Man I was sad as shit when Nina Turner lost. Bernie Sanders backed her up too.
this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
1918 points (99.4% liked)
Work Reform
11277 readers
1661 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
Wow, that just threw me for a loop. I still remember the hits, like "Steamy Windows" or "We Don't Need Another Hero". But then, that was Tina Turner. Not Nina. π
load more comments
(6 replies)
Cathy is a dumbass. Don't be like Cathy.
Thatβs up there with refusing raises to avoid going up a tax bracket.
I will forgive people who were previously had a low enough income to have benefits that magically disappeared completely at a certain threshold when they received a raise for assuming that making too much money could be a negative. They generally never made enough to understand how tax brackets work and assumed the worst.
If it is explained to them and they refuse to learn, that is on them.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
"your statistic is false because I have an anecdote" is literally the entire basis of the conservative understanding of science.
union workers don't make more on average because I earn half a dollar more.
global warming isn't happening because I brought a snowball.
vaccines cause death because my friend walked out of a clinic after a shot and got hit by a self driving tesla.
vaccines cause death because my friend walked out of a clinic after a shot and got hit by a self driving tesla.
π
load more comments
(6 replies)
How is it even legal to have explicitly preferential pay for people not in a union? Is there a limit to that, or can companies just say, "Anyone who joins a union will be paid minimum wage." Ofc with at-will employment they can always just fire you, but like, if you think about it it's pretty fucked up right?
sounds like their pay is based on union rates. that's probably just a company policy for everyone.
What I'm saying is that if they can set "$0.50 above union rates" as the company policy for everyone, they can also set "$5 above union rates" as the company policy for everyone and then cut union rates by $5. It's essentially just bribing people to not join a union or penalizing them if they do. It being company policy for everyone is irrelevant.
They can't cut union rates since they have a contract. So they can, within reason, pay non union workers more but not lower the pay of union workers. One of the benefits of being in the union is that they can't just lower your wages and they may have issues firing you for bad reasons.
There's a limit to how much they can pay the ununionized workers before it becomes clear they're trying to interfere with the workers rights to free organization. In the image, it's quite likely that the extra 50Β’ is union dues, or could be explained as related to costs.
load more comments
(54 replies)
load more comments
(62 replies)
I wouldn't be surprised if the union has other benefits that more then make up for the 50 cents, e.g. better medical, vacation, or whatever.
load more comments
(12 replies)
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.
load more comments
(11 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
This is what Swedish unions did even more directly. A company hired labour from Latvia I think it was. The union showed up and said that thats all fine, but you have to pay them properly. None of them were members. They picketed the company for the sake of non-members wages. Why? To avoid social dumping down the line.
This doesn't even need to be in your contract. When union shops get a raise, non-union shops either have to compete, or lose their best labour.
God damn it, Cathy, you lush.
Net income is a small factor. One should compare the total package because the unions are usually way ahead of the non-union.
load more comments
(2 replies)