ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net to Work Reform@lemmy.world · 1 年前Cathy, do the math.slrpnk.netimagemessage-square294fedilinkarrow-up11.97Kcross-posted to: antiwork@lemmy.worldantiwork@lemmy.mlselfawarewolves@lemmy.ml
arrow-up11.97KimageCathy, do the math.slrpnk.netByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net to Work Reform@lemmy.world · 1 年前message-square294fedilinkcross-posted to: antiwork@lemmy.worldantiwork@lemmy.mlselfawarewolves@lemmy.ml
minus-squareOBJECTION!@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up2·1 年前 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-squareSheldan@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 年前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.
minus-squareOBJECTION!@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1·edit-21 年前Who’s “we” then, if not non-union members?
minus-squareSheldan@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·edit-21 年前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.
minus-squareOBJECTION!@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 年前 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-up1·1 年前You are saying it’s union members vs non union members being separated. And it’s not.
minus-squareOBJECTION!@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 年前The union members are included in the “we” that contractually makes $0.50/hr more than… union members?
minus-squareSheldan@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 年前The contract negotiated by the unions just defines the minimum, union members can earn more.
minus-squareOBJECTION!@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 年前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.
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.