If the $15 Per Hour Minimum Wage is so Good Why are Unions Getting Exemptions From it?

Lately there has been a push to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour. We've all seen the demonstrations on television for this. At these demonstrations there has been a heavy union presence. If laws increasing the minimum wage are so great, why are unions getting themselves exempted from them?

L.A. labor leaders seek minimum wage exemption for firms with union workers

Labor leaders, who were among the strongest supporters of the citywide minimum wage increase approved last week by the Los Angeles City Council, are advocating last-minute changes to the law that could create an exemption for companies with unionized workforces.
The push to include an exception to the mandated wage increase for companies that let their employees collectively bargain was the latest unexpected detour as the city nears approval of its landmark legislation to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020

More information can be found in a paper from the US Chamber of Commerce.

Labor’s Minimum Wage Exemption: Unions as the “low cost” Option

Unions have gotten themselves exempt from "Minimum Wage" laws in several areas including:
Los Angeles
San Francisco
SeaTac, Washington
Oakland
San Jose
Richmond, California
Long Beach

The idea behind this is to put non-union businesses between a rock and a hard place. They can either take the hit from the increased minimum wage and try to stay in business or they can let the Union in and be exempt from the increased Minimum Wage.

The increased Minimum Wage is basically a tax on non-union businesses. As far as the employees are concerned, if the business can continue to operate with the wage increase, they get an increase in pay and loss of buying power. If the business can't continue, they may lose their jobs or if the business caves in, they get to join a union, which cannot get them much of a pay raise on top of this the employees now get to pay union dues.

These Minimum Wage laws with the Union exemptions are a legal protection racket, with the Unions being the enforcers.

"Ya gotta nice business here. It'd be a shame if it got hit with a pay raise law. We can help youse with that."

It is a hypocritical, shameful and blatant ruse by the unions to attempt to increase an ever-dwindling membership.

If you are part of a Union, you are likely already earning $15+/hr. Still, they should not be exempt;even if the members of unions are trying to collectively bargain for wages lower than $15.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Maybe what they are trying to do has more to do with making sure union members that begin a job are not forced to accept a lower rate. I am not smart enough to debate this just throwing my silly hat in the ring.

a reply to: spiritualKat33

What the unions are doing is saying that if your business is non-union you have to pay the $15 minumum but if you unionize then you are free to collectively bargin for a lower rate.

originally posted by: LeatherNLace
If you are part of a Union, you are likely already earning $15+/hr.

Odds are that unless you belong to one of the trade unions, you are not making $15+/hr.
More like the $9-$10 range. A large number of SEIU members work in the hotel industry.

What unions are paying less than $15 an hour and if they are why are you in a union

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I thought the union already set min. wages for specific industries and you started a union job at a specific rate already without collective bargaining, entry level positions usually start above $15 don't they? So you are saying they would allow for a business to pay someone less just because they are union? What would be the purpose of joining a union if there was a chance you would get less than if you went to a non-union business?

originally posted by: spiritualKat33
I thought the union already set min. wages for specific industries and you started a union job at a specific rate already without collective bargaining, entry level positions usually start above $15 don't they?

No, they do not. Many positions start much lower.

So you are saying they would allow for a business to pay someone less just because they are union?

Exactly.

What would be the purpose of joining a union if there was a chance you would get less than if you went to a non-union business?

The union does not care, they get the dues either way. They just want increaded membership.

a reply to: onequestion

AFL-CIO positions in grocery stores start much lower than that.

I think it has to do with starting pay at lower rates.

Higher starting pay will affect the higher paid wages.

Higher starting pay usually means lower higher rates and raises.

Higher starting minimums make it tougher to negotiate overall high rates.

originally posted by: spiritualKat33
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
What would be the purpose of joining a union if there was a chance you would get less than if you went to a non-union business?

Now you are catching on.

In the US Chamber of Commerce paper that I linked to there is a quote that to me says quite a bit.

Organizing from the bottom up (i.e., convincing workers of the merits of membership) has proven difficult for unions. Therefore, they have solicited the coercive power of government to help them organize from the top down.

I'm not going to speak about all unions, but I do know that one union in the PNW actively works with the employer with limiting employee benefits and pay. This union has forced companies to drop full time worker positions in favor of more part time positions. They even have gone so far as to manipulate contract negotiations to benefit companies, and not the people that pay the union for representation.

So saying that this union is anti-15$ an hour is like asking if the Pope is Catholic.

originally posted by: onequestion
What unions are paying less than $15 an hour and if they are why are you in a union

I can tell you of one for sure.

The United Food & Commercial Workers International Union

www.ufcw.org...


They do not do anything except take the wages of people making $8 an hour for absolutely nothing in return.

Instead, they can use their "Dues" to actually certify their members and actually make their union brand something an employer would want.

And you ask "Why" the members are part of it? They have no choice.

In most states, if you work in a "union" grocery store, you are in the union and they take their share of dues.

Like there is a choice in the matter... LOL.

What do you think "The Right To Work" fight is all about? The ability to be employed without having to join a Union that doesn't do anything for you.

The whole idea is to make the Unions serve it's members and actually have an advantage in the marketplace.... like you want to hire from our Union because they are trained, or better than Manpower temps.

Workers will have a "choice" if they want to join the union or not. Why give them part of your wages for political donations if you get no benefit in return?

a reply to: infolurker
Oh yeah, that union is one of the worst. They have a policy with the companies that use them that if an employee doesn't want to be part of the union, then all they have to do is fill out a form. In return for that the union will still take part of your pay, but now they'll walk away from you when you get too many complaints. I've heard of this happening where a week after a person fills out the form to leave the union they start getting complaints from people about their work. These complaints come from both people in the company (oddly enough from shop stewards) and from un-named customers. The after a week of this a union rep shows up and asks if that person wants to rejoin the union.

Yeah? nothing odd there.

If I work a union job, making $20 an hour and the minimum is raised say, $5 an hour -- I'm going to demand my union negotiate to get my hourly wage raised by $5 as well.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
If I work a union job, making $20 an hour and the minimum is raised say, $5 an hour -- I'm going to demand my union negotiate to get my hourly wage raised by $5 as well.

Which misses the whole point, minimum wage laws aren't really about the minimum. Instead they're about wage gaps with a higher minimum wage leading to a smaller gap between the highest and lowest paid employees, which in turn puts more people into middle class. Note that when the middle class was at it's largest the minimum wage also was at it's peak in purchasing power.

That said, I'm not in favor of any instant increase to the minimum wage. Instead I would like to see it increased at a rate of 8% per year for the next 30 years. The current minimum wage is a result of the wage not keeping up since 1967, it's a problem that is 50 years in the making. If the minimum wage had kept up with inflation it would be $20.50 per hour right now, and we need to spend atleast half as much time reversing that trend.

I specifically turned down a job because of the union. They take hours of your pay every month, they tell you how to vote....# unions.

originally posted by: Aazadan
If the minimum wage had kept up with inflation it would be $20.50 per hour right now, and we need to spend atleast half as much time reversing that trend.

Right, because entry level jobs should pay $42,000+ per year.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: spiritualKat33
I thought the union already set min. wages for specific industries and you started a union job at a specific rate already without collective bargaining, entry level positions usually start above $15 don't they?

No, they do not. Many positions start much lower.

So you are saying they would allow for a business to pay someone less just because they are union?

Exactly.

What would be the purpose of joining a union if there was a chance you would get less than if you went to a non-union business?

The union does not care, they get the dues either way. They just want increaded membership.

If I was a union member and knew I could get better wages by not being in a union, I would cancel my membership asap.

What sort of backwards union negotiates reduced wage rates for it's members? Aren't unions supposed to negotiate better pay?