@ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net to Work Reform@lemmy.world • 2 days agoCathy, do the math.slrpnk.netimagemessage-square296fedilinkarrow-up11.93Karrow-down111
arrow-up11.92Karrow-down1imageCathy, do the math.slrpnk.net@ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net to Work Reform@lemmy.world • 2 days agomessage-square296fedilink
minus-squareOBJECTION!linkfedilink1•2 days ago My contract states that we make $0.50/hr above union wages You may be right, but it certainly sounds like she’s claiming it’s contractual, explicit, and general policy.
minus-square@Sheldan@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink1•1 day 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-square@Sheldan@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink1•edit-220 hours 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!linkfedilink0•16 hours ago The people the contract is with, maybe all employees of the company have the agreement. That’s literally what I’m saying.
minus-square@Sheldan@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink0•12 hours agoYou are saying it’s union members vs non union members being separated. And it’s not.
minus-squareOBJECTION!linkfedilink0•12 hours agoThe union members are included in the “we” that contractually makes $0.50/hr more than… union members?
minus-square@Sheldan@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink1•10 hours agoThe contract negotiated by the unions just defines the minimum, union members can earn more.
minus-squareOBJECTION!linkfedilink0•5 hours 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.
You may be right, but it certainly sounds like she’s claiming it’s contractual, explicit, and general policy.
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.