19
Cathy, do the math.
(slrpnk.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
19 points (100.0% liked)
Work Reform
11698 readers
1 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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." Ofc with at-will employment they can always just fire you, but like, if you think about it it's pretty fucked up right?
I wouldn't be surprised if the union has other benefits that more then make up for the 50 cents, e.g. better medical, vacation, or whatever.
I get that, I'm just highlighting the potential for abuse. Or rather, that it's fucked up in the first place.
I mean of course it's fucked up of course there's room for abuse. That's capitalism. The point of capitalism is abuse. The point of capitalism is the exploitation of the worker. In essence that's the problem here. You keep asking why are things aren't Fair, the answer is capitalism it's inherently unfair. There are no rules in a capitalist Society to keep things Fair. The point of capitalism is to make things unfair.
I'm well aware of that. As I said, "Ofc with at-will employment they can always just fire you, but like, if you think about it it’s pretty fucked up right?"
There are so many replies that don't get it. 1 2 3. You're explaining to me how it's "obviously" fucked up (which I already acknowledged), but most of the replies are telling me that it isn't fucked up at all - maybe you should try responding to those people instead of to me.
They're not trying to tell you it's not fucked up. They're just surprised you're stuck on the most Elemental aspect and are moving on to the next aspects. Everyone knows it's fucked up and has moved on to the next topic. Fundamental truth to the world aren't something we spend a lot of time talking about.
Are reading the same replies?
You think this demonstrates that "everyone knows it's fucked up?" Because it sounds a lot to me like they're saying it isn't fucked up at all, and is in fact, "caving to the union's demands."
I wish that when my critics attacked me from completely opposite angles, they spent half as much time criticizing each other for having 100% opposite positions on why I'm supposedly wrong.
I don't think it's preferential pay. It's just that they pay more, somebody in the union also can get more money than the union minimum. Somebody not part of the union can get less or more than somebody in the union, just not below the union minimum.
It's not that if they join the union that they get less money. The union + 0.5 just means that they earn better than the minimum and the employer gives them more than the minimum, because people like that.
At least that's how it works where I live and union contracts are common.
Not everyone part of the union has to get exactly the union minimum, it's just that you cannot legally get less. People might not be part of the union but they still fall under the union contract negotiated by the union, because it applies to the entire company.
You may be right, but it certainly sounds like she's claiming it's contractual, explicit, and general policy.
I don't read it like that. The sentence just says that their pay rate has that amount, not that it is connected to them not being a union member.
Who's "we" then, if not non-union members?
The people the contract is with, maybe all employees of the company have the agreement.
You are thinking way too much into that statement, the way I described is the way it works here, and that seems much more likely tbh.
That's literally what I'm saying.
You are saying it's union members vs non union members being separated.
And it's not.
The union members are included in the "we" that contractually makes $0.50/hr more than... union members?
The contract negotiated by the unions just defines the minimum, union members can earn more.
I can't tell if that's a yes or a no to the question of whether the "we" that gets paid more than union members includes union members.
Yes, because the union contract defines the absolute minimum of the rate, and union members can also earn more.
This will be my last response, it's frustrating, these are basic principles of how these contracts work and I'm tired of explaining it.
So their contract states that they'll be paid $0.50/hr more than the wages they negotiated in their contract. Got it, thanks for clearing that up.