General Discussion

Starry Messenger

(32,380 posts)

25. I honestly think the LATimes is ratfucking.

Thu May 28, 2015, 07:04 PM

May 2015

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

35 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

L.A. labor leaders seek minimum wage exemption for firms with union workers. Thoughts? [View all] stevenleser May 2015 OP

Boo hiss tularetom May 2015 #1

Makes sense HassleCat May 2015 #2

That's what I'm hoping this is about. Wilms May 2015 #11

^^^THIS^^^ Omaha Steve May 2015 #24

Bad idea. hobbit709 May 2015 #3

What if they negotiated a $14/hr salary with a Cadillac health care plan that had no copays? stevenleser May 2015 #4

What are the odds? And even $14/hr is barely a living wage most places. hobbit709 May 2015 #5

I believe Unions with Cadillac health care plans were oft talked about in ACA as an exemption stevenleser May 2015 #6

If that $40 a week is the difference between paying the rent or not. hobbit709 May 2015 #8

It's not $40 a week... it's $40 a week plus union dues... hughee99 May 2015 #12

I'll admit I'm not familiar with a whole lot of union deals, hughee99 May 2015 #13

That's part of the negotiating that happens when Unions collectively bargain with companies stevenleser May 2015 #14

Yes, I understand this, but we're not talking about unions in general... hughee99 May 2015 #15

If minimum wage becomes $15 an hour it becomes much more likely. There must be a reason stevenleser May 2015 #16

The real world application would be that if Unions can negotiate below minimum wage deals hughee99 May 2015 #19

They could always theoretically have used that exemption. There must be something about stevenleser May 2015 #20

I think the higher the minimum wage gets, the more valuable that exemption is. hughee99 May 2015 #21

Then let them get the law changed to specify a minumum of $15/hour _including_ benefits for anyone. PoliticAverse May 2015 #32

I understand the logic behind it. peecoolyour May 2015 #7

Agreed, the optics are horrible and Unions can ill afford to give their critics this kind of easy stevenleser May 2015 #17

It could be that there is a two tier system. upaloopa May 2015 #9

The key word is "negotiate" cyberswede May 2015 #10

This could be a very clever move on the unions' part. KamaAina May 2015 #18

This was my thought. Exilednight May 2015 #22

Why join? MichMan May 2015 #23

I honestly think the LATimes is ratfucking. Starry Messenger May 2015 #25

Agreed kenfrequed May 2015 #27

They've been bbqing the teachers union down there for years. Starry Messenger May 2015 #28

How the hell do we allow this?! kenfrequed May 2015 #31

Deceptive frigging headline. kenfrequed May 2015 #26

Yet another reason health care should be separated from employment. n/t PoliticAverse May 2015 #29

hell to the Yes! kenfrequed May 2015 #30

It's the headline from the LA Times word for word and letter for letter stevenleser May 2015 #33

I know it is kenfrequed May 2015 #34

If you are trying to "negotiate" sub minimum wages then you aren't a union TheKentuckian May 2015 #35