Cathy, do the math.
Cathy, do the math.
298 comments
-
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.
Not until everyone leaves the union to get extra pay and the union loses all its bargaining power.
In the image, it’s quite likely that the extra 50¢ is union dues,
That doesn't make any sense. If it's about union dues, the union pay is what should be higher.
I love how people downvote my comments with absolutely zero explanation of why I'm wrong.
-
Replace leaving the union with going to college instead and you get why we have a 3 generation straight loss in union membership.
People told their kids to chase more money and then spent that money on cheaper foreign products and the whole house fell down within 20 years.
This was the plan by the way for capitalists.
-
Aren't people with college educations more likely to end up in a union? One of the reasons some places don't want to hire "overqualified" people is because they're afraid of unionization.
There's a variety of reasons for the decline of unions in the US, the main ones being:
- Anti-union laws and propaganda (Mike Rowe being a big one)
- Offshoring of manufacturing jobs
- Major unions defanging themselves by purging radicals/communists to prove they're "one of the good ones"
-
No most higher education jobs aren't union. Do you bother to lookup anything by yourself before you speak about things?
-
No most higher education jobs aren’t union.
Literally not what I said at all. I said that you are more likely to be in a union if you have more education. Do you bother looking anything up before trying to incorrectly correct others?
At this point it's extremely obvious that you're just trolling.
-
-
Neither of those links are remotely relevant to how higher education correlates with union membership. Trolling.
-
Name one industry in good faith
-
Ok, warehouse workers. Servers.
Pretty sure I could name any industry and the people in those industries with college degrees are more likely to be in a union than those without.
-
None of those require higher education or a degree. Thats unskilled/semi skilled/ and skilled labor. Which do have unions.
The claim is that a worker with a degree is more likely to take a trade position.
Teachers come to mind for unions in that regard. But that’s more a relic of the state and federal civilian union culture from 1940s through today.
-
Not an industry boss, it's arguably an industry job but not an industry.
Genius rebuttal though, you could have just googled it.
-
-
They're going to say Taco Bell.
-
Taco Bell isn't an industry and afaik doesn't have a union, but if they did, then yes, it would follow the same trend as every other industry.
-
It's a clearly a joke because of their name though the fact you didn't get that either is fuckin priceless.
-
-
-
-
You couldn't have possibly looked over all of the aflcios educational information. You're trolling and you're extremely bad at it.
-
I'm not interested in your random unrelated links. The question is whether people with college educations are more likely to join unions, and the answer to that is yes, and also, I can easily tell from reading the links themselves that they aren't relevant to that question, troll.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Well, also, a lot of the union jobs simply don't exist anymore. Not very many boilermakers, steamfitters, carmens, or glazers around anymore. So obviously union membership is going to be down.
-
There are. They just don’t work in the western hemisphere. That was the idea. Let us starve and fight for the scraps as the most educated generation in human history.
-
-
-
The workplace is deducting the union dues from union workers checks automatically.
Unions loosing membership causing them to be weaker in negotiations is entirely irrelevant to why companies don't just lower union pay outside of negotiations.
There's no faster way to get downvoted than to complain about being downvoted, particularly if you're weirdly smug about it.
-
Unions loosing membership causing them to be weaker in negotiations is entirely irrelevant to why companies don’t just lower union pay outside of negotiations.
OK, here's the source of the confusion.
What the fuck did I say that made anyone think I was talking about cutting union pay outside of negotiations? Literally where is anyone getting this from??
There’s no faster way to get downvoted than to complain about being downvoted, particularly if you’re weirdly smug about it.
Most of the downvotes I got (so far) came before I added that part.
-
Because referring to changing pay rates for union workers as a policy change pretty heavily implies it's not a negotiation, and "why wouldn't the company just get the union to agree to a significant pay cut" is an even more asinine point. They obviously would have if the could have. The assumption that you didn't know unions negotiated contracts seemed more charitable than thinking you didn't know how bargaining worked.
Most of the downvotes I got (so far) came before I added that part.
Okay.
-
Because referring to changing pay rates for union workers as a policy change pretty heavily implies it’s not a negotiation, and “why wouldn’t the company just get the union to agree to a significant pay cut” is an even more asinine point. They obviously would have if the could have. The assumption that you didn’t know unions negotiated contracts seemed more charitable than thinking you didn’t know how bargaining worked.
But that's not how bargaining works. What unions are able to negotiate is a function of how large, powerful, and organized they are. Rejecting what the company offers can mean going on strike, and if they aren't powerful enough for that to be a credible threat (because people left the union for higher pay rates), then that means they have very little power to negotiate or say no to what's offered.
So it's more like, you don't understand how bargaining works, so you jumped to the completely absurd conclusion that I didn't know unions negotiated contracts? What?
-
At this point I'm fairly certain you're just trolling, since you asked a dumb question, responded to answers with nonsense scenarios and indignation, and then responded to clarification as though your scenario were a given.
-
I did literally none of that but ok.
-
You also didn't take into account every person in the state being in the Union, and the company only employing union workers, and the one non-union person, the CEO, was so afraid of loosing business at his company that only makes pro-union T-shirts that he wept openly at the thought of not capitulating to the unions every demand.
Clearly a bird has eaten most of your frontal cortex and you've confused the concept of negotiations with women's freestyle swimming.
-
What unions are able to negotiate is a function of how large, powerful, and organized they are. Rejecting what the company offers can mean going on strike, and if they aren’t powerful enough for that to be a credible threat (because people left the union for higher pay rates), then that means they have very little power to negotiate or say no to what’s offered.
Literally not you or a single other person in all the comments responded to me has said a single word that actually explains why it wouldn't work this way. You just started randomly attacking me for no reason. Maybe it's because you can't provide an actual answer?
-
And you won't, or can't, respond to my point. It doesn't matter that it's a nonsequitur, you're still obligated to respond to it premptively, you fool.
Yes, if everyone leaves the union it doesn't have power. Fucking duh. It doesn't work that way because it's illegal to pay people to not be in the union, since it infringes on people's rights to collective bargaining. Which I politely said in my first reply to you when I just thought you were ignorant, rather than obstinate and rude as well.
You just started randomly attacking me for no reason
Crystal more. You're the one who kicked off being angry when you found out I thought you were just genuinely ignorant, as opposed to properly stupid.
-
Yes, if everyone leaves the union it doesn’t have power. Fucking duh. It doesn’t work that way because it’s illegal to pay people to not be in the union, since it infringes on people’s rights to collective bargaining.
That... is literally the thing being discussed here.
Which I politely said in my first reply to you when I just thought you were ignorant, rather than obstinate and rude as well.
No, you didn't. I'm quite sure this is the first time I've seen anyone make the claim that what Cathy is saying in OP is untrue and would be illegal.
Cry more. You’re the one who kicked off being angry when you found out I thought you were just genuinely ignorant, as opposed to properly stupid.
You're Madison420's alt, right? If not, I don't see why you're both so randomly hostile or why you both go off about me "crying." All I'm doing is discussing facts and pointing out when people say things that are wrong. Occasionally, when someone comes at me with random, unprovoked, hostility, I point out that that's what they're doing and may give it back to them. If you can't take shit don't start shit.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
298 comments