this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
1859 points (99.5% liked)

Work Reform

11252 readers
870 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:

Our Goals

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PaupersSerenade@sh.itjust.works 198 points 1 day ago (5 children)

I live in California, so there was a lot of bemoaning the rising minimum wage.

“Why should someone flipping burgers earn as much as I do in a trade field?”

Mate, you should be arguing for increased wages, not trying to keep others down.

[–] Flames5123@sh.itjust.works 42 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Seattle metro area has the highest minimum wage in the country. The top 5 cities in the US are all in this metro. This is because when the wage increases were passed by city, they were tied to the inflation rate so that increases every year, so no new laws have to be passed year over year to get this increase. No arguing every year for a simple cost of living adjustment.

[–] Gigasser@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago

Shit even Republican voters and Republicans "should" want minimum wage tied to rate of inflation. Why? Because it creates incentive for the Federal government in keeping inflation lower, keeping inflation lower being something that "supposedly" the average Republican voter wants.

[–] Chip_Rat@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Fucking thank you! Why is this so complicated?? Why fight for $15 or whatever if you know by the time your get the fucking laws past your dollar is worth half as much.

It's so transparently flawed to because tying minimum wage to a formula/basket/col/astrology FFS, Would mean not having to revisit this fight every. Single. Year.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 8 points 1 day ago

Credit for that goes to Kshama Sawant, she had to fight the Democrats on the city council and shame them to get there.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 68 points 1 day ago (5 children)

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?

[–] Sheldan@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (6 children)

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 (6 replies)
[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago

How is it even legal to have explicitly preferential pay for people not in a union?

Other than the minimum wage and protected classes, there's not really any laws around how much employers must pay. They can have two employees, Bob and Tina, and pay Bob half of Tina's salary because they just hate the name "Bob". If Bob doesn't like it he can quit.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

sounds like their pay is based on union rates. that's probably just a company policy for everyone.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 day ago (118 children)

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.

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 11 points 1 day ago (17 children)

They can't cut union rates.

load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (117 replies)
[–] Stern@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago (12 children)

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)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pyre@lemmy.world 114 points 1 day ago (7 children)

"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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 148 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Cathy is a dumbass. Don't be like Cathy.

[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 79 points 1 day ago (7 children)

That’s up there with refusing raises to avoid going up a tax bracket.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mumblerfish@lemmy.world 52 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 58 points 1 day ago (2 children)

"Rising waters lifts all ships", Cathy. Ever heard of it?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›