Comment

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?

source

Sort:hotnew top

ricecake@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ 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.”

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.

source