Mind-blowing labor union hypocrisy

[Clocker]

Los Angeles is finalizing a new minimum wage law that would eventually be $15/hour. Labor unions, which have strongly pushed the bill, want one little change. They say that wages negotiated through collective bargaining should be exempt from the minimum.

For much of the past eight months, labor activists have argued against special considerations for business owners, such as restaurateurs, who said they would have trouble complying with the mandated pay increase.

But Rusty Hicks, who heads the county Federation of Labor and helps lead the Raise the Wage coalition, said Tuesday night that companies with workers represented by unions should have leeway to negotiate a wage below that mandated by the law.

"With a collective bargaining agreement, a business owner and the employees negotiate an agreement that works for them both. The agreement allows each party to prioritize what is important to them," Hicks said in a statement. "This provision gives the parties the option, the freedom, to negotiate that agreement. And that is a good thing."

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-los-angeles-minimum-wage-unions-20150526-story.html

[TJDave]

The unions might be too smart for their own good. If this passes it could lead to the rise of white, or shadow unions. Labor and management collusion.

[Clocker]

The unions might be too smart for their own good. If this passes it could lead to the rise of white, or shadow unions. Labor and management collusion.

Ah yes, a return to the company unions of the 1930's.

[Tom]

But Rusty Hicks, who heads the county Federation of Labor and helps lead the Raise the Wage coalition, said Tuesday night that companies with workers represented by unions should have leeway to negotiate a wage below that mandated by the law.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Come on mostie.......DEFEND THIS!

[Hoofless_Wonder]

These guys have done the math. They can increase union membership by bringing a lower wage into the mix, which in turn keeps the revenue flow into their pockets increasing or intact.

"Freedom" to negotiate, indeed.....

[Clocker]

These guys have done the math. They can increase union membership by bringing a lower wage into the mix, which in turn keeps the revenue flow into their pockets increasing or intact.

"Freedom" to negotiate, indeed.....

Exactly. Hey Mr. Businessman, you are paying your workers $10 an hour today. Do you want to pay $15 an hour to your nonunion workers under the new minimum wage, or would you rather pay $12.50 as a union shop?

[mostpost]

:lol: :lol: :lol: Come on mostie.......DEFEND THIS!
Isn't that your job. You are the one who is opposed to minimum wage, so why are you suddenly so outraged. A few things to remember. If it is a union shop, the workers are almost certainly being paid more than if it is a non union shop.
This proposed amendment-which I am not certain I favor-does not mean that the Union and management are going to collude to keep wages down. It means that if there are circumstances in which it would better to pay less than minimum wage, that decision will be made jointly through negotiation between management and union. It will not be unilaterally imposed on the worker.

[mostpost]

These guys have done the math. They can increase union membership by bringing a lower wage into the mix, which in turn keeps the revenue flow into their pockets increasing or intact.

"Freedom" to negotiate, indeed.....
You (and Clocker) think this will increase union membership because business owners will agree to unionize, thereby hoping to negotiate lower wages not affected by the $15 minimum wage. But there are two sides to union membership. If union members see that being in a union results in lower wages, they will unjoin the union quickly.

If you work in a nonunion shop and joining a union would mean your pay raises would be smaller than if you stayed nonunion, why would you join the union. The owner can agree to unionization all he wants, but unless the workers join, there will be no union.

As for this revenue flow you talk about; union dues are a percentage of wages. Unions that stifle wages stifle their own revenue. Also, union leaders are paid salaries. They don't work on commission. Their salaries don't change just because there are more members or because those members are earning more.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

You (and Clocker) think this will increase union membership because business owners will agree to unionize, thereby hoping to negotiate lower wages not affected by the $15 minimum wage. But there are two sides to union membership. If union members see that being in a union results in lower wages, they will unjoin the union quickly.

If you work in a nonunion shop and joining a union would mean your pay raises would be smaller than if you stayed nonunion, why would you join the union. The owner can agree to unionization all he wants, but unless the workers join, there will be no union.

As for this revenue flow you talk about; union dues are a percentage of wages. Unions that stifle wages stifle their own revenue. Also, union leaders are paid salaries. They don't work on commission. Their salaries don't change just because there are more members or because those members are earning more.

"Unjoining" a union? This is not always an option, even in some of the "right to work" states. If there really are two sides union membership, then why can't I go work for, say the Post Office, without joining the union? The union arrangement with a company is rarely a democracy, and being a scab is often not an option.

The loophole the union guys are seeking is CLEARLY an effort to expand their membership by removing management's objections to the union through a lower pay scale. Though a percentage of a lower wage scale may not be as profitable as some other union contracts, a percentage of any pay rate is better than the shop being non-union and losing out on that revenue stream altogether.

These guys know their math.

As for the static salaries these fine union leaders make, that sets them completely apart from almost all other forms of business. No bonus structure? Where is the incentive? Bettering the workplace for your fellow man? Granted, I've never been privy to a union's ledgers, but something tells me they are not quite that pristine.....

[Tom]

Nice dodge of the real topic, mostie, although not unexpected.
What is next, waive the child labor laws? OSHA is optional?


No outrage here, dude, pure jocularity! :lol:

[Saratoga_Mike]

. It means that if there are 1) circumstances in which it would better to pay less than minimum wage, that decision will be made jointly through negotiation between management and union.2) It will not be unilaterally imposed on the worker.

1) Are you saying a business might need flexibility as it relates to the cost of labor? Why? I have never heard you make this assertion in the past, but I may have missed it.

If the stated minimum wage is $15/hour, why would you support a lower wage paid to anyone (union or not)? You said you aren't sure about the language. Why? You have strong opinions on all other union matters.

2) Your view of individuals is sad. I truly mean that, not trying to be confrontational. Your language suggests the majority of workers are helpless and will work for any wage. If you had ever run a business (again making a point, not trying to put you down), you would realize this is an incorrect assumption.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Nice dodge of the real topic, mostie, although not unexpected.
What is next, waive the child labor laws? OSHA is optional?


No outrage here, dude, pure jocularity! :lol:

If negotiated mutually between the children and management, this would be acceptable to Most.

[Tom]

This true.
We have a spoiled brat in the White House. :lol:

[Clocker]

A few things to remember. If it is a union shop, the workers are almost certainly being paid more than if it is a non union shop.

No, if it is a non-union shop, the workers are getting minimum wage and not paying union dues. If it is a union shop, under this proposal, the workers can be getting less than minimum wage and paying union dues for the privilege. How is the union helping those workers?

[classhandicapper]

Mostie,

Sometimes you don't have the option of not joining a union assuming you actually want that job.

A few years back I took a part time job that I thought would be some fun. I was required to join a union and pay dues or I couldn't have the job. So I joined the union and paid the dues. I spent some of my spare time explaining to the other workers how the union was screwing us long term and would eventually put us out of business. Of course no one listened. That company is now bankrupt and gone.

To have the job, you had to join and support the policies that would eventually destroy that job. There was no choice.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Mostie,

Sometimes you don't have the option of not joining a union assuming you actually want that job.

A few years back I took a part time job that I thought would be some fun. I was required to join a union and pay dues or I couldn't have the job. So I joined the union and paid the dues. I spent some of my spare time explaining to the other workers how the union was screwing us long term and would eventually put us out of business. Of course no one listened. That company is now bankrupt and gone.

To have the job, you had to join and support the policies that would eventually destroy that job. There was no choice.

He knows this and supports it. He opposes right-to-work laws, and states that operate under such laws. Therefore, he supports the coercion you have articulated in your post.

[mostpost]

"Unjoining" a union? This is not always an option, even in some of the "right to work" states. If there really are two sides union membership, then why can't I go work for, say the Post Office, without joining the union? The union arrangement with a company is rarely a democracy, and being a scab is often not an option.

The loophole the union guys are seeking is CLEARLY an effort to expand their membership by removing management's objections to the union through a lower pay scale. Though a percentage of a lower wage scale may not be as profitable as some other union contracts, a percentage of any pay rate is better than the shop being non-union and losing out on that revenue stream altogether.

These guys know their math.

As for the static salaries these fine union leaders make, that sets them completely apart from almost all other forms of business. No bonus structure? Where is the incentive? Bettering the workplace for your fellow man? Granted, I've never been privy to a union's ledgers, but something tells me they are not quite that pristine.....
If you want to come work for the Post Office and not join the union, feel free. It is against federal law to coerce anyone to join a union in order to work in any government job. Furthermore, whether you join the union or not, the union is required to represent you in dealings with management.

In the office I worked in almost everyone joined the union because we believe in paying for what we get. There was one guy who would not join and no one said a word to him about it. Then, one day, he faced some disciplinary action and-as required-the union represented him and won him a reduction in his punishment. He still didn't join the union and I don't think he even thanked them.

[Saratoga_Mike]

If you want to come work for the Post Office and not join the union, feel free. It is against federal law to coerce anyone to join a union in order to work in any government job. Furthermore, whether you join the union or not, the union is required to represent you in dealings with management.

.

Great point - tell us the difference between the laws that Scott Walker enacted and the laws that apply to federal employees. Hint, not much difference with few exceptions. I do believe the Post Office rules are different than rules for many other federal employees, though, but that's is your area of expertise.

[mostpost]

Mostie,

Sometimes you don't have the option of not joining a union assuming you actually want that job.

A few years back I took a part time job that I thought would be some fun. I was required to join a union and pay dues or I couldn't have the job. So I joined the union and paid the dues. I spent some of my spare time explaining to the other workers how the union was screwing us long term and would eventually put us out of business. Of course no one listened. That company is now bankrupt and gone.

To have the job, you had to join and support the policies that would eventually destroy that job. There was no choice.
You mean to tell me that none of those full time workers who had been with the company for years would listen to a part time punk who had just come on the job? Shocking!!

That company is now bankrupt and gone. But why. Offer some proof beside your own bias that it had anything to do with the union and not management incompetence.

[mostpost]

Sometimes you don't have the option of not joining a union assuming you actually want that job.
That is true in some instances, but what is being claimed here is that the unions will collude with business to OK unions in order to avoid the minimum wage. My point is that you can't have a union unless the employees vote for it. Neither the company nor the union nor both can establish a union without the approval of the employees. Why would an employee vote for a union that would limit his earning potential?

[Tom]

Offer some proof beside your own bias that it had anything to do with the union and not management incompetence.

Offer some proof that it was not the union.

Where I worked, the UAW had people get hired as sleepers. There were union creatures pretending to be new workers. Enough to swing the election - UAW won by only a few votes. The sleepers all left and moved on to other place to infiltrate. Our people ended up with a majority not wanting a union but having to join anyways.

Real fair.

Screw unions.

[classhandicapper]

You mean to tell me that none of those full time workers who had been with the company for years would listen to a part time punk who had just come on the job? Shocking!!

That company is now bankrupt and gone. But why. Offer some proof beside your own bias that it had anything to do with the union and not management incompetence.

Yep. None of them would listen to the only person that had the financial background from his experience as an investor to explain to them why they would soon be out of a job.

It went bankrupt because the company made extremely generous health care benefit promises and ridiculous salary, vacation, and overtime pay benefits to its union workers under pressure from left wing politicians and to prevent a strike. As the workers started retiring, the cash flow demands from health care etc.. accelerated until the company could no longer even meet rents, payroll, etc... and went bust. That left all the workers with both no job and no healthcare benefits. I'd be willing to tell you the name of the company privately. I have a reason to want to keep it confidential. You've heard of it.

[classhandicapper]

Why would an employee vote for a union that would limit his earning potential?

My guess would be that someday union workers will finally realize that they have often priced themselves out of the market. They will then figure out that a job at 12.50 is better than no job at 15.00.

So if the law says 15.00 and they know the company will lay off a bunch of workers at 15.00, they could get around their own job loss by joining the union and agreeing to 12.50 just to bypass a dumb minimum wage law.

[Clocker]

Why would an employee vote for a union that would limit his earning potential?
Why would the union want the option to do that then?

Perhaps because as the new minimum wage is phased in, the union could get the workers a larger increase now at the cost of wages substantially below the final minimum down the road? Perhaps because the union would not explain all that now?

The threshold question has not been answered here. How can a union claim that $15 is the promised land for labor while also claiming that they need an exemption to negotiate a lower wage?

[mostpost]

Yep. None of them would listen to the only person that had the financial background from his experience as an investor to explain to them why they would soon be out of a job.

It went bankrupt because the company made extremely generous health care benefit promises and ridiculous salary, vacation, and overtime pay benefits to its union workers under pressure from left wing politicians and to prevent a strike. As the workers started retiring, the cash flow demands from health care etc.. accelerated until the company could no longer even meet rents, payroll, etc... and went bust. That left all the workers with both no job and no healthcare benefits. I'd be willing to tell you the name of the company privately. I have a reason to want to keep it confidential. You've heard of it.
OK, PM me the name of the company. I WILL keep it confidential and I will refrain from commenting further until I receive the name.

[Tom]

.....and I will refrain from commenting further until I receive the name.

Commenting on EVERYTHING?

Class, send it by mail.....he will be silent for months! :lol:

[Clocker]

Commenting on EVERYTHING?

Class, send it by mail.....he will be silent for months! :lol:

He wants to be silent on this issue. He keeps dodging the question. How do the unions justify a position that $15 an hour is a human right for everyone except union workers if the unions want to bargain it away?

[davew]

If you want to come work for the Post Office and not join the union, feel free. It is against federal law to coerce anyone to join a union in order to work in any government job. Furthermore, whether you join the union or not, the union is required to represent you in dealings with management.

In the office I worked in almost everyone joined the union because we believe in paying for what we get. There was one guy who would not join and no one said a word to him about it. Then, one day, he faced some disciplinary action and-as required-the union represented him and won him a reduction in his punishment. He still didn't join the union and I don't think he even thanked them.


Someone I know once said post office jobs are political- I asked them what they were talking about. They said you have to be a good democrat to get a job there. I thought they were crazy, know I don't know.

[JustRalph]

Commenting on EVERYTHING?

Class, send it by mail.....he will be silent for months! :lol:

Hysterical :lol:

Recently I bought a car from a dealer in California. He sent me the paperwork via certified mail. It was promptly lost two days later. It kept showing up scanned somewhere along the route to Texas, every few days. Several local postal employees claimed to be tracing it for me. None would return my calls. A visit to a supervisor was an exercise in futility as the Supv was new and told me he couldn't figure out how to find the parcel. Even though it was skipping around from post office to post office.

Two weeks went by and suddenly the package was silent. no more scans. The dealer and I were trying to figure out how we were going to approach the California DMV. But the postal people on both ends refused to give us any documentation that they lost the docs.

We decided to wait and see what happens. A month has gone by and suddenly the document ends up scanned in San Francisco the other night. I wasn't in a hurry, and the car is just being shipped to me in Texas this week.
Two days ago the dealer gets the package delivered back to him, and nobody can explain where it has been, etc.

Too bad their customers don't have a union. Needless to say, the paperwork is coming in the glove box of the car this coming week.

[mostpost]

Commenting on EVERYTHING?

Class, send it by mail.....he will be silent for months! :lol:
Commenting on that particular subject only. It would be cruel to deprive you of my wisdom on all subjects.

Now Class could probably send it to my hometown Post Office with just my name and I would probably get it. Problem is my name is not really Mostpost.

Anyway, he has yet to send it by any method.

[mostpost]

Someone I know once said post office jobs are political- I asked them what they were talking about. They said you have to be a good democrat to get a job there. I thought they were crazy, know I don't know.
Post Office jobs are filled through civil service exam. Party affiliation is not one of the questions.

[mostpost]

Hysterical :lol:

Recently I bought a car from a dealer in California. He sent me the paperwork via certified mail. It was promptly lost two days later. It kept showing up scanned somewhere along the route to Texas, every few days. Several local postal employees claimed to be tracing it for me. None would return my calls. A visit to a supervisor was an exercise in futility as the Supv was new and told me he couldn't figure out how to find the parcel. Even though it was skipping around from post office to post office.

Two weeks went by and suddenly the package was silent. no more scans. The dealer and I were trying to figure out how we were going to approach the California DMV. But the postal people on both ends refused to give us any documentation that they lost the docs.

We decided to wait and see what happens. A month has gone by and suddenly the document ends up scanned in San Francisco the other night. I wasn't in a hurry, and the car is just being shipped to me in Texas this week.
Two days ago the dealer gets the package delivered back to him, and nobody can explain where it has been, etc.

Too bad their customers don't have a union. Needless to say, the paperwork is coming in the glove box of the car this coming week.
They should be able to trace where it has been from the scans. The question is why didn't it come to you instead of gallivanting around the country. When you finally get it, if it is still in the original envelope, check to see if the zip code is correct. Check for postmarks. It should have been postmarked at each office it went to. That is another way they should have been able to trace it's journey.

Maybe they have changed this since I retired, but certified mail is handled along with the regular mail except that it is signed for when delivered. If you meant to say registered mail then that is a much more serious matter. Registered mail is supposed to be placed in a locked pouch at the originating office. The clerk is supposed to sign for it and when the driver from the Sectional Center takes the pouch he has to sign for it also. Each pouch has its own sheet in the register book and copies of the signature are maintained. The lock on the pouch has a sequential number and the number entered in the book at the local office must match the number when the pouch arrives at the sectional center. At each stop along the way, this procedure must be followed.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

If you want to come work for the Post Office and not join the union, feel free. It is against federal law to coerce anyone to join a union in order to work in any government job. Furthermore, whether you join the union or not, the union is required to represent you in dealings with management.

In the office I worked in almost everyone joined the union because we believe in paying for what we get. There was one guy who would not join and no one said a word to him about it. Then, one day, he faced some disciplinary action and-as required-the union represented him and won him a reduction in his punishment. He still didn't join the union and I don't think he even thanked them.

I'll have to take your word for it, as I've never held a Federal job as a civilian - only as a commissioned officer in the military. But I find it very hard to believe that a non-union employee doesn't suffer in some way. Impossible, I say.

When I was a younger pup, I was extremely anti-union, mostly based on my brother's experience with the UAW at Caterpillar and TEAMSTERs, and my dad's union-busting activity when employees of the company he worked for (a TV station) tried to unionize when unemployment in Peoria was close to 20% back in the late 1970s.

Now, after years of corporations exporting jobs overseas and using the H1B visa program to lower wages in my career field (IT), I have a smidge more empathy for unions. But in now way ever do I want to be lumped in with a group of "non-producers" who make as much money as I do, simply because they have the credentials or union membership.

But solving the worker vs management issue and a "living wage" is hardly going to be solved by unions. It would be nice if the government would actually promote and enforce laws and/or policies to help promote employment and an expansion of the middle class. But politicians are in the pockets of the corporations now, and the only way out is going to painful......

[Hoofless_Wonder]

They should be able to trace where it has been from the scans. The question is why didn't it come to you instead of gallivanting around the country. When you finally get it, if it is still in the original envelope, check to see if the zip code is correct. Check for postmarks. It should have been postmarked at each office it went to. That is another way they should have been able to trace it's journey.

Maybe they have changed this since I retired, but certified mail is handled along with the regular mail except that it is signed for when delivered. If you meant to say registered mail then that is a much more serious matter. Registered mail is supposed to be placed in a locked pouch at the originating office. The clerk is supposed to sign for it and when the driver from the Sectional Center takes the pouch he has to sign for it also. Each pouch has its own sheet in the register book and copies of the signature are maintained. The lock on the pouch has a sequential number and the number entered in the book at the local office must match the number when the pouch arrives at the sectional center. At each stop along the way, this procedure must be followed.

As a completely unrelated side note, I'm quite impressed with the postal service overall. Gone are the days of letters taking 10 days to get across the country, and I can't remember the last time something was lost.

However, the "ZIP +4" program is a colossal failure. Why didn't the numbnuts at the USPS add a letter or two to the ZIP, with a reservation like "ZZ" for "unknown", like many foreign countries?

[Clocker]

It seems that libs have been cutting special deals with unions for some time.

As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce documented recently, organized labor has strongly pushed for “living wage” requirements in major U.S. cities. Many of these union-backed ordinances exempt unionized companies. Unions use these exemptions to help organize and reduce costs at unionized companies. For example:

In Long Beach, Calif., UNITE-HERE failed for a decade to organize two major hotels. In 2013 the union placed a measure on the ballot requiring large hotels to pay at least $13 an hour. The measure also exempted unionized hotels. Soon after it passed the unions organized both hotels with the active assistance of the hotels’ management.

Milwaukee passed an ordinance requiring county contractors to pay $11.32 an hour, also allowing an exemption for unionized firms. Shortly after it passed, the Service Employees International Union offered to exempt a home-care provider from the wage increase if she agreed to deduct union dues from her 1,500 employee’s wages.

Seattle requires employers to provide paid sick leave—with an exemption for unionized firms. The city auditor reports that two-thirds of affected unions used that exemption in some or all of their contracts.

Allowing unionized companies to sidestep the minimum wage hike gives non-union companies a strong incentive to unionize. This could mean tens of thousands of new members for Los Angeles unions and millions of dollars in additional dues.

Of course, most workers don’t unionize in hopes of getting a pay cut. But unions often can ignore such objections. National Labor Relations Board rules generally require workers to wait three years before voting out a newly formed union. California also lacks a “right-to-work” law—unionized Los Angeles workers must pay dues or get fired, no matter how little they like their contract.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/29/los-angeles-unions-hypocrisy-on-minimum-wage-hike/

[Saratoga_Mike]

As a completely unrelated side note, I'm quite impressed with the postal service overall. Gone are the days of letters taking 10 days to get across the country, and I can't remember the last time something was lost.



I actually agree with this - I use Express service 15 to 20 times/yr. I've had two problems in 10 yrs.

[Clocker]

A number of non-profit organizations that provide counseling and transitional jobs training programs for former gang members, former convicts, homeless, etc., have asked for exemptions from the new L.A. $15 an hour minimum wage.

Homeboy Industries, which runs a cafe in City Hall, says that it will have to cut 60 of its 170 trainee positions by the time the wage reaches $15.

Homeboy is only one group seeking the extra help. Chrysalis, which focuses heavily on helping the homeless re-enter the workforce, also wants an exemption. So does the L.A. Conservation Corps, which provides transitional jobs for young adults, particularly those who have struggled in school or had run-ins with the law.

Rusty Hicks is the head of the L.A. County Federation of Labor and is a leader of the Raise the Wage Coalition that lobbied strongly for the $15 minimum wage. Hicks is now heading the effort to allow unions to negotiate contracts below the minimum wage. Hicks says that he has no objection to exemptions for the job training programs, as long as workers in those programs are members of a labor union.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-minimum-wage-jobs-20150601-story.html#page=1

[mostpost]

Yep. None of them would listen to the only person that had the financial background from his experience as an investor to explain to them why they would soon be out of a job.

It went bankrupt because the company made extremely generous health care benefit promises and ridiculous salary, vacation, and overtime pay benefits to its union workers under pressure from left wing politicians and to prevent a strike. As the workers started retiring, the cash flow demands from health care etc.. accelerated until the company could no longer even meet rents, payroll, etc... and went bust. That left all the workers with both no job and no healthcare benefits. I'd be willing to tell you the name of the company privately. I have a reason to want to keep it confidential. You've heard of it.
In post number 25 I told you to PM the name of this company which you said you were willing to share. I AM STILL WAITING