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.
Basic civics questions that you can’t answer because I know the answers to them and you don’t, or you do and they prove that you’re wrong so you evade them, since you’re a troll.
Already did and provided sources and I might add you have a cacophony of people telling you you’re wrong and that you should actually look into it instead of making what you think are pointed questions about a subject you clearly don’t understand and appearantly can’t be bothered to look into but you certainly have no issue getting obtuse about it.
You provide two links to random unrelated pages after having previously lied, claiming that sources had already been provided, entirely so that you could then repeat the lie and have something to point to, even though again, the links were irrelevant. Troll.
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.
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.
Basic civics questions that you can’t answer because I know the answers to them and you don’t, or you do and they prove that you’re wrong so you evade them, since you’re a troll.
Already did and provided sources and I might add you have a cacophony of people telling you you’re wrong and that you should actually look into it instead of making what you think are pointed questions about a subject you clearly don’t understand and appearantly can’t be bothered to look into but you certainly have no issue getting obtuse about it.
You provide two links to random unrelated pages after having previously lied, claiming that sources had already been provided, entirely so that you could then repeat the lie and have something to point to, even though again, the links were irrelevant. Troll.
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