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.
Literally not you or a single other person in all the comments responded to me has said a single word that actually explains why it wouldn’t work this way. You just started randomly attacking me for no reason. Maybe it’s because you can’t provide an actual answer?
And you won’t, or can’t, respond to my point. It doesn’t matter that it’s a nonsequitur, you’re still obligated to respond to it premptively, you fool.
Yes, if everyone leaves the union it doesn’t have power. Fucking duh. It doesn’t work that way because it’s illegal to pay people to not be in the union, since it infringes on people’s rights to collective bargaining. Which I politely said in my first reply to you when I just thought you were ignorant, rather than obstinate and rude as well.
You just started randomly attacking me for no reason
Crystal more. You’re the one who kicked off being angry when you found out I thought you were just genuinely ignorant, as opposed to properly stupid.
Yes, if everyone leaves the union it doesn’t have power. Fucking duh. It doesn’t work that way because it’s illegal to pay people to not be in the union, since it infringes on people’s rights to collective bargaining.
That… is literally the thing being discussed here.
Which I politely said in my first reply to you when I just thought you were ignorant, rather than obstinate and rude as well.
No, you didn’t. I’m quite sure this is the first time I’ve seen anyone make the claim that what Cathy is saying in OP is untrue and would be illegal.
Cry more. You’re the one who kicked off being angry when you found out I thought you were just genuinely ignorant, as opposed to properly stupid.
You’re Madison420’s alt, right? If not, I don’t see why you’re both so randomly hostile or why you both go off about me “crying.” All I’m doing is discussing facts and pointing out when people say things that are wrong. Occasionally, when someone comes at me with random, unprovoked, hostility, I point out that that’s what they’re doing and may give it back to them. If you can’t take shit don’t start shit.
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.
Literally the first reply I sent you.
If you don’t know the basics of labor law and how companies are ostensibly prohibited from preventing organization, you really don’t have a lot of room to get upset when people think you don’t know stuff.
That… is literally the thing being discussed here.
No, it’s a nonsequitur you brought up out of nowhere. You asked why the company doesn’t just pay the union less, and when people told you replied assuming that everyone knew that all the workers left the union.
when people told you replied assuming that everyone knew that all the workers left the union.
Because that’s literally the entire point! They want to pay people more if they leave the union so they can later cut wages without resistance, it’s an extremely simple and basic concept. I have no idea why you’re treating this as some bizarre, added assumption, like literally what are we even talking about if not that?
How is it even legal to have explicitly preferential pay for people not in a union? Is there a limit to that, or can companies just say, “Anyone who joins a union will be paid minimum wage.”
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.
That’s you. That’s what we’re talking about: why they can’t “set “$5 above union rates” as the company policy for everyone and then cut union rates by $5”.
You were told it’s because of the unions contract that they can’t cut union rates, and paying people not to join is a violation of labor law.
You then replied about how that wouldn’t work because everyone left the union so they don’t have bargaining power.
And yeah, if the union has no power they probably don’t have a good contract, but that’s aside from the point of “a unions contract prevents their pay from being cut on a whim”.
I’m treating it like a weird add-on to the discussion because it is. They can’t cut pay because of their contract, unless their contract doesn’t stop that, in which case they can.
Literally not you or a single other person in all the comments responded to me has said a single word that actually explains why it wouldn’t work this way. You just started randomly attacking me for no reason. Maybe it’s because you can’t provide an actual answer?
And you won’t, or can’t, respond to my point. It doesn’t matter that it’s a nonsequitur, you’re still obligated to respond to it premptively, you fool.
Yes, if everyone leaves the union it doesn’t have power. Fucking duh. It doesn’t work that way because it’s illegal to pay people to not be in the union, since it infringes on people’s rights to collective bargaining. Which I politely said in my first reply to you when I just thought you were ignorant, rather than obstinate and rude as well.
Crystal more. You’re the one who kicked off being angry when you found out I thought you were just genuinely ignorant, as opposed to properly stupid.
That… is literally the thing being discussed here.
No, you didn’t. I’m quite sure this is the first time I’ve seen anyone make the claim that what Cathy is saying in OP is untrue and would be illegal.
You’re Madison420’s alt, right? If not, I don’t see why you’re both so randomly hostile or why you both go off about me “crying.” All I’m doing is discussing facts and pointing out when people say things that are wrong. Occasionally, when someone comes at me with random, unprovoked, hostility, I point out that that’s what they’re doing and may give it back to them. If you can’t take shit don’t start shit.
Literally the first reply I sent you.
If you don’t know the basics of labor law and how companies are ostensibly prohibited from preventing organization, you really don’t have a lot of room to get upset when people think you don’t know stuff.
No, it’s a nonsequitur you brought up out of nowhere. You asked why the company doesn’t just pay the union less, and when people told you replied assuming that everyone knew that all the workers left the union.
Because that’s literally the entire point! They want to pay people more if they leave the union so they can later cut wages without resistance, it’s an extremely simple and basic concept. I have no idea why you’re treating this as some bizarre, added assumption, like literally what are we even talking about if not that?
That’s you. That’s what we’re talking about: why they can’t “set “$5 above union rates” as the company policy for everyone and then cut union rates by $5”.
You were told it’s because of the unions contract that they can’t cut union rates, and paying people not to join is a violation of labor law.
You then replied about how that wouldn’t work because everyone left the union so they don’t have bargaining power.
And yeah, if the union has no power they probably don’t have a good contract, but that’s aside from the point of “a unions contract prevents their pay from being cut on a whim”.
I’m treating it like a weird add-on to the discussion because it is. They can’t cut pay because of their contract, unless their contract doesn’t stop that, in which case they can.