Support NeoGAF

[Syriel]

That's right. Some of the labor unions in CA have been pushing cities to include exemptions for organized labor. They want to be able to sign contracts with lesser wages (lower than minimum) in order to "be competitive."

Unite Here has already secured such an exemption in SF and is pushing for one in LA.

And here I thought unions were supposed to push for worker benefits. Some of them still do (there are notable voices opposed to such exemptions), but there are also a number pushing for the exemptions.

One of the most divisive issues that Los Angeles City Council members expect to confront when they return this week from a summer recess will be a proposal by labor leaders to exempt unionized workers from the city's new minimum wage.

The push for the loophole, which began in the final days before the law's passage, caused a backlash rarely seen in this pro-union city and upended perceptions of labor's role in the fight to raise pay for the working poor. Union activists were among the most stalwart backers of L.A.'s ordinance raising the wage to $15 by 2020, and argued against special consideration for nonprofits and small businesses.

And whether the exemptions are what their harshest critics say — a scheme to swell union rolls with more dues-paying members by appealing to businesses that would rather let workers organize than be forced to pay them more — they are unpopular even among some at the highest levels of the labor movement.

"Unions in America, obviously we're in decline," said Dave Regan, president of SEIU-UHW, the union that represents home healthcare workers and is leading the campaign for a California ballot measure to raise the statewide minimum wage to $15. "I don't think we help ourselves by taking positions where we don't hold ourselves to the same standards as everybody else."

Regan said that "under no circumstances" would such an exemption be included in the 2016 initiative that SEIU-UHW is championing. He said it was "silly" to suggest, as some in L.A. do, that the exemption would make a wage increase more legally defensible. "I just think that's a red herring," he said. "It's not true."

When City Council members in San Diego voted to raise the hourly minimum wage to $11.50 last year, some activists sought an escape clause for union workers. Tom Lemmon of the San Diego County Building and Construction Trades Council, one of the groups that lobbied for the waiver, said the survival of labor-friendly businesses was at stake.

Without leeway to pay a subminimum wage, he said, those companies could be outbid by nonunion shops that chose to ignore the new pay standards.

"The reason we asked was so that we could continue to be competitive," Lemmon said. "We knew that our people were going to be following the rules and other folks would not.... One more layer of rules was just going to make it harder for our contractors to compete."

Beginning in 2006, the local chapter of the national hotel workers union Unite Here successfully campaigned for ordinances in L.A. and Long Beach that raised the minimum wage for workers at some large hotels. As a result of union opt-out clauses in those laws, Spencer says, Unite Here was able to pitch itself to hotel companies as a means for evading employee pay raises — the "low-cost option."

Spencer pointed to data from the federal government's Office of Labor Management Standards showing that Unite Here Local 11, which covers L.A. and Long Beach, grew from 11,936 members in 2006 to 20,691 in 2014. But the exact cause of that influx is unclear. The same federal data show Local 11's spending jumped from 2006 to 2014, suggesting Unite Here might simply have attracted new members by pouring more resources into organizing.

One of Unite Here's top executives, Maria Elena Durazo, held Hicks' job as head of the L.A. county labor federation until last year. Durazo declined to comment. Hotel managers contacted by The Times either did not respond or declined to comment, citing the confidentiality of the hotels' dealings with employees.

Mike Casey, the outgoing president of Unite Here Local 2 in San Francisco — a city whose $15 minimum wage law includes a collective-bargaining exemption — rejected suggestions that such clauses are intended to pressure businesses to unionize.

Source:
http://www.latimes.com/local/cityhall/la-me-union-exemption-20150726-story.html#page=1

 

[gdt]

We had a similar thread not too long ago on this. Lots of good info from both sides.

Basically I think at first glance this feels scummy as fuck but there seems to be some solid reasoning why unions sometimes go for this.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

I think we had a topic on this before.

And if your union is only getting you minimum wage -- or less -- what's the point.


Edit: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1052579

 

[kirblar]

Forgot to post this earlier in the week - it's hilarious how people claim (both on GAF and off) this is some sort of altruistically intentioned thing- it's totally about getting a legal lock on the market for sub-minimum wage labor.

Basically I think at first glance this feels scummy as fuck

Because it is. Look at the example in the article- they're trying to get the hotels who are paying low rates to their staff to get cheaper rates by going union.

 

[Sir Abacus]

Union contracts often consist of benefits that don't contribute to the notional minimum wage. If you're getting paid $2000 a month but your employer is shelling out another $500 a month getting you health insurance it really disadvantages union shops.

Countries like Germany and Sweden don't have minimum wages because the entire wage scheme for the country is covered under union-employer collective bargaining. It makes the entire minimum wage process unnecessary.

 

[hipbabboom]

That's not how unions should work

 

[Foffy]

Dat race to the bottom.

 

[kirblar]

Union contracts often consist of benefits that don't contribute to the notional minimum wage. If you're getting paid $2000 a month but your employer is shelling out another $500 a month getting you health insurance it really disadvantages union shops.

Countries like Germany and Sweden don't have minimum wages because the entire wage scheme for the country is covered under union-employer collective bargaining. It makes the entire minimum wage process unnecessary.

The way the US Health Care system hiding the true cost of benefits from individuals is a big issue. If you're making $40K but have great health insurance, your company is paying a LOT more to keep you employed than you think.

 

[akira28]

That's not how unions should work

In Capitalist America, you fight for Unions, to keep them in business.

 

[StopMakingSense]

The way the US Health Care system hiding the true cost of benefits from individuals is a big issue. If you're making $40K but have great health insurance, your company is paying a LOT more to keep you employed than you think.

Yep. When I left my company I worked at, found out my health benefits were $1700/mo. (lol COBRA)

 

[Sir Abacus]

The way the US Health Care system hiding the true cost of benefits from individuals is a big issue. If you're making $40K but have great health insurance, your company is paying a LOT more to keep you employed than you think.

It's not just health insurance either. The union contracts often have things like pensions and/or mandatory 401K contributions, short and long term disability that can be far better than state plans, paid holidays, sick leave and even life insurance. None of these are figured into the wage that is counted under minimum wage laws but provide incredible value to employees that non-union shops can get away with not paying.

 

[Iksenpets]

This sounds shady, but I think there's a legit case to be made that if you're in a unionized workplace, your union should have more flexibility to negotiate your pay package than traditional worker protections would allow for. The minimum wage laws protect the non-unionized workforce, but if you're in a union you have a certain amount of protection already, and it's plausible you may be willing to trade away some amount of pay for something else. And a union prevents the collective action problem of a handful of really desperate workers undercutting everyone else on pay.

Like, if you had a situation where we got the $15 minimum wage, I could definitely see some low pay industries where people would be willing to trade down to $13 or something in exchange for some amount of benefits, or maybe as part of a deal to guarantee against certain automation technologies that could replace them.

 

[antonz]

Tom Lemmon of the San Diego County Building and Construction Trades Council, one of the groups that lobbied for the waiver, said the survival of labor-friendly businesses was at stake.

Without leeway to pay a subminimum wage, he said, those companies could be outbid by nonunion shops that chose to ignore the new pay standard

Companies can't choose to ignore new wage standards. What a load of shit. Many Unions are proving to be well past the time of expiration. There are some good ones still out there but more and more are becoming more concerned with the financial well being of the union and its leadership than the members.

 

[Enron]

Yeah - unions want to make it too expensive to hire anyone else other than THEIR workers.

It is scummy as fuck, but not in the way you think.

 

[Sir Abacus]

Companies can't choose to ignore new wage standards. What a load of shit.

Oh come on this is like scumbag contruction business owner 101. You turn a worker into a subcontractor. You pay them, give them a 1099, you don't pay their social security or payroll taxes, you don't have to get them health insurance, workers comp, you pay them a fixed rate for a job and vastly underestimate the amount of hours required for the job so the effective rate is below minimum wage. The worker complains? Terminate the contract. The worker can't afford to sue you, they don't have time to pursue a DOL complaint because they're working 60 hours a week to make ends meet.

If a whole heap of shit goes wrong you might get caught and pay a fine.

 

[unholyrevenger72]

Cuz Healthcare and dental totally make up for being homeless.

 

[smurfx]

This sounds shady, but I think there's a legit case to be made that if you're in a unionized workplace, your union should have more flexibility to negotiate your pay package than traditional worker protections would allow for. The minimum wage laws protect the non-unionized workforce, but if you're in a union you have a certain amount of protection already, and it's plausible you may be willing to trade away some amount of pay for something else. And a union prevents the collective action problem of a handful of really desperate workers undercutting everyone else on pay.

Like, if you had a situation where we got the $15 minimum wage, I could definitely see some low pay industries where people would be willing to trade down to $13 or something in exchange for some amount of benefits, or maybe as part of a deal to guarantee against certain automation technologies that could replace them.

those union workers are going to be making far lower than 13 if hiring them is going to be worth it for these companies. i wonder if these unions are going to start campaigning to remove certain worker protection laws so they can be the only ones that offer them to those who join the union.

 

[Starfish Hero]

And here I thought unions were supposed to push for worker benefits. Some of them still do (there are notable voices opposed to such exemptions), but there are also a number pushing for the exemptions.

The exemption is the benefit. It allows union members to negotiate better benefits (like healthcare), if they rather that than more cash.

 

[gcubed]

Didn't we just have this merry go round of stupidity?

 

[hidys]

Christ. This is what the United States industrial relations system has reduced unions to.

This is bloody inexcusable.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Christ. This is what the United States industrial relations system has reduced unions to.

This is bloody inexcusable.

Its really not.

Why do you think labor strong holds like Scandinavian don't have minimum wage?

 

[kirblar]

The exemption is the benefit. It allows union members to negotiate better benefits (like healthcare), if they rather that than more cash.

There is literally no benefit to doing so. Cash, benefits - they cost the same amount to the employer, who could give a shit about which bucket it's going into. 20 in cash, 40 in benefits? 40 in cash, 20 in benefits? It's all the same to them. People working near-mnimum wage jobs.are not going to want less money in hand so they can get a marginal upgrade on their health care plan.

The exemption allows the Union exclusive legal access to sub-minimum wage labor.that they can provide to interested parties. Just what part of the hotel staff do you think is being affected by these waivers?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Yeah - unions want to make it too expensive to hire anyone else other than THEIR workers.

It is scummy as fuck, but not in the way you think.

This is absurd. How people can rationaly think this is the Unions goal is beyond me.

IF that was true why would business owners oppose the exemption? Its a way for them to get cheaper labor! These exemptions are standard and this story is only really being pushed by people 1) ignorant of contract negociations and 2) by anti-union forces who rely on group 1's ignorance or easily manipulated hostility.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

There is literally no benefit to doing so. Cash, benefits - they cost the same amount to the employer, who could give a shit about which bucket it's going into. 20 in cash, 40 in benefits? 40 in cash, 20 in benefits? It's all the same to them. People working near-mnimum wage jobs.are not going to want less money in hand so they can get a marginal upgrade on their health care plan.

The exemption allows the Union exclusive legal access to sub-minimum wage labor.that they can provide to interested parties. Just what part of the hotel staff do you think is being affected by these waivers?

This is categorically not true. Health care costs fluctuate yearly, much more than the sticky wage rate, a union health care plan is also likely to cost more than the give on wages is. (A dollar drop in wages is likely to be coupled to a health care cost that is more than 1$)

You are talking nonsense. Again, as I repeated in the last thread who is going to Unionize if they see a worse result?

 

[Chumly]

The only way I would be ok with this is if the workers receive at least a minimum of several dollars an hour over minimum wage. Example in LA if minimum wage is 15. Unions can have 13 and hour but workers must receive a minimum of 20 an hour when including benefits.

And this doesn't include the company paying social security and Medicare taxes etc. stuff that is already mandated

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The only way I would be ok with this is if the workers receive at least a minimum of several dollars an hour over minimum wage. Example in LA if minimum wage is 15. Unions can have 13 and hour but workers must receive a minimum of 20 an hour when including benefits.

And this doesn't include the company paying social security and Medicare taxes etc. stuff that is already mandated

This is a nightmare to implement because lots of benefits are intangible.

Say for example contract enforcement. Lots of Unions have weak contract enforcement which allows employers to ignore the Union contract, cheat people out of money, ignore safety language, have biased arbitrators, etc. If you can get some of that stuff lots of workers might be willing to accept a 10-20cent wage reduction.

There's also benefits such as overtime at a lower threshold, uniform cost, nightshift differentials, extra pay for certain work special work, extra holidays, etc.

 

[kirblar]

This is categorically not true. Health care costs fluctuate yearly, much more than the sticky wage rate, a union health care plan is also likely to cost more than the give on wages is. (A dollar drop in wages is likely to be coupled to a health care cost that is more than 1$)

You are talking nonsense. Again, as I repeated in the last thread who is going to Unionize if they see a worse result?

Pushing for a higher minimum while pushing for a lower wage for your squad is an aim to provide a legalized cartel for low-wage labor. The naivete required to take their explanations at face value is mind-boggling to me.

At minimum-wage levels, people are on medicare/medicaid (if they're even eligible for those programs). They need every dollar that they can get in their pockets. They do not need a luxury health care plan negotiated for them by the union- and they're not going to have that happen anyway. For the union to be worth it to a hotel, the cost of the union labor INCLUDING BENEFITS must be lower than that of the minimum wage workers. They are NOT going to want to enter into a contract with one voluntarily under normal circumstances.

 

[Starfish Hero]

Pushing for a higher minimum while pushing for a lower wage for your squad is an aim to provide a legalized cartel for low-wage labor. The naivete required to take their explanations at face value is mind-boggling to me.

Who the hell is unionizing if they have nothing to gain

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Pushing for a higher minimum while pushing for a lower wage for your squad is an aim to provide a legalized cartel for low-wage labor. The naivete required to take their explanations at face value is mind-boggling to me.

They're not pushing for lower wages. They're pushing for breathing room in negociations.

You're claiming unions (which again rely on their members dues and support which can be withdrawn at anytime) are engaging in a behavior which amounts to an Unfair Labor Practice and goes again every fiber of anyone who gets involved in the labor movements base instinct.

Lets look at what happens when cities put in these exemptions

But of course, rather than seeing their compensation tank, hotel workers are seeing their wages and benefits increase as union members. UNITE HERE says that its members in San Francisco—remember, a city with the minimum wage carve-out for union workers—earn, on average, an hourly wage of $20.94. The deal also gets sweeter for those members when quality-of-life benefits like secure hours and compensation packages are included.

In Los Angeles, where the union’s members are also allowed to have their collective bargaining agreement supercede local wage ordinances, union workers earn slightly less, $16.47 plus benefits. Still, union workers’ wages alone are higher than the $15.37 wage floor enacted for hotel workers last year; when you include the benefits those workers typically receive through their collective bargaining agreements that most minimum wage earners do not have a right to, the total compensation becomes even higher.

Right now hotel workers in SF get over 5$ and LA hotel workers get 1$ more (plus much more than just wages) more than the new minimum wage (which doesn't fully take effect for a few years mind you) and your claiming they're going to claw this back and reduce wages and negate promised wage increase to create some cartel which will enrich their coffers?

If you'd like you read beyond anti-labor voices you can do so
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/18083/labor_union_exemption_minimum_wage_la

 

[Chumly]

This is a nightmare to implement because lots of benefits are intangible.

Say for example contract enforcement. Lots of Unions have weak contract enforcement which allows employers to ignore the Union contract, cheat people out of money, ignore safety language, have biased arbitrators, etc. If you can get some of that stuff lots of workers might be willing to accept a 10-20cent wage reduction.

There's also benefits such as overtime at a lower threshold, uniform cost, nightshift differentials, extra pay for certain work special work, extra holidays, etc.

Well you have to take the lowest paid person and ignore overtime, night shift differentials, special works, holidays etc. basically the cost of health insurance and pensions or 401k contributions would have to make up for it. Don't make it hard.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Pushing for a higher minimum while pushing for a lower wage for your squad is an aim to provide a legalized cartel for low-wage labor. The naivete required to take their explanations at face value is mind-boggling to me.

At minimum-wage levels, people are on medicare/medicaid (if they're even eligible for those programs). They need every dollar that they can get in their pockets. They do not need a luxury health care plan negotiated for them by the union- and they're not going to have that happen anyway. For the union to be worth it to a hotel, the cost of the union labor INCLUDING BENEFITS must be lower than that of the minimum wage workers. They are NOT going to want to enter into a contract with one voluntarily under normal circumstances.

So you're saying Unions negotiate higher compensation for their workers?
Doesn't this undermine your first paragraph and some bogus cartel?

Well you have to take the lowest paid person and ignore overtime, night shift differentials, special works, holidays etc. basically the cost of health insurance and pensions or 401k contributions would have to make up for it. Don't make it hard.

Do you know how ineffective labor laws/departments are? Even if you were to create that law who would enforce it?

This is why a union contract is worth more than any amount of laws that supposedly protect workers.

 

[kirblar]

Who the hell is unionizing if they have nothing to gain

The workers are not unionizing. The Hotel is hiring the union to provide labor.]

So you're saying Unions negotiate higher compensation for their workers?
Doesn't this undermine your first paragraph and some bogus cartel?

No, I am not. I am saying that to make this deal worth it to the hotel, the cost of the union labor, including benefits, must be less than paying minimum wage + benefits to nonunionized regular workers. How is that hard to understand?

 

[IchigoSharingan]

This is all above my head. I don't know who to root for!

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The workers are not unionizing. The Hotel is hiring the union to provide labor.

This is illegal. And you clearly don't understand how Unions work.

You can't just hire a union,nevermind closed shops are illegal, company unions are illegal, negotiating in bad faith is illegal

 

[kirblar]

This is illegal. And you clearly don't understand how Unions work.

You can't just hire a union,nevermind closed shops are illegal, company unions are illegal, negotiating in bad faith is illegal

You can simply not hire the minimum wage workers and hire only the union ones, since they cost less.

There's nothing illegal about that, since you've made the exemption legal.

 

[LurkerPrime]

When a union is campaigning for its own best interests rather than the people it represents... something has gone terribly wrong. Sure, it could be a long-term plan to bolster membership and negotiating power, but when it's done at the immediate expense of its current members it cannot be tolerated. There has to be a better way.

And, unless I'm reading this wrong, their reasoning is absolutely absurd. They should be aiming to incorporate non-unionized workers rather than cut them out entirely. It's as if they were some sort of racket.

 

[Starfish Hero]

You can simply not hire the minimum wage workers and hire only the union ones, since they cost less.

There's nothing illegal about that, since you've made the exemption legal.

But the union isn't going to have any members left if it's not offering anything in return. Once again, who the hell is joining a union if it makes them worse off?

 

[kirblar]

When a union is campaigning for its own best interests rather than the people it represents... something has gone terribly wrong. Sure, it could be a long-term plan to bolster membership and negotiating power, but when it's done at the immediate expense of its current members it cannot be tolerated. There has to be a better way.

And, unless I'm reading this wrong, their reasoning is absolutely absurd. They should be aiming to incorporate non-unionized workers rather than cut them out entirely. It's as if they were some sort of racket.

Unions are self-interested parties. They're not interested in how it affects others. (This is why they're often so good as opposition to corporate interests, fighting fire w/ fire.)

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You can simply not hire the minimum wage workers and hire only the union ones, since they cost less.

There's nothing illegal about that, since you've made the exemption legal.

You've said yourself the Union workers aren't cheaper

At minimum-wage levels, people are on medicare/medicaid (if they're even eligible for those programs). They need every dollar that they can get in their pockets. They do not need a luxury health care plan negotiated for them by the union- and they're not going to have that happen anyway. For the union to be worth it to a hotel, the cost of the union labor INCLUDING BENEFITS must be lower than that of the minimum wage workers. They are NOT going to want to enter into a contract with one voluntarily under normal circumstances.

you'd have to be arguing that union workers are going to be taking large benefit cuts and pay cuts

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Unions are self-interested parties. They're not interested in how it affects others. (This is why they're often so good as opposition to corporate interests, fighting fire w/ fire.)

Unions, which be law have to report every expense, which have to constantly face votes on their very existence, which face the free rider problems, which face decertification votes, whose power is its members volunteering their time are "self-interested parties?"

 

[kirblar]

Unions, which be law have to report every expense, which have to constantly face votes on their very existence, which face the free rider problems, which face decertification votes, whose power is its members volunteering their time are "self-interested parties?"

Yes. They are not interested in how the changes in laws affect the entire labor pool, they're interested in how they benefit the union and its membership.

You've said yourself the Union workers aren't cheaper

Stop putting words in my mouth.

 

[Buddha Beam]

This is all above my head. I don't know who to root for!

They all suck. Unions in America, as a whole, have never really been... very good at what they do. Hence why you get so many horror stories about intractable unions racking up petty grievances and taking an adversarial stance against management. All their leverage and power came from the post WW II boom. Once that faded, so did their power and relevance. But the lousy attitude culture remained. Those union worker stereotypes come from somewhere, and they aren't all bullshit.

Which isn't to sound all right wing and say that all unions are evil or bad or do nothing good for their workers. It's just a diseased system on whole at this point.
I'd honestly rather see the union movement in America finally die and be reborn as something not as adversarial towards management. European unions seem to get it right more often in that regard. Of course, it would require management to not be as adversarial too. I don't know how you overcome that at this point. They dynamics are so rotten at this point between all sides after decades of bad faith.

 

[Starfish Hero]

Yes. They are not interested in how the changes in laws affect the entire labor pool, they're interested in how they benefit the union and its membership.

And they do this by... making their members worse off? You're entire argument is contradictory.

 

[Marauder Shields]

Gotta get dem dues!

 

[hidys]

Its really not.

Why do you think labor strong holds like Scandinavian don't have minimum wage?

Because they are so big they are capable of negotiating good living wages and plus the fact that the government will boost your income if you don't earn a livable wage. So a legislated minimum wage is unnecessary.

In my country we have one of the highest minimum wages in the world which is almost exclusively due to the work of trade unions (though our minimum wage is decided by an independent tribunal and not by legislation).

Countries without a strong welfare state need a minimum wage to ensure at least some sort of fair standard of living.

 

[kirblar]

When City Council members in San Diego voted to raise the hourly minimum wage to $11.50 last year, some activists sought an escape clause for union workers. Tom Lemmon of the San Diego County Building and Construction Trades Council, one of the groups that lobbied for the waiver, said the survival of labor-friendly businesses was at stake.

Without leeway to pay a subminimum wage, he said, those companies could be outbid by nonunion shops that chose to ignore the new pay standards.

"The reason we asked was so that we could continue to be competitive," Lemmon said. "We knew that our people were going to be following the rules and other folks would not.... One more layer of rules was just going to make it harder for our contractors to compete."

Just parse this statement. He is arguing that they need to be able to negotiate for lower rates for their union members because they are going to have to compete with off-the-books physical labor that won't abide by the rules.

There are no benefits being negotiated here. There's no pretense. He's arguing that they need to be paid less period.

edit: It's not an accident that the two industries being brought up are hotels and labor contract work.

government will boost your income if you don't earn a livable wage

We definitely need this.

 

[gcubed]

Round and round we go!

I fully expect the unions to be composed of workers below a certain metachlorian threshold because they are the ones who are dumb enough to join a union that is paying them less. Then we can plant a false flag to invite the lizard people down to fight the cabal.

 

[Somnid]

Unions, which be law have to report every expense, which have to constantly face votes on their very existence, which face the free rider problems, which face decertification votes, whose power is its members volunteering their time are "self-interested parties?"

Just a thought, but if they weren't don't you think they would fall apart quickly given that information?

 

[Syriel]

You're claiming unions (which again rely on their members dues and support which can be withdrawn at anytime) are engaging in a behavior which amounts to an Unfair Labor Practice and goes again every fiber of anyone who gets involved in the labor movements base instinct.

Except for the tiny bit about jobs that require you to be a union member to work. Someone who can't afford to lose a job isn't going to tell the union to go eff itself. They'll keep their head down and pay their dues so they don't put the job at risk.

This is illegal. And you clearly don't understand how Unions work.

You can't just hire a union,nevermind closed shops are illegal, company unions are illegal, negotiating in bad faith is illegal

Closed shops may be illegal, but union shops are not. And a union shop + hiring hall isn't much different than a closed shop.

But the union isn't going to have any members left if it's not offering anything in return. Once again, who the hell is joining a union if it makes them worse off?

People who need the job no matter what. If it is a choice between no job, or "pay these dues if you want the job" there is really no choice if you're not well off.