L.A. labor leaders seek minimum wage exemption for firms with union workers. Thoughts?

[stevenleser]

I'm inclined to give organized labor the leeway and benefit of the doubt to do this but I have to admit I am not a huge fan. The reason might be that labor might want to offer firms a slightly lower wage in favor of a bigger benefits package. I'd prefer that labor find other ways to collectively bargain that doesn't involve a lower wage.

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

Labor leaders, who were among the strongest supporters of the citywide minimum wage increase approved last week by the Los Angeles City Council, are advocating last-minute changes to the law that could create an exemption for companies with unionized workforces.

The push to include an exception to the mandated wage increase for companies that let their employees collectively bargain was the latest unexpected detour as the city nears approval of its landmark legislation to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020.

For much of the past eight months, labor activists have argued against special considerations for business owners, such as restaurateurs, who said they would have trouble complying with the mandated pay increase.

But Rusty Hicks, who heads the county Federation of Labor and helps lead the Raise the Wage coalition, said Tuesday night that companies with workers represented by unions should have leeway to negotiate a wage below that mandated by the law.
.
.
.

[tularetom]

1. Boo hiss

Seems a pretty self serving position for "labor leaders" to take. Are they more interested in increasing their own power or helping the union members who pay their salaries?

[HassleCat]

2. Makes sense

The initial reaction might be, "WTF? Are they stupid?" But collective bargaining usually includes health insurance policies, retirement plans, yearly bonuses, etc. and these can really add up. If the union has to offer the employer a lower hourly rate to get an agreement on the "goodies," they should be free to do that.

[Wilms]

11. That's what I'm hoping this is about.

I wonder how the membership feel.

[Omaha Steve]

24. ^^^THIS^^^

Thanks for beating me to it!

OS

[hobbit709]

3. Bad idea.

What good are the extra benefits if you can't afford to use them?

[stevenleser]

4. What if they negotiated a $14/hr salary with a Cadillac health care plan that had no copays?

I guess that is the other side of the argument. If the Union wants to go to $14 an hour with an agreement that calls for the above Cadillac Health care plan, a 100% wage pension at 25 years of service, etc., would that make a difference?

[hobbit709]

5. What are the odds? And even $14/hr is barely a living wage most places.

[stevenleser]

6. I believe Unions with Cadillac health care plans were oft talked about in ACA as an exemption

I think Unions are known for negotiating for these kinds of plans in their collective bargaining agreements.

I am really divided on this. I don't think Unions should be negotiating a wage lower than the minimum wage. On the other hand, I am trying to imagine having a family and would $40 a week, $160 a month be more important than top benefits all around. I am not sure.

[hobbit709]

8. If that $40 a week is the difference between paying the rent or not.

Here in Austin rents have gone astronomical. A halfway decent apartment is about $1000 per bedroom. Most jobs here are now service jobs where $10/hr is considered doing good.
We used to have TI, Motorola, IBM, Radian, AMD here-all gone now. Even Dell doesn't make anything here any more. Call centers pay shit wages.

[hughee99]

12. It's not $40 a week... it's $40 a week plus union dues...

You need to pay for the people who negotiated this below-minimum-wage deal for you.

[hughee99]

13. I'll admit I'm not familiar with a whole lot of union deals,

but can you think of any company that cares little enough about their workers to pay them minimum wage, but enough about them to give them a cadillac health plan? I'd think just about any company would come out way ahead by paying them twice the minimum wage with no health plan.

[stevenleser]

14. That's part of the negotiating that happens when Unions collectively bargain with companies

You have a lot of situations where the Union negotiates a lower pay than average industry standard in order to get things like pensions and top shelf health care plans for their members. Obviously the Union would like to be able to get top pay and top benefits for their members, but as in most negotiations there is a give and take.

At least there is some negotiating and some give and take with a group that has the power to make companies make concessions on the behalf of the workers.

Outside of Union membership, you take basically what a company offers which all too often is the least they think they have to offer to get someone to do the job.

[hughee99]

15. Yes, I understand this, but we're not talking about unions in general...

Most union workers aren't starting at minimum wage. In this case, we're talking about union workers who are at just about the minimum wage anyway. What union workers start at about minimum wage? Do any of THOSE workers currently have a Cadillac health care plan? Basically, what I'm saying is that while your scenario is technically possible, I'm not sure that it would exist in the real world.

[stevenleser]

16. If minimum wage becomes $15 an hour it becomes much more likely. There must be a reason

these Unions in California are fighting for this. I doubt they would spend political and other capital on it if they didn't have real world applications for this exception.

[hughee99]

19. The real world application would be that if Unions can negotiate below minimum wage deals

Then companies might have an incentive to encourage unionization and more members makes unions stronger. That's what I see as the incentive for unions.

[stevenleser]

20. They could always theoretically have used that exemption. There must be something about

the raise of the minimum wage to $15 that makes them want it now.

[hughee99]

21. I think the higher the minimum wage gets, the more valuable that exemption is.

A jump from $9/hr to $15/hr in the minimum wage gives them a lot more negotiating power.

[PoliticAverse]

32. Then let them get the law changed to specify a minumum of $15/hour _including_ benefits for anyone.

[peecoolyour]

7. I understand the logic behind it.

But the optics are horrible.

The average person isn't going to understand it. It'll be turned into a union-bashing one-liner meme that people will repeat without caring to understand the reasoning behind it.

[stevenleser]

17. Agreed, the optics are horrible and Unions can ill afford to give their critics this kind of easy

argument to use against them.

[upaloopa]

9. It could be that there is a two tier system.

Maybe not everyone working there is a full time union employee. The second tier maybe part time and do not get paid union wages and only minimum.

[cyberswede]

10. The key word is "negotiate"

...companies with workers represented by unions should have leeway to negotiate a wage below that mandated by the law.

If negotiating allows for various packages with other benefits that are more beneficial to the worker, that could be a good thing. Maybe more companies would support their employees belonging to unions, too.

[KamaAina]

18. This could be a very clever move on the unions' part.

Low-wage employers (yes, Walmart, I'm talkin' to you ) might actually embrace unions instead of demonizing them if it meant they could get away with paying a subminimum wage.

[Exilednight]

22. This was my thought.

[MichMan]

23. Why join?

If true, that means the unions are prepared to sell out their own members to line their own pockets.

Why embrace unionism if that means you get less than not being a member?

[Starry Messenger]

25. I honestly think the LATimes is ratfucking.

Hick's quote in the next paragraph doesn't exactly say what the article says it does:

"With a collective bargaining agreement, a business owner and the employees negotiate an agreement that works for them both. The agreement allows each party to prioritize what is important to them," Hicks said in a statement. "This provision gives the parties the option, the freedom, to negotiate that agreement. And that is a good thing."

No where does it say, its ok to offer lower wages. However, I haven't seen him issue a correction, and I don't know anything about him. It might be he said that, and its not the official position of the the LACLC. Maybe he's a jerk who shoots his mouth off. But the Times has printed some scurrilous shit over the years about unions, so I'm not giving this a lot of weight.

[kenfrequed]

27. Agreed

This is probably a bullshit story.

[Starry Messenger]

28. They've been bbqing the teachers union down there for years.

This just feels like a hit-piece.

[kenfrequed]

31. How the hell do we allow this?!

Seriously, how do we all this shitty Kochstorm of conventional wisdom, free market, fairy-tale, fuckery to continue like this. Who are these ingrate corporate stenographers?

It seems no one loses any sleep bashing teachers or union members. Look at Rahm Emmanuel (who is plotting to be the next VP) and what he has done for the teachers in Chicago. It is time to shake these corporate bastards out of the party.

[kenfrequed]

26. Deceptive frigging headline.

The fact is that union workers might have a reason to trade wages for other benefits agreed to over the bargaining table. Maybe reprezented workers might want a great healthcare plan rather than settling for the crapiest Humana plan offered up.

[PoliticAverse]

29. Yet another reason health care should be separated from employment. n/t

[kenfrequed]

30. hell to the Yes!

Healthcare should be single payer universal.

[stevenleser]

33. It's the headline from the LA Times word for word and letter for letter

And I agree with you as to the facts of the issue

[kenfrequed]

34. I know it is

And that is the real problem. The media never gets tired of kicking labor in the teeth.

[TheKentuckian]

35. If you are trying to "negotiate" sub minimum wages then you aren't a union

you are the company's assimilation squad.

We aren't talking a little generous compensation shifting but going below the minimum.