> Unions in California were criticized in a recent forbes opinion piece I read for wanting to exempt union run shops from the minimum wage, but frankly, that seems like a sensible position to take.
I can sort of see that, because those employees (supposedly) have the union to take care of them. But if below minimum wage isn't enough to live on, below minimum wage plus having to pay union dues isn't enough, either. And "it's legal to do that to union employees but not to non-union employees" reeks of double standard.
I agree and had said so before [1]: it's in the same spirit as "if you make this much, you're doing fine and don't need the overtime laws" or "if you make this much, you can invest in shadier stuff since you have the resources to do your own diligence first".
But that's not to say that unions are favoring the exemption for this more noble reason, and we have to be on guard against abuses of it e.g. a consultant who charges a fee to get your workers classified as being in a worthless, token union so you can pay them less but without giving them enough bargaining power to ensure that the lower amount is still a good deal.
It allows them some leverage over their constituents. For instance, in Michigan, a big union state, there is no state law mandating lunch or other breaks. That way, unions can say to employees, "Without a union, your employer can deny you a lunch or bathroom break."
From a naive perspective, it has historically been ironically anti-union politicians who have backed worker protections, precisely because it takes ammunition away from unions. Why do you need a union if all the benefits are already written into law? Less union shops mean less union voters.
But, to argue for the unions, not only do they negotiate wages, but also benefits. Maybe you aren't getting the minimum wage, but you might be getting better health care, a retirement account, overtime, paid vacation, sick time, flex time, etc. Whereas a non-union employer can say "We're paying a $15 minimum wage so we can't afford health insurance, vacation, etc." With a minimum wage, all you're guaranteed is that wage (other state laws aside).
I fail to see why it is the state's business to write the laws in such a way as to give unions leverage over their constituents.
I also fail to see why other benefits that a union could get should exempt them from minimum wage laws. Employers could give non-union employees benefits, too, but that doesn't exempt them from the minimum wage laws. I fail to see how a union being in the mix should change anything.
It's not that the state writes a law that gives the unions leverage. They write laws to /take away/ leverage from a union.
There's nothing to guarantee any kind of break from work for an employee, unless it's a law or it's part of the agreement between the employer and the employee. So if the state makes it a law, that is one less benefit a union can negotiate for their members.
Giving up 50 cents an hour to get employee provided health care that would, if you had bought it yourself, cost way more then you'd have made seems like a reasonable choice. Remember unions have to have the workers approve any deal, so if they want to make less then minimum wage, it will be for a good reason.
I can sort of see that, because those employees (supposedly) have the union to take care of them. But if below minimum wage isn't enough to live on, below minimum wage plus having to pay union dues isn't enough, either. And "it's legal to do that to union employees but not to non-union employees" reeks of double standard.