UPMC to set minimum wage to $15 (unemployment, community college, income)

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by Moby Hick

Maybe they think the vote would be more fair with public attention and after the NLRB has gone through everything? UPMC has fired employees for trying to organize. Makes it hard to hold a fair vote.

What could be fairer than a secret ballot?


And if the vote is administered by an outfit with no vested interest in the results, people could vote whichever way they want and no one would know which way they cast. And the people running it wouldn't care.


There are ALWAYS employees fired during every organizing drive, its part of the game. The union seeks to get its agents hired as employees to act as moles, and the employer tries to get rid of the new employees that are really union employees and who they deem are only marginally interested in the actual tasks of the employer. I wouldn't put too much weight on that factor.

[Moby Hick]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

What could be fairer than a secret ballot?


And if the vote is administered by an outfit with no vested interest in the results, people could vote whichever way they want and no one would know which way they cast. And the people running it wouldn't care.


There are ALWAYS employees fired during every organizing drive, its part of the game. The union seeks to get its agents hired as employees to act as moles, and the employer tries to get rid of the new employees that are really union employees and who they deem are only marginally interested in the actual tasks of the employer. I wouldn't put too much weight on that factor.

The people fired were long time employees who couldn't have been moles.

[Pughnose]

Originally Posted by Moby Hick

The people fired were long time employees who couldn't have been moles.

Moles Removed at UPMC
...happens every day, right?

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

What could be fairer than a secret ballot?


And if the vote is administered by an outfit with no vested interest in the results, people could vote whichever way they want and no one would know which way they cast. And the people running it wouldn't care.


There are ALWAYS employees fired during every organizing drive, its part of the game. The union seeks to get its agents hired as employees to act as moles, and the employer tries to get rid of the new employees that are really union employees and who they deem are only marginally interested in the actual tasks of the employer. I wouldn't put too much weight on that factor.

The term is salt.

While firing employees (or threatening to do so) is the most egregious flouting of the law and the spirit of labor relations, it's far from the only one. For example employers typically hold captive audience meetings (where the employer can say whatever they want about the union, even outright lies, with the union given no ability to respond) and have mandatory one-on-one meetings with supervisors to intimidate people into voting against the union.

Regardless, the whole argument that a representation election is the employer and union campaigning for workers votes is bunk. The original intent of the National Labor Relations Act was to allow workers the ability to decide among themselves if they wanted a union, and if so, what union they might choose. In the initial organizing period in the 30s and 40s, elections were held 1-3 days after cards were turned in, meaning the boss couldn't have any "campaign" worth speaking of even if the law didn't frown on it in those days.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by eschaton

In the initial organizing period in the 30s and 40s, elections were held 1-3 days after cards were turned in, meaning the boss couldn't have any "campaign" worth speaking of even if the law didn't frown on it in those days.

The 1930's and 40's were a very different age than the current one. I'm not sure that many unions could come into a business and organize in that short of an order today, even if with an unantagonistic employer. VW didn't stand in the way of the UAW over in Chattanooga, yet they still lost. The world has changed, so have the expectations of employees and the unions as well, regardless of the change in attitude of the employers.


When I was a young man, back in the 70's and when the unions had a lot more members, I worked for a few months at a local suburban hotel. To the best of my knowledge there wasn't a union organizing effort at the time, but the hotel brought new employees into a conference room, fed us some danish and coffee, and we got to listen to a lecture about how they liked to keep their business on the property and didn't think that union outsiders would be good for anyone.

[Merge]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

The 1930's and 40's were a very different age than the current one. I'm not sure that many unions could come into a business and organize in that short of an order today, even if with an unantagonistic employer. VW didn't stand in the way of the UAW over in Chattanooga, yet they still lost. The world has changed, so have the expectations of employees and the unions as well, regardless of the change in attitude of the employers.


When I was a young man, back in the 70's and when the unions had a lot more members, I worked for a few months at a local suburban hotel. To the best of my knowledge there wasn't a union organizing effort at the time, but the hotel brought new employees into a conference room, fed us some danish and coffee, and we got to listen to a lecture about how they liked to keep their business on the property and didn't think that union outsiders would be good for anyone.

Danish and Coffee! And you were all, like... yum!

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by Merge

Danish and Coffee! And you were all, like... yum!

The hour I spent was the easier $2.25 I ever made.

[Merge]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

The hour I spent was the easier $2.25 I ever made.

You were a very cheap date!

[stremba]

Originally Posted by theta_sigma

Surely an alternative would be to not pay the CEO $6.5 million, or is that crazy talk?

That's always a nice talking point. The problem is that the math doesn't work out. Even if we assume that the CEO gives ALL of his salary to the rest of the workers at the company (which is, of course, absurd; the CEO does deserve SOME compensation), there is not enough money to make a difference. If we assume that $6.5 million is to be distributed among 40,000 employees, the 40,000 employees get a massive pay increase of $162 per year. Assuming full time employees working 2,080 hours per year (52 weeks x 40 hrs/week), that is an hourly wage increase of approximately $0.08. Sure, you could raise $8 per hour workers' wages to $8.08 by that scheme, but that's not really what we're talking about, is it?

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by stremba

That's always a nice talking point. The problem is that the math doesn't work out. Even if we assume that the CEO gives ALL of his salary to the rest of the workers at the company (which is, of course, absurd; the CEO does deserve SOME compensation), there is not enough money to make a difference. If we assume that $6.5 million is to be distributed among 40,000 employees, the 40,000 employees get a massive pay increase of $162 per year. Assuming full time employees working 2,080 hours per year (52 weeks x 40 hrs/week), that is an hourly wage increase of approximately $0.08. Sure, you could raise $8 per hour workers' wages to $8.08 by that scheme, but that's not really what we're talking about, is it?

Somewhat related: One thing that always stuck out to me is that they closed Braddock Hospital, which was losing $4M a year, while the CEO made $4.5M a year.