LA Labor Unions want exemption from new $15 minimum wage

how very bizarre.

unionize to get a lower wage? and a precedent for carving out exemptions for the min wage. seems short sighted.

I wonder whether this is a widely held LA union position or an outlier click bait opinion?

 

They helped make the bed (and rightly so, a much needed change), they should have to sleep in it.

Regardless, I can't see any good reason they should be granted an exemption.

 

I don't really see anything that wrong with saying people should either get a set minimum wage or collectively bargained for benefits & wages.

both of these tend to be helpful for labor.

 

I can see some rationale here -- nonunionized workers don't have representation, so they rely on government to provide a minimal, blanket protection. But union workers do have representation so they are not at a disadvantage at the bargaining table and can make choices (like taking low wages) that is custom to their circumstances.

And maybe there's strategy here to use the laws to reward employers for encouraging unionizing. That might be a better outcome for workers than a minimum wage because the union can optimize bargaining to ensure people are employed, have good work conditions, etc, and perhaps give up a little on wages for it. Still, it introduces a big principal/agent problem. Especially in California which isn't a right-to-work state. Unions run the risk of being captured by corporate interests and signing sweetheart deals exempt from regulatory scrutiny. Union stuff is complicated, so I'm not sure how I feel about it all.

 

Me either. I think we poke too many holes and exceptions into some laws
and rules that they become useless

Hell . .. . it is the reason our Tax Code is a fricking nightmare

Rocket River

 

I am not a fan of unions that pull stuff like this.

 

Basically . . .. . sounds like RIGHT TO WORK type things was marginalizing the Union's power
So they pushed this law through
NOW if they can get exemptions . . they have power again . . .and it forces Corp back to the bargaining table.

Rocket River
It's about the POWER

 

...and money. Union dues add up.

My experience with low wage union jobs has not been good. So I'm suspect of this move.

 

My one union experience was a good one. I was in Chicago and accepted a summer job changing light-bulbs (seriously) for $7/hr. But, when I showed up on Day 1, I was told that it had been determined that this job fell under the union contract and I had to be paid $8.41/hour.

 

under this California proposal your pay rate experience might have been reversed .

 

1. If minimum wage goes up it will make it more expensive for businesses to hire unskilled workers, so hiring skilled and high paid union workers may become more attractive...

2. If minimum wage goes up there may be businesses that cut their workforce and some businesses that would have to close down if they have to pay $15 an hour (unless they can hike up the prices of their services/products)... This allows union workers to negotiate for less which would make them more attractive to businesses.

That union is banking on if/when minimum wage goes up it will give their high and low paid workers advantages in the labor pool and also may draw more people to the union ---> Which = more fees. Nobody does nothing for nothing... If you see a group supporting something, look to see how it benefits them.

 

It makes them relevant in a world where the actual government is providing all of the things they used to provide.

 

Unions negotiate for things other than base wages, maybe this gives them more flexibility.

 

It's pretty obvious that they want to encourage more employers to
Unionize and make more Union fees, even if people at those companies
Are paid less than they advocated was the lowest wage possible.

It's a smart move to push fast food companies and large retailers to
Allow Unionization which will allow them to pay less than $15 per hour but
The union grows and makes more money.

Pretty sneaky and crooked in my opinion.

 

Or does this just mean the unions can "negotiate" a higher pay rate? I mean, if the union workers received a pay raise due to minimum wage laws, that means the unions cannot receive fees/dues because they were not the ones "negotiating" the pay raise, right?

 

I don't think there should be an exemption for a variety of reasons, a major one being that unions don't/can't always do what's in the best interest of all their members, and if the union is weak, the workers can get screwed.

But that said, I don't really see why businesses are opposed to this? In the current version of the law, businesses have a $15 minimum wage. In the union-proposed version, businesses can choose between a $15 minimum wage OR allowing unionization. If they prefer the $15 minimum wage, they can always just stick with that.

 

For the worker, I think we're better off just have a simple minimum without exceptions. Some workers may find their advantage in having the exception, but it just has too much potential for exploitation and corruption. A simple wage rule will give the worker some certainty.

If the union is for it, maybe they should be against it?

 

Because if a business is not in position to pay their employees $15 hour they will be forced to hire union workers and not all businesses want to deal with unions... And if a person is willing to work for $12-$13 an hour they will be forced to join a union and not all workers want to be a part of a union.

Rather good or bad this would give unions more power.