Acting Up Against the Minimum Wage

WSJ ^ | Oct. 19, 2015

[george76]

Los Angeles actors sue their labor union to preserve small theaters. On Saturday in federal court in Los Angeles, a group of actors and other workers sued Actors’ Equity Association to stop the union from forcing theaters with fewer than 100 seats to pay union members at least $9 per hour.

The rebels, who seem to have a better grasp of economics than the union leadership, warn in their lawsuit that forcing the rules on theaters that used to be exempt will force many to “close altogether

...

just as young, unskilled workers in the restaurant industry are willing to accept low wages to gain valuable experience, actors also want the freedom to make their own decisions on which jobs to accept.

[WayneS]

I guess they realized $0< $X< $8 is better than $0 per hour.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

A lot of them would work for free, and there are a lot of volunteer acting companies all over the country, it’s a popular hobby. (Including Civil and Revolutionary War recreaters.) This is and other instance of the problem with poorly considered government interference in the economy.

[WayneS]

...and unions.

[Arm_Bears]

The law applies equally, or it does not apply at all.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Unions are parasites.

[Alas Babylon!]

I think it was Abraham Lincoln who said the best way to get rid of a bad law was to strictly enforce it.

Liberals should get just what the ask for—in spades.

Hopefully, they’ll force these theaters to pay the help $10 an hour, and then all close because they cannot make a profit.

Then the liberals won’t have small theaters anymore.

Yes, I know, it hurts the rest of us, but I’d still like them to all be visited—right in the face—by the consequences of their stupid choices.

[Flag_This]

"...I’d still like them to all be visited—right in the face—by the consequences of their stupid choices."

But libs, being logically challenged, would never accept that the consequences were the result of their choices. It would always be the fault of someone else (probably a rich white republican).

[SES1066]

Unions are all about protecting current membership. The employers or new potential members - not so much if at all. Labor history is FILLED with short-sighted union actions that end up with diminished jobs.

This is THE reason that GOVERNMENT Unions now dominate the union spectrum. This literal unholy alliance of unions and politicians pushes the costs onto the taxpayer and with bond funding and other delay payment tricks ends up with decades before impact. Of course NOW these costs ARE coming due in places like Chicago where the middle class is getting the squeeze job!

[Garvin]

But they should be forced to make a living wage of $15 an hour, like the fast food employees making. /S

[Yosemitest]

Minimum-wage increase proposals are NOT about minimum wages.
It's about UNION wages (read government employees mostly) and UNION DUES.
Like "Artie" on another thread wrote.

"but my theory is that
this is one of the foundations of single payer.
Down the road, as single payer replaces ObamaCare,
all healthcare workers will become in essence government employees.
Think about how many thousands of new, dues paying union members will magically become part of the SEIU.

Barry had sealed this deal with Andy Stern years ago.
Barry promised Andy and the SEIU thousands of new members,
Andy says
great,
this is the wage structure we need
so we can pay the slush fund.
Gotta pay a living wage to all of the new union members
so dues can be extracted
and kickbacks to the dems can be made.
It’s convoluted
but what dem scheme isn’t,
especially when large sums of cash are involved?"

So read the following:

Union Support Of Minimum Wage Hike Is Self-Interested

Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, ... was quick to emphasize that her organization's support of a more-than-twofold increase in the minimum wage was "not about growing unions."

This may be true — but it's also undeniable that such a move would have a profound impact on growing union paychecks, even if those unions don't count a single minimum-wage employee in their ranks.

The fine print can be found in union contracts. Each year, the Department of Labor's Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) releases a number of union collective bargaining agreements (CBAs).

Unsurprisingly, many CBAs available in the OLMS database LINK union salaries and wage rates to the federal minimum wage. There are a number of methods that unions use to accomplish this end. The two most popular appear to be setting baseline union wages as a percentage above the minimum wage, and mandating a flat wage at a set level above the minimum wage.

One example is a series of CBAs signed with the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees (UNITE). Their contracts mandated that
"(w)henever the federal legal minimum wage is increased, minimum wage (in the agreement) shall be increased so that each will be at least fifteen (15%) percent higher than such legal minimum wage."

There's also an SEIU local's contract, which ordered that
"(t)he minimum hourly wage rates shall exceed any statutory applicable minimum wage rate by 50 cents."

Some unions have also arranged contracts where the employer MUST renegotiate their contracts in case of a minimum-wage hike, NO MATTER HOW LONG is left on the pact's life span.

The possibility for abuse here is staggering:
Unions with average wages WELL ABOVE the minimum wage CAN INSERT such clauses into their contracts, FORCING negotiations in industries not otherwise affected by a wage hike.

Given the limited number of CBAs available in the OLMS database, it's impossible to determine just how widespread this practice is.

But at least one union has trumpeted this arrangement as "one of the many advantages of being a union member."

Earlier this year on its blog, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union proudly boasted that "oftentimes, union contracts ARE TRIGGERED TO IMPLEMENT WAGE HIKES IN CASE OF MINIMUM WAGE INCREASES."

This is a stunning admission of SELF-INTERESTt for an organization that's actively PUSHING minimum-wage hikes at both the state and federal levels of government.

It also raises questions about unions' growing use of nonunion "worker centers" like the Restaurant Opportunities Center, OUR Walmart, Fast Food Forward and other organizations that have made headlines in recent months.

These groups advocate many policies that would affect those businesses that pay a minimum wage — restaurants, retailers, etc. — and a minimum-wage hike is often the FIRST demand that these union front groups make. This only casts further suspicion on the motives of the labor unions funding these groups.

No matter how you look at it, the benefits that these unions stand to reap from a minimum-wage hike should raise questions about their real motives — and whether they're only manipulating the debate over fast-food wages for their own benefit.

Berman is the executive director at the Center for Union Facts.

[FatherofFive]

Including Civil and Revolutionary War recreaters

An interesting thing I discovered is that these re-enactors receive a federal tax deduction for everything they spend on their hobby.

[Buckeye McFrog]

Reminds me of the story of a small radio station in Missouri that plays jazz and is staffed by volunteers. Clinton’s Labor Dept. went after them for failing to pay them the minimum wage.

[xzins]

The article makes a good point. Young actors know they’re not making the big bucks so they take lesser pay hoping to be one of those who break out.

The same with carpenters, plumbers, mechananics, accountants, lawyers, etc., etc.

Why should restaurant help or box store help be any different?