Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This is a fine how do you douche:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-los-angeles-minimum-wage-unions-20150526-story.html

Wow... kinda backhanded tactic to drive up union enrollments.

And this surprises me not at all.

 djones520 wrote:
And this surprises me not at all.

Pretty much my reaction as well

 whembly wrote:
Wow... kinda backhanded tactic to drive up union enrollments.

How so?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Wow... kinda backhanded tactic to drive up union enrollments.

How so?

Businesses have the choice of either hooking up with a union, or playing the larger minimum wage.

It's scummy. And a nice sign of why unions as they are today need to go.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Wow... kinda backhanded tactic to drive up union enrollments.

How so?

I'd imagine that, as the article indicates, the unions want collective bargaining power rather than a minimum wage. So the only way to get a wage increase is to have the union fight for it. So you have to be a part of the union to benefit.

This actually makes a peculiar kind of sense. It allows unions to work out deals with their employers that really benefit their workers and might benefit the employer also.

For example, for many workers, they'd happily work for a buck or two less if they had health insurance. If the employer can work out a good deal for health insurance and the workforce is willing to take $13 an hour, it could be a win-win for everyone.

I think it's a pretty wise tactic for the Unions.

I got a better idea.
Go out, get real jobs and stop asking me to pay 12$ a hamburger so you can get new iphone15.
And just so you all know, NO im not kidding this is how I feel. We shouldnt be paying people 15$ an hour to flip burgers.
15$ is for people who do real work

Oh lol here he goes.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I got a better idea.
Go out, get real jobs and stop asking me to pay 12$ a hamburger so you can get new iphone15.
And just so you all know, NO im not kidding this is how I feel. We shouldnt be paying people 15$ an hour to flip burgers.
15$ is for people who do real work

In some ways, I agree with you.... however, when did McD's unionize? when did the people at burger king for BKWU? Did Dominos or Pizza Hut get a "United Dough Tossers" started up for all the disenfranchised, overworked pizza makers?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Wow... kinda backhanded tactic to drive up union enrollments.

How so?

I'd imagine that, as the article indicates, the unions want collective bargaining power rather than a minimum wage. So the only way to get a wage increase is to have the union fight for it. So you have to be a part of the union to benefit.

The unions, understandably, want the ability to collectively bargain; the minimum wage increase is completely separate from this and if this proposal goes through (whatever it is), a union member could earn a wage under the minimum. If you work a non-union minimum wage job, you'll get the increased wage regardless. This won't make union membership increase.

The thing to remember is this: for a union member, you have your wage rate and total package rate. Your wage is what you earn per hour and is reflected on your weekly paycheck. The total package rate is the money you earn but you never see because your employer pays this directly to the union. This is where the medical benefits, training fund, pension, annuity, etc. come from. So the issue is that the new minimum wage law may force an employer to pay a worker the new minimum wage in the check and then have to stack their benefits on top of that, making them pay much more than the minimum wage in total while a non-union worker just receives the new minimum wage with no benefits. If that is the case, than this proposal levels the playing field for the worker: either make more money in the pocket and work non-union or make less in the pocket but have more benefits.

So to say that this is "back handed" is impossible, the story in the OP doesn't give any real details to Mr. Hicks proposal and what it entails. But don't let that stop the anger echo chamber guys!

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I'd imagine that, as the article indicates, the unions want collective bargaining power rather than a minimum wage. So the only way to get a wage increase is to have the union fight for it. So you have to be a part of the union to benefit.

The unions, understandably, want the ability to collectively bargain; the minimum wage increase is completely separate from this and if this proposal goes through (whatever it is), a union member could earn a wage under the minimum. If you work a non-union minimum wage job, you'll get the increased wage regardless. This won't make union membership increase.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I got a better idea.
Go out, get real jobs and stop asking me to pay 12$ a hamburger so you can get new iphone15.
And just so you all know, NO im not kidding this is how I feel. We shouldnt be paying people 15$ an hour to flip burgers.
15$ is for people who do real work

And what exactly is "real work"?

If you're familiar at all with LA, you'd know that even at $15/hr, that's still rather questionable as a living wage in terms of just being able to afford rent, food, gas, utilities, and car insurance if you're working full time (much less the ability to purchase a car if need be), in fact, it probably won't even cover that (given that the average 1 bedroom apartment price in LA is $1800+/month, and electricity is probably another ~$100 on top of that alone, $300 easy if you're running AC when it's 90*-100* outside for months at a time), it's about the minimum you'd really need for each individual in a two-income household. When I first moved out on my own in San Diego, between me and my roommates, we easily were making comfortably into six figures for household income, and were very definitely not enjoying the lifestyle that most people assume with that sort of household income.

I think our combined household expenses, between rent, gas & insurance on three cars, food, and utilities was ~4500/month. Just the barebones basics(food, fuel, mandated insurance, water & electricity).

That's not including extras like entertainment, healthcare co-pays, girlfriends, Internet/Cable, cell phone bills, videogames, new iphones, vacations, emergencies (e.g. car breaks down), savings, alcohol, Warhammer, parties, eating out, etc.

Split three ways, that's ~$1500/month. If you're making $15/hr, after taxes, and with those expenses, you're looking at having ~$300 a month for literally everything but the basics in life. You want an internet connection, a cell phone? Bump it down to $200/month, or about $6-7/day.

If that's all "real work" gets you, someone's getting a raw deal.

And that's why I'm never gonna live in the big city.
and real work is work that if I go down to the local high school, I can't train the guy I pick up at random to do a job in a week.

Vacations? Video games? Hah!

Out of that list I can see the Imordant being
Health copays, internet, girlfriends, and cellphone.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

and real work is work that if I go down to the local high school, I can't train the guy I pick up at random to do a job in a week.

So.... basically speaking, there are literally zero "real jobs" in the world


Sure, there are plenty of jobs that we say require more training than a week but seriously, if you look at the day-to-day jobs of most people, I would say you could train someone in a week.

I'm sure no matter how good the Trainer, you can't train a 15 yr old to weld pipes in a week.

hotsauceman1 wrote:And that's why I'm never gonna live in the big city.

A lot of people don't have the choice, if you're born and raised there, it's hard to move away, especially if you don't already have a job at the other end.

and real work is work that if I go down to the local high school, I can't train the guy I pick up at random to do a job in a week.

Well, that depends rather wildly on the individual in question, and ultimately, there's tons of jobs that don't require extensive training that pay way better, and tons of jobs that do require extensive training and experience that don't pay $15/hr.

Ultimately however, that's besides the point. Even $15/hr is extremely marginal to sustain someone working full time in LA. If an organization wants to employ human labor, they need to pay a wage to adequately sustain that labor.

cincydooley wrote:Vacations? Video games? Hah!

hotsauceman1 wrote:Out of that list I can see the Imordant being
Health copays, internet, girlfriends, and cellphone.

Hence why I called them "extras". Anything above and beyond the minimum required for everyday life to function on a day to day basis. Not trying to equate them all.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I'm sure no matter how good the Trainer, you can't train a 15 yr old to weld pipes in a week.

I took metal shop class as a 15 year old and was able to quickly get a "prettier" weld than the teacher, anecdotal, yes, but true nonetheless.

And while the person wouldn't know WHY they are doing it, I'd bet you could train someone to do what most scientists do, as far as loading up testing equipment and running tests, etc.

You could train a "surgeon" where to cut, and how.... Yes, we place value on knowing "what and why" I mean hell... look at medicine pre-20th century, pretty much "anyone" with the stomach for blood and guts, and a couple books was able to be a "Doctor"

Yeah, that's why they tended not to be much respected.
And a lot of science is more than machinery. It's specialized knowledge that makes that machinery relevant

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Yet as the article states the unions were campaigning that no one should have a sub-minimum wage, yet they are directly acting against that. Surely if these are separate, as you claim, them the union could have both. And why the last minute carving out of an exemption for themselves instead of taking this position from the start?

We don't know if this is directly acting against it. I haven't read the proposal or the new minimum wage laws that the city passed. All I am saying is it's probably a little more complicated that it's being currently presented, which is "unions are hypocrites."

Of course, that may end up being the case or they may have legitimate reason for this proposal.

Useful to know, thank you. You say that this "may" affect the wage rate and packet rate. Has this happened elsewhere?

I don't know, just passing along information. It all depends on the verbiage in the laws/proposals in question.

Comments like this don't really help the discussion.

You know what else doesn't help? All the other baseless, uninformed opinions being trotted out. However, thank you for pointing my accurate observation out as being the thing that doesn't help the "conversation."

 Vaktathi wrote:
And what exactly is "real work"?

Real work is an idea invented by people who want to gak on those underneath them. That's basically all there is to it.

I've spent approximately 7 lifetimes arguing with people on this forum about minimum wage, trying to dismantle one bad economic argument after the next. Only recently did I realise that people didn't give up on their bad economic arguments because they couldn't see the holes, it's because they didn't give a gak. The economic arguments are just a veneer to a basic underlying need to identify somebody beneath them in the social order, and to be contemptuous of that person.

 sebster wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
And what exactly is "real work"?

Real work is an idea invented by people who want to gak on those underneath them. That's basically all there is to it.

I've spent approximately 7 lifetimes arguing with people on this forum about minimum wage, trying to dismantle one bad economic argument after the next. Only recently did I realise that people didn't give up on their bad economic arguments because they couldn't see the holes, it's because they didn't give a gak. The economic arguments are just a veneer to a basic underlying need to identify somebody beneath them in the social order, and to be contemptuous of that person.

I think I have probably been one of those opponents you have argued against about Min. wage....

As time has progressed, I am now of the opinion that it isn't so much the minimum wage that's the problem, it's the "where is all the new money going" and that answer: the top 1% of the 1%. IMO, the problem isn't the minimum wage worker, or the middle class person who buys stuff needlessly, it's the "Walton's" of the world who, when laws and rates are adjusted, adjust themselves to rake in even more money, then rig the system so that instead of paying people for work, they rely on the government assistance programs.

I just wanted to add that if minimum wage was $15, I'd be willing to work for $13 if that brought me membership in a union, and some additional benefits such as health care, paid vacation, etc....

With every company in LA stretching to pay it's workers the $15 minimum, many companies will be looking to cut benefits. This is a great way for Unions to gain or keep benefits that their members enjoy. Benefits that will likely (to the worker) have a value of more than the pay cut.

An E-3 PFC has a base pay of $21.6k annually.

An E-5 Sergeant with 4 years experience has a base pay of $30k.

I'm sorry, but no burger flipper deserves as much as an an E-3, to say nothing of an E-5.

If you're an adult working for minimum wage at a zero-skill job, you don't deserve the wages of a professional soldier who puts his life on the line 24 hours a day.

Am i wrong in thinking a few unions wanted to be exempt from the ACA as well? Or am I misrembering that?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I got a better idea.
Go out, get real jobs and stop asking me to pay 12$ a hamburger so you can get new iphone15.
And just so you all know, NO im not kidding this is how I feel. We shouldnt be paying people 15$ an hour to flip burgers.
15$ is for people who do real work

Hello hotsauceman1! I currently survive off of minimum wage and government funding. My job? I teach the mentally ill life skills, I help with their case management, and I assess their overall wellbeing and make informed decisions on whether or not I think they would be safe back in the community. Some of these people can be very violent. So much that I am required to wear an Oh Gak button in case of emergencies. I could train a person to do my job in a week. Do you feel I should only make $8.25 an hour?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
An E-3 PFC has a base pay of $21.6k annually.

An E-5 Sergeant with 4 years experience has a base pay of $30k.

I'm sorry, but no burger flipper deserves as much as an an E-3, to say nothing of an E-5.

If you're an adult working for minimum wage at a zero-skill job, you don't deserve the wages of a professional soldier who puts his life on the line 24 hours a day.

There are a MULTITUDE of benefits (health, retirement, stipends of various types) that a Military Serviceman receives that bring his overall take-home "pay" far above that of the average minimum-wage worker in a service industry. To say nothing of the less-tangibles such as path to promotion, job security, etc. . To top it off a Military family is likely in an area with a much lower cost-of living than an urban min-wager. It's really not a fair comparison.

Lastly, not to nitpick or take anything away from our military, but a fairly small fraction of the active duty military actually has their "life on the line 24 hours a day".