accomplished” indeed.
Yes that’s capitalism, how exactly you’re baffled by that this late in life is in itself quite the quandary.
Literally what have I said anywhere that suggests I’m in any way, “baffled?” I’m just pointing out how fucked up it is to others who don’t understand, such as the person I replied to.
You keep asking basic civics questions as one would of they are baffled.
What’s fucked up is you’re appearantly just learning about it but are old enough to use the Internet unsupervised.
if salaries depend on union decisions then surely they are following the union’s demands.
i think the thing that makes it confusing is the missing context of whether unionised workers at that site are being paid less than non-union workers. i assumed the answer was no because it sounded like they had a CBA that the person was not aware of, since the alternative would have been immediately struck down by any union worth its salt.
My guess would be that this person is part of the collective bargaining block, but does not pay dues (possibly public sector). So the contract she describes was negotiated by the Union, and is the same contract that everyone in her position gets, union or otherwise. She probably just doesn’t realize it.
Could be wrong, but the above situation is unfortunately pretty common.
deleted by creator