ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net to Work Reform@lemmy.world · 2 months agoCathy, do the math.slrpnk.netimagemessage-square292fedilinkarrow-up11.98Karrow-down111cross-posted to: [email protected]
arrow-up11.97Karrow-down1imageCathy, do the math.slrpnk.netByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net to Work Reform@lemmy.world · 2 months agomessage-square292fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected]
minus-squareSheldan@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·2 months agoI don’t read it like that. The sentence just says that their pay rate has that amount, not that it is connected to them not being a union member.
minus-squareOBJECTION!@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·edit-22 months agoWho’s “we” then, if not non-union members?
minus-squareSheldan@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·edit-22 months agoThe people the contract is with, maybe all employees of the company have the agreement. You are thinking way too much into that statement, the way I described is the way it works here, and that seems much more likely tbh.
minus-squareOBJECTION!@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·2 months ago The people the contract is with, maybe all employees of the company have the agreement. That’s literally what I’m saying.
minus-squareSheldan@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·2 months agoYou are saying it’s union members vs non union members being separated. And it’s not.
minus-squareOBJECTION!@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·2 months agoThe union members are included in the “we” that contractually makes $0.50/hr more than… union members?
minus-squareSheldan@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·2 months agoThe contract negotiated by the unions just defines the minimum, union members can earn more.
minus-squareOBJECTION!@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·2 months agoI can’t tell if that’s a yes or a no to the question of whether the “we” that gets paid more than union members includes union members.
minus-squareSheldan@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·2 months agoYes, because the union contract defines the absolute minimum of the rate, and union members can also earn more. This will be my last response, it’s frustrating, these are basic principles of how these contracts work and I’m tired of explaining it.
I don’t read it like that. The sentence just says that their pay rate has that amount, not that it is connected to them not being a union member.
Who’s “we” then, if not non-union members?
The people the contract is with, maybe all employees of the company have the agreement.
You are thinking way too much into that statement, the way I described is the way it works here, and that seems much more likely tbh.
That’s literally what I’m saying.
You are saying it’s union members vs non union members being separated.
And it’s not.
The union members are included in the “we” that contractually makes $0.50/hr more than… union members?
The contract negotiated by the unions just defines the minimum, union members can earn more.
I can’t tell if that’s a yes or a no to the question of whether the “we” that gets paid more than union members includes union members.
Yes, because the union contract defines the absolute minimum of the rate, and union members can also earn more.
This will be my last response, it’s frustrating, these are basic principles of how these contracts work and I’m tired of explaining it.