Posted on 05/28/2015 10:17:20 AM PDT by TexasCajun
This has to be the month's top entry in the "Just when you think you've seen it all" category — and it will be more than a little interesting to see how the nation's press handles it.
As the Associated Press reported a week ago, the City Council in Los Angeles, by a vote of 14-1, ordered the drafting of a law mandating a citywide minimum wage of $15 per hour by 2020, noting that "the support of Mayor Eric Garcetti virtually guarantee its eventual adoption." Now that it's almost a done deal, labor unions whose members earn less want to be exempt from the law. Seriously. And it's not that the unions were caught off guard, because the person who is most visibly arguing for the exemption "helps lead the Raise the Wage coalition"! Apparently caught completely flat-footed, three Los Angeles Times reporters, in a rare break from the paper's non-stop leftist bias, filed a fair and balanced report on the truly offensive situation.
In the process, organized labor may have tipped its hand as to what's really behind their national $15-per-hour minimum wage campaign — but only for everyone else (bolds are mine throughout this post):
L.A. labor leaders seek minimum wage exemption for firms with union workers -
Labor leaders, who were among the strongest supporters of the citywide minimum wage increase approved last week by the Los Angeles City Council, are advocating last-minute changes to the law that could create an exemption for companies with unionized workforces.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
So, put in a provision allowing companies with workers represented by unions to have leeway to negotiate a wage below that mandated by the law. In the interest of equity, also put in put in a provision allowing companies with workers not represented by unions to have leeway to negotiate a wage below that mandated by the law.
Pretty easy to figure this out.
The unions understand the difference between making money on volume and making it on margin.
They want to make their money (aka dues) on volume, so trying to create a scenario where employers stampede their workers into unions to avoid the higher minimum wage.
Simple: use the Government to force non-Union companies out of business by artificially raising their operating costs.
$15hr min wage = wealth redistribution = socialism = slavery = theft
Unions think this is a way to get more companies to encourage unionization, but it would also encourage union members to decertify their unions so they could make the $15 minimum wage.
Oh, and to add, the union workers really get screwed by this.
Not only do they get paid a sub-minimum wage, a big portion of those sub-minimum wages get auto-debited directly into union coffers.
Good luck getting employees to join a uion that reduces their pay.
If I were an semi-worker who would otherwise qualify for a minimum wage, then what incentive would I have to even join a union under these conditions?
Rules are only for the little people.
That’s why I left a company years ago when I suddenly got a card from the Teamsters. It was never explained to me that I’m supposed to have my wages deducted by this clowns. Instead of $14 per hour, I was left with around $12, and these pukes took away the other $2 /hr.
There’s no incentive. But joining may be mandatory. I don’t believe CA is a right to work state ...
It’s been a while since I really dug into union-related labor law, but I think the hurdles to getting out of a union if the employer actually wants one are significant.
Found out they were loosing members due to businesses cutting back in order to pay the remaining employees that $15/hr.
Imagine a country where the law is different for you than for your neighbor.
leftism is total insanity
The workers voted down the union because the company management did a very effective job explaining how the company was basically going to become a tool to help the union screw the members. They even went so far as to explain the payroll deduction process in great detail ...
"The workers at the X location of this company used to get 10 paid holidays every year. They voted for union representation three years ago. During the first contract negotiation the union insisted that the company had to deduct the union dues for those workers from their pay checks. The company agreed to that condition, but only if the union agreed to give up two of the ten paid holidays. The union agreed to that condition, which means your coworkers at the X location pay union dues for the benefit of getting two FEWER paid holidays than you do here."
“what incentive would I have to even join a union under these conditions?”
Back when my first job dealt with unions the unions had a tendency to beat people up or damage their cars if they didn’t tow the line.
It makes sense. It could help force all the sub minimum value labor into the union where the union can further reduce their take-home with dies.
LMBO! This is brilliant, perfect, simply astounding, and incredible news.
This is just your typical "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" modus operandi of the Left. Make everyone else follow the rules, just not us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.