Is California doing so well that they can provide $15/hr minimum wage? (exemptions, bill)

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

I have yet to see a minimum wage increase that helped anyone. When I started high school the Minimum wage was $2.90 an hour. By the time I graduated it was $3.35

https://www.dir.ca.gov/iwc/MinimumWageHistory.htm

Here is the deal though, unless you were just starting out at your first job you made more than the minimum anyway. When I graduated in 1983 I was making a whopping $4.50 an hour which was $1.15 over the minimum. I was working for a drain cleaning company similar to Roto Rooter. During the evenings and weekends I was getting 50% of the labor rate so the minimum wage was useless to me. I made more money on the calls then being paid by the hour.

During my working years I have watched the minimum wage increase 11 times and not one of those times was life changing for anyone on the minimum wage. Not one of those people that had an increase were able to do more with what they had.

The only organizations that seem to benefit are the unions. Two ways this is happening in California. One is that many Union jobs pay is tied to the minimum wage. Increase the minimum and the union employees increase as well.

Another interesting way is to increase membership in the union from an unlikely source. Employers. Here is how.

Unions have set up a deal that employers hiring Union employees are exempt from paying an increase in the minimum wage. Take for example a hotel employee that is in the Union. They will not get a raise. They stay at the lower pay. So what happens with employers? Pay people more or encourage a union in your business so you can pay employees less. These are just my thoughts anyway and not something that I read about. I have no other understanding of why a union would want to exempt the employees they are supposed to be helping. Maybe someone else has a thought on this.

Outrage after big labor crafts law paying their members less than non-union workers - LA Times

California Labor Union That Fought for $15 Minimum Wage Now Wants an Exemption

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

I have yet to see a minimum wage increase that helped anyone. When I started high school the Minimum wage was $2.90 an hour. By the time I graduated it was $3.35

https://www.dir.ca.gov/iwc/MinimumWageHistory.htm

Here is the deal though, unless you were just starting out at your first job you made more than the minimum anyway. When I graduated in 1983 I was making a whopping $4.50 an hour which was $1.15 over the minimum. I was working for a drain cleaning company similar to Roto Rooter. During the evenings and weekends I was getting 50% of the labor rate so the minimum wage was useless to me. I made more money on the calls then being paid by the hour.

During my working years I have watched the minimum wage increase 11 times and not one of those times was life changing for anyone on the minimum wage. Not one of those people that had an increase were able to do more with what they had.

The only organizations that seem to benefit are the unions. Two ways this is happening in California. One is that many Union jobs pay is tied to the minimum wage. Increase the minimum and the union employees increase as well.

Another interesting way is to increase membership in the union from an unlikely source. Employers. Here is how.

Unions have set up a deal that employers hiring Union employees are exempt from paying an increase in the minimum wage. Take for example a hotel employee that is in the Union. They will not get a raise. They stay at the lower pay. So what happens with employers? Pay people more or encourage a union in your business so you can pay employees less. These are just my thoughts anyway and not something that I read about. I have no other understanding of why a union would want to exempt the employees they are supposed to be helping. Maybe someone else has a thought on this.

Outrage after big labor crafts law paying their members less than non-union workers - LA Times

California Labor Union That Fought for $15 Minimum Wage Now Wants an Exemption

Bingo and of course a "feel good" position for the upcoming party nomination voting and elections, even if it accomplishes nothing of any real value.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

The only organizations that seem to benefit are the unions. Two ways this is happening in California. One is that many Union jobs pay is tied to the minimum wage. Increase the minimum and the union employees increase as well.
Another interesting way is to increase membership in the union from an unlikely source. Employers. Here is how.
Unions have set up a deal that employers hiring Union employees are exempt from paying an increase in the minimum wage. Take for example a hotel employee that is in the Union. They will not get a raise. They stay at the lower pay. So what happens with employers? Pay people more or encourage a union in your business so you can pay employees less. These are just my thoughts anyway and not something that I read about. I have no other understanding of why a union would want to exempt the employees they are supposed to be helping. Maybe someone else has a thought on this.

Yes, some unions have an automatic trigger in their contract that increases wages for certain classifications when the minimum wage increases, that usually happens with the unions representing lower paid workers, so what?

Regarding your second statement about unions asking for an exemption from some wage hikes, here is a statement by a member of the Santa Monica City Council:

"Councilwoman Susan Himmelrich said she was initially opposed to the union exemption, but changed her mind after speaking with several union employees. “What I learned was that most people who work in these low wage jobs would prefer to have a union negotiating on their behalf for better benefits in different aspects of their lives,” she said"

Union members vote on these matters, if they want to ratify a contract that gives them benefits rather than a pay raise, why would you oppose that? I was in a union for over 30 years we regularly made choices like that, give up a pay raise to get better health insurance etc. That is part of the value of unions, employees have a voice in matters affecting them.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Yes, some unions have an automatic trigger in their contract that increases wages for certain classifications when the minimum wage increases, that usually happens with the unions representing lower paid workers, so what?

Regarding your second statement about unions asking for an exemption from some wage hikes, here is a statement by a member of the Santa Monica City Council:

"Councilwoman Susan Himmelrich said she was initially opposed to the union exemption, but changed her mind after speaking with several union employees. “What I learned was that most people who work in these low wage jobs would prefer to have a union negotiating on their behalf for better benefits in different aspects of their lives,” she said"

Union members vote on these matters, if they want to ratify a contract that gives them benefits rather than a pay raise, why would you oppose that? I was in a union for over 30 years we regularly made choices like that, give up a pay raise to get better health insurance etc. That is part of the value of unions, employees have a voice in matters affecting them.

If the union members want to vote on it then they can vote how they please. In the Times story the man that works for the hotel thought that the union employees were going to make more money. He did not vote for this. The Union seems to have taken it upon themselves to have this passed.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

If the union members want to vote on it then they can vote how they please. In the Times story the man that works for the hotel thought that the union employees were going to make more money. He did not vote for this. The Union seems to have taken it upon themselves to have this passed.

All union contracts are voted on by the membership for ratification. But no one is forced to vote so perhaps that is why he didn't vote?

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

All union contracts are voted on by the membership for ratification. But no one is forced to vote so perhaps that is why he didn't vote?

True, but this legislation is not a UNION contract. It is a part of the legislation. The Union members did not vote on it. The UNION leaders did voice their thoughts to those writing the legislation and that is how it happened. Forget about what you think goes on with the UNION leadership. They care about themselves and not the rank and file.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

True, but this legislation is not a UNION contract. It is a part of the legislation. The Union members did not vote on it. The UNION leaders did voice their thoughts to those writing the legislation and that is how it happened. Forget about what you think goes on with the UNION leadership. They care about themselves and not the rank and file.

The union contract that would be impacted by the legislation WAS voted on by the membership. I know what goes on with unions and what you are insinuating is incorrect.

[Elliott_CA]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

... Forget about what you think goes on with the UNION leadership. They care about themselves and not the rank and file.

Getting $15/hr passed is proof they do care about the rank and file. Since the rules are stacked against unionizing, they have had a difficult time organizing at many companies, including Wal-Mart. The initiative process was an end run around the anti-union policies of many corporations. Raising the minimum wage puts upward pressure on all wages -- so all workers will benefit, union and non-union. A clever strategy, really.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

The union contract that would be impacted by the legislation WAS voted on by the membership. I know what goes on with unions and what you are insinuating is incorrect.

Im not insinuating anything, I am only reporting on what is allready being talked about in the news. In the articles I posted the rank and file had no idea an exemption would happen for union employees.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Originally Posted by Elliott_CA

Getting $15/hr passed is proof they do care about the rank and file. Since the rules are stacked against unionizing, they have had a difficult time organizing at many companies, including Wal-Mart. The initiative process was an end run around the anti-union policies of many corporations. Raising the minimum wage puts upward pressure on all wages -- so all workers will benefit, union and non-union. A clever strategy, really.

It is true that they helped push it thru. Read the stories though, the exemption to paying the $15 an hour is for companies that hire Union employees. So how exactly does getting a $15 an hour minimum wage passed help union employees when the union went behind the backs of its own people and had the exemption put into place?

Personally the entire minimum wage issue is a big fat lie. Increasing the minimum helps no one.