You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
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 50¢ is union dues, or could be explained as related to costs.
Literally the first reply I sent you.
If you don't know the basics of labor law and how companies are ostensibly prohibited from preventing organization, you really don't have a lot of room to get upset when people think you don't know stuff.
That... is literally the thing being discussed here.
No, it's a nonsequitur you brought up out of nowhere. You asked why the company doesn't just pay the union less, and when people told you replied assuming that everyone knew that all the workers left the union.
when people told you replied assuming that everyone knew that all the workers left the union.
Because that's literally the entire point! They want to pay people more if they leave the union so they can later cut wages without resistance, it's an extremely simple and basic concept. I have no idea why you're treating this as some bizarre, added assumption, like literally what are we even talking about if not that?