Minimum-Wage Waivers for Union Members Stir Standoff

[question everything]

Unions have been a driving force behind the wave of municipal minimum-wage increases sweeping the country. But some unions want their own members exempt from coverage under those laws.

More than 20 U.S. cities and counties, recently including Los Angeles and Kansas City, Mo., have set minimum wages above state and federal levels. Some will eventually reach more than twice the federal rate of $7.25 an hour.

In at least a half-dozen of those communities, the pay-floor ordinances include a provision allowing unions to waive the wage mandates as part of a collective-bargaining agreement. Labor groups often seek the exemptions because they say they provide the flexibility to negotiate better benefits for all union members or raises for more senior workers making more than the minimum. Unions also say such exemptions afford cities and employers protection against potential lawsuits if a conflict arises between local ordinances and union agreements, protected by federal labor law.

The carve-outs are increasingly drawing the ire of business groups representing the hotel and tourism industries, among others. They say such exemptions are a way for unions to organize or gain negotiating power by using the ability to opt out of the wage law as leverage to achieve other goals. For instance, business groups say, unions could advise companies that if they agree to labor representation, they can avoid paying the minimum wage, spending less on wages overall. The strategy could let unions bolster their ranks at a time when union membership is falling, business groups say.


More..

http://www.wsj.com/articles/minimum-wage-waivers-for-union-members-stir-standoff-1439857915

[Gman]

1. Makes good sense to opt out

[MichMan]

2. For who?

So, if I understand this (and maybe I don't) , the members of the union this would apply to would potentially make less money than their non union friends and neighbors.

I'm all for unions of course, but how would union leadership try to tell their members that they had negotiated a deal like this? Wouldn't the rank & file start questioning why they were paying dues to get less?

[Gman]

3. Less to wages, more to benefits

All labor contract negotiations begin with a set amount of money for wages, benefits including paid holidays, vacation time and other time off and also job security issues. The object of the game becomes to enlarge the pot of money (very difficult). If they're locked in at a base higher salary, that leaves less money to apply to benefits and other things. So if a union says we'll take lower pay they're doing it to be able to negotiate more money into benefits and/or other things. And how hard a union pushes is directly affected by how willing the members are to strike. In service industry jobs they're not willing at all to strike. So this gives the ability to put more into benefits, paid time off, etc.