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?
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.
I’m not interested in your random unrelated links. The question is whether people with college educations are more likely to join unions, and the answer to that is yes, and also, I can easily tell from reading the links themselves that they aren’t relevant to that question, troll.
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?
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.
Neither of those links are remotely relevant to how higher education correlates with union membership. Trolling.
Name one industry in good faith
They’re going to say Taco Bell.
Ok, warehouse workers. Servers.
Pretty sure I could name any industry and the people in those industries with college degrees are more likely to be in a union than those without.
You couldn’t have possibly looked over all of the aflcios educational information. You’re trolling and you’re extremely bad at it.
I’m not interested in your random unrelated links. The question is whether people with college educations are more likely to join unions, and the answer to that is yes, and also, I can easily tell from reading the links themselves that they aren’t relevant to that question, troll.