Jump to content

Minimum Wage Is A Shell Game


Flip Flop
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't really see the issue with this. If employees have collective bargaining power, they can enter into agreements in which they negotiate their own pay and benefits. Why is that an issue?

Why not set the bar at $15 an hour for everyone and let them bargain from there? Why should a unionized company get to pay their guys less just because they're unionized?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the reasoning would be that the unionized workforce has negotiating power that a non-unionized force does not, and can therefore negotiate non-cash compensation in a way the non-unionized workforce cannot.

Do you actually believe that horseshit or are you just guessing their intentions?

Only unionized employees are capable of negotiating non-cash benefits?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you actually believe that horseshit or are you just guessing their intentions?

Only unionized employees are capable of negotiating non-cash benefits?

You're always so pleasant, kicker.

I don't think that 'only' unionized employees are capable of negotiating non-cash benefits, but I would suggest that at the minimum wage level, non-union employees have little to no negotiating power compared to unionized workforces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're always so pleasant, kicker.

I don't think that 'only' unionized employees are capable of negotiating non-cash benefits, but I would suggest that at the minimum wage level, non-union employees have little to no negotiating power compared to unionized workforces.

Thank you for making your hypocrisy blatantly obvious...again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you actually believe that horseshit or are you just guessing their intentions?

Only unionized employees are capable of negotiating non-cash benefits?

You're free to test out your theory by applying for a minimum wage job while also trying to get non-cash benefits and see where that gets you if you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're free to test out your theory by applying for a minimum wage job while also trying to get non-cash benefits and see where that gets you if you want.

I've done my time at minimum wage. And amazingly it never felt like I was trapped there.

Of course, the problem with your argument is twofold. One - I would need to be negotiating a wage that was below minimum wage and asking for non-cash benefits as a trade off. That would be illegal unless I was a union employee. And if it was legal, I feel pretty confident I could get it done, especially if it ended up saving the employer money.

The other problem with your argument, is that the exemption to the law doesn't benefit the employee. It benefits the union. It enables them to compete at a lower cost, while offering business owners an incentive to save money. It has nothing to do with helping employees. If it did, the union would be pushing for laws regarding total compensation, not just hourly wages.

As the OP said, this is a shell game. The unions pushed this law...on everyone but themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've done my time at minimum wage. And amazingly it never felt like I was trapped there.

Of course, the problem with your argument is twofold. One - I would need to be negotiating a wage that was below minimum wage and asking for non-cash benefits as a trade off. That would be illegal unless I was a union employee. And if it was legal, I feel pretty confident I could get it done, especially if it ended up saving the employer money.

The other problem with your argument, is that the exemption to the law doesn't benefit the employee. It benefits the union. It enables them to compete at a lower cost, while offering business owners an incentive to save money. It has nothing to do with helping employees. If it did, the union would be pushing for laws regarding total compensation, not just hourly wages.

As the OP said, this is a shell game. The unions pushed this law...on everyone but themselves.

I didn't say I agreed with what organized labor is doing in LA. I just think your point, presuming I'm interpreting what you said correctly, that unorganized labor going for minimum wage jobs can negotiate non-cash benefits is preposterous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support a minimum wage law because it benefits the entire country.

Unions can benefit employees. If a unionized workforce can negotiate a $14.50 pay rate with health insurance fully paid for by the company, for example, I think a lot of employees would be pleased with that.

I'm certainly not dogmatic about it, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support a minimum wage law because it benefits the entire country.

Unions can benefit employees. If a unionized workforce can negotiate a $14.50 pay rate with health insurance fully paid for by the company, for example, I think a lot of employees would be pleased with that.

I'm certainly not dogmatic about it, though.

What do you mean? That you're actually willing to have a fluid opinion based on circumstances without slavishly driving the top of your head into a wall?

**** off dude, this is the internet. Pick a side and defend it until you're completely insane.

Edited by The Shotfather
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean? That you're actually willing to have a fluid opinion based on circumstances without slavishly driving the top of your head into a wall?

**** off dude, this is the internet. Pick a side and defend it until you're completely insane.

A fluid opinion would err on the side of caution and support a minimum wage for everyone, then require the union to prove it was willing to provide total benefits in excess of the min wage, instead automatically carving out exceptions from groups that heavily lobbied the members of the city council voting on the subject.

Call me when eatcorn isn't dogmatic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It gives wiggle room for union negotiators to possibly acquire more paid time off and/or better benefit and pension plans.

If the union members voted and approved it, wtf is the problem on ABF?

LOL. Don't apply that same logic to a typical minimum wage worker...

If a worker takes a job and accepts minimum wage, what's the problem?

Oh that's right. It's the same ******* thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gonzalez said the change sought by labor officials could pressure companies into letting employees unionize as a way to seek relief from the mandated wage hike.

"Once again, the soaring rhetoric of helping the working poor is just a cover for city government acting as a tool of organized labor," he said.

I see this whole thing as a ploy by the unions to entice employers to promote their employees to unionize. Just because the might be able to negotiate a wage lower than the minimum doesn't mean that they WILL negotiate for one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

support a minimum wage for everyone, then require the union to prove it was willing to provide total benefits in excess of the min wage, instead automatically carving out exceptions from groups that heavily lobbied the members of the city council voting on the subject.

I'd be fine with that. It's likely better to have the unions prove their bargaining power and intent before providing exemption from the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It it could be monopoly acting like a monopoly.

"A monopoly can be recognized by certain characteristics that set it aside from the other market structures:

Profit maximizer: a monopoly maximizes profits. ...

Price maker: the monopoly decides the price of the good or product being sold. ...

High barriers to entry: other sellers are unable to enter the market of the monopoly."

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Characteristics+of+monopoly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think minimum wage should be raised to $10 for full time employees

The only problem I have with that is some areas are too depressed to be able to execute that and maintain it for any length of time. Sure, a big metropolis can do that with so problem but the small rural areas with a far lower cost of living most likely couldn't.

I think it would be better left to the states or a formula based on specific local economies. Podunk, Mississippi is a heckuva lot cheaper to live in that Atlanta would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...