this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
1927 points (99.4% liked)
Work Reform
11298 readers
329 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't think it's preferential pay. It's just that they pay more, somebody in the union also can get more money than the union minimum. Somebody not part of the union can get less or more than somebody in the union, just not below the union minimum.
It's not that if they join the union that they get less money. The union + 0.5 just means that they earn better than the minimum and the employer gives them more than the minimum, because people like that.
At least that's how it works where I live and union contracts are common.
Not everyone part of the union has to get exactly the union minimum, it's just that you cannot legally get less. People might not be part of the union but they still fall under the union contract negotiated by the union, because it applies to the entire company.
So even then, the union people might be making more than the union minimum, so the non union person might still be making less than an average union person while not getting any union benefits.
That's just personal negotiation then. And nothing that this top level comment was talking about.
You may be right, but it certainly sounds like she's claiming it's contractual, explicit, and general policy.
I don't read it like that. The sentence just says that their pay rate has that amount, not that it is connected to them not being a union member.
Who's "we" then?
The people the contract is with, maybe all employees of the company have the agreement.
You are thinking way too much into that statement, the way I described is the way it works here, and that seems much more likely tbh.
That's literally what I'm saying.
You are saying it's union members vs non union members being separated.
And it's not.
The union members are included in the "we" that contractually makes $0.50/hr more than... union members?
The contract negotiated by the unions just defines the minimum, union members can earn more.
I can't tell if that's a yes or a no to the question of whether the "we" that gets paid more than union members includes union members.
Yes, because the union contract defines the absolute minimum of the rate, and union members can also earn more.
This will be my last response, it's frustrating, these are basic principles of how these contracts work and I'm tired of explaining it.
So their contract states that they'll be paid $0.50/hr more than the wages they negotiated in their contract. Got it, thanks for clearing that up.