Posted on 05/28/2015 3:50:39 PM PDT by markomalley
In every major city that is increasing the minimum wage (Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles), labor unions have been at the forefront of the change. For example, in an op-ed for the Huffington Post titled “Raise Los Angeles’ Minimum Wage and Enforce It1,” Rusty Hicks, a labor leader in L.A. who represents over 300 unions, wrote:
It’s no secret that we believe the minimum wage must be raised in order to lift working families out of poverty. Most voters and many members of the city council and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors agree with us. But we believe enforcement is the key to success in any new minimum wage policy.
Apparently, what Hicks meant was that enforcement was necessary except when applied to unions. This week—a month after his HuffPo op-ed—Hicks has taken a different perspective2:
… 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.”
Commenting on this quote, Tim Worstall says3, “It’s difficult to know whether to giggle, guffaw or scream in rage at the arrogance of that.”
Union leaders may be arrogant, but they aren’t stupid. They understand that raising the minimum wage will kill jobs—they just don’t want it to be union jobs that disappear. They are more than willing to allow workers to be paid less than $15 an hour provided that a cut of the worker’s paycheck goes to pay their union salaries. They also realize that the mandatory wage increase will have an extortionary effect on employers: “Can’t afford to pay the high minimum wage? Well, if you become a union shop you can circumvent that pesky law. . .”
But notice also what the unions are saying : business owners and employees should have the “freedom” to negotiate an agreement that works for them both. The caveat, union leaders would add, is that this only applies for “collective bargaining.” It doesn’t seem to matter if employees are worse off than they would have been without the unions “help.”
Imagine, for example, that in 2020, a business owner and an employee in L.A. negotiate a salary. The employer would like to pay $12 an hour, while the employee wants $14. They compromise and agree to an hourly wage of $13.50. Unfortunately, that would be illegal in L.A. The employer would have to pay either $15 an hour or $0 (by not hiring the employee).
But imagine we add a third party—a union leader—into the negotiations. That same business owner agrees to a union’s collective bargain agreement that allows him to pay $10 an hour. The employer is much better off while the employee is much worse off. What really matters—at least to the union leaders—is that the union is better off. They will be are able to keep dues-paying, voting bodies in their union so that other employees can negotiate a higher salary for themselves (and union leaders can continue to get paid).
Before his change of heart, Hicks said that, “Raising the wage and ensuring that workers actually receive a full paycheck is critical to continuing to grow the Los Angeles economy and ensuring workers can move toward the middle class.” Along with other union leaders, Hicks should be required to answer this simple question: “If the $15 minimum wage is beneficial for workers in L.A. and the economy as a whole, why would you not want unionized workers to receive the same pay increase?”
Of course unions want $15.00 as a minimum wage for the unskilled. Union wages are indexed on minimum wage as a base. The higher the minimum wage, the higher the union pay. Unless,they say otherwise.
This is typical organized labor hypocrisy.
They want businesses to unionize to gain exemption from the increased minimum wage.
Their real end goal is to steal money from the pockets of workers who are currently non-union.
They did the same with obamacare. They wanted it but then wanted to be exempt from it.
I agree with what you post. And I am sure that what you say goes on. But that is not what they are saying in this article. What they are saying is that unions may be willing for an employer to pay a wage rate less than the high ‘minimum’ wage, just as long as unions get their cut. They used to call this ‘protection’.
So, workers, you’re being duped.
Let’s say that you’re getting $12.50/hr now but you get a union-negotiated wage of $14.50/hr. But, guess what? You now have to pay $2.75/hr in union dues and be subject to all their zany rules which will promote someone else for that shift you wanted because they have seniority and not because they are competent.
They neglect to mention an important aspect of the bargaining. Many times, unions will accept lower wages for better benefits. Problem is, the corporations pay benefits down the road to people no longer employed and producing a product or providing services. See the auto industry as an example of this albatross.
Its the usual liberal do as I say, but not as I do.
“This provision gives the parties the option, the freedom, to negotiate that agreement. And that is a good thing.”
Thats a good thing for Unions only.
It also means that all of the chain restaurants/stores will INVITE The unions in for the lower wages, and the ma and pa shops will still have to fork over $15/hour.
List of Obamacare Exempt Companies
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2900475/posts
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.