1899
Cathy, do the math.
(slrpnk.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
1899 points (100.0% liked)
Work Reform
11457 readers
57 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
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 50¢ is union dues, or could be explained as related to costs.
Not until everyone leaves the union to get extra pay and the union loses all its bargaining power.
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?
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.
When did I ever claim anything remotely like that?
When did I ever claim anything remotely like that?
You didn’t. It was in chain, it just landed on you cause I was stoned at the time.
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.
Unrelated? It's literally the biggest union and the labor relations board, there isn't a more relevant source to be had.
Their size has zero relevance to the question of demographics unless they actually provide demographic information on the page you linked.
They do but don't let reality stop you when your on a roll. You might be rolling to a landfill but you do you boo boo.
:::spoiler Here's screenshots of the page you linked to prove you're just blatantly lying, again.
No demographic information
No demographic information
No demographic information
No demographic information
No demographic information
No demographic information
Use the drop-down bar ya bafoon.
This is what I mean by your expectations that someone else provide you a one on one personal education. I gave you links to the most informative websites on unionization and you can't be bothered to look past the first page you're provided.
Dumb.
https://aflcio.org/sites/default/files/2017-07/Res20.pdf
You claimed it was on the page you linked. You lied. Or more likely, you didn't know because you didn't read it either, because you just grabbed a random link so that you could claim to have "provided sources" for the purpose of trolling.
Please provide any source, from them, or anywhere else, supporting your absurd claim that college education discourages union membership.
It's on the aflcio website as well as the NLRB, I'm sorry if I provided you more information than you wanted at the expense of having to actually read something. Sorry, next time I'll see if there's a "for dummies" version or perhaps a sing along.
I didn't say anything discouraged anything, I said higher education jobs tend to not be union jobs. You know, read or something every once in awhile.
That's not the claim that's in dispute. The claim was that higher education people are more likely to be in unions.
No, people with higher education tend to end up in career paths that aren't commonly unionized, regulated yes. Unionized no.
You should read what you say or say less crazy shit.
Compared to people without higher educations, yes, they are more likely to end up in a union. Most career paths, whether they require a degree or not, are not unionized.
Why don't you call Nina Turner, she'll tell you I'm right and you're full of shit. Might be more polite about it.
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.
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??
Most of the downvotes I got (so far) came before I added that part.