sounds like their pay is based on union rates. that’s probably just a company policy for everyone.
Comment on Cathy, do the math.
Objection@lemmy.ml 4 weeks ago
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?
lime@feddit.nu 4 weeks ago
Objection@lemmy.ml 4 weeks ago
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. It’s essentially just bribing people to not join a union or penalizing them if they do. It being company policy for everyone is irrelevant.
bstix@feddit.dk 4 weeks ago
They can’t cut union rates.
Objection@lemmy.ml 4 weeks ago
Not until everyone leaves the union to get extra pay and the union loses all its bargaining power.
bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 4 weeks ago
That’s just union contract negotiations.
Not providing cost of living increase is effectively a pay cut FYI, and we’re speaking colloquially here.
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
They can’t cut union rates since they have a contract. So they can, within reason, pay non union workers more but not lower the pay of union workers. One of the benefits of being in the union is that they can’t just lower your wages and they may have issues firing you for bad reasons.
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.
Objection@lemmy.ml 4 weeks ago
One of the benefits of being in the union is that they can’t just lower your wages and they may have issues firing you for bad reasons.
Not until everyone leaves the union to get extra pay and the union loses all its bargaining power.
In the image, it’s quite likely that the extra 50¢ is union dues,
That doesn’t make any sense. If it’s about union dues, the union pay is what should be higher.
lime@feddit.nu 4 weeks ago
sure, but whether or not they know it they have caved to the union’s demands by doing that
Objection@lemmy.ml 4 weeks ago
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?”
Madison420@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Congrats you just figured out capitalism, .ml is speaking volumes here.
Objection@lemmy.ml 4 weeks ago
Thank you, yes as an .ml I do understand capitalism better than most of the people replying to me, it seems.
Sheldan@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
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.
Objection@lemmy.ml 4 weeks ago
My contract states that we make $0.50/hr above union wages
You may be right, but it certainly sounds like she’s claiming it’s contractual, explicit, and general policy.
Sheldan@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
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.
TheKMAP@lemmynsfw.com 4 weeks ago
So even then, the union people might be making more than the union minimum, so the non union person might still be making less than an average union person while not getting any union benefits.
Sheldan@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
That’s just personal negotiation then. And nothing that this top level comment was talking about.
Cryophilia@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
How is it even legal to have explicitly preferential pay for people not in a union?
Other than the minimum wage and protected classes, there’s not really any laws around how much employers must pay. They can have two employees, Bob and Tina, and pay Bob half of Tina’s salary because they just hate the name “Bob”. If Bob doesn’t like it he can quit.
Ziglin@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
How do they even know you’re in a union? I that they just knew whether there was anyone in the union.
Stern@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
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.
Objection@lemmy.ml 4 weeks ago
I get that, I’m just highlighting the potential for abuse.
Manifish_Destiny@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Oh of course. But this is America, the land of the exploited.
We still have 7.25 minimum wage.
njm1314@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
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.
Objection@lemmy.ml 4 weeks ago
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. Half the people are explaining to me how it’s “obviously” fucked up (which I already acknowledged), and the other half are telling me that it isn’t fucked up at all - maybe you should try responding to those people instead of to me.