The impetus for today's argument comes from this article published in the L.A. Times that lays out the argument of Rusty Hicks, head of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, to allow exemptions for unionized employers with regard to the new, mandatory $15 an hour minimum wage that was implemented.
The main reason for these exemptions, so Hicks' argument goes, is that workers who are unionized and their employees should be allowed to set their rate of pay at whatever they see fit. Normally, I'd be in lock step with Hicks, because after all, this is America, and one of our fundamental rights should be the ability to determine what our own value is in the free market.
However, in this instance, I'm going to take umbrage with Hicks and his union cohorts, for this simple reason: they were the ones who fought tooth and nail to make sure that the minimum wage was approved. As is always the case, it was cloaked with words of caring for the poor, the underprivileged, none of whom would ever be associated with organized labor. What a joke.
Having worked in various union shops, I can say without question that the only thing that labor leaders care about is the amount of union dues they collect so that they can line their own pockets with fatter salaries. This would be fine, because this is also the American way- get paid as much as you can without violating the law. The big difference here is that once a shop is unionized, workers' rights go out the window. There is nearly never an opportunity for someone to come in and work in an union shop unless they first join the union and pay dues.
In today's age, I find it nearly impossible that anyone, anywhere who is working a legal job is in need of a union. Union leaders come up with great slogans and rally people against corporate big wigs, but they never take the time to mention that they are part of that power structure. They are the 1%, and will continue to be so, as long as there are new recruits in to the system to pay dues. Without that, the system collapses. If time allowed, an analogy to our Social Security crisis could be made, but we'll save that for another day.
So Hicks and his union cohorts force through a minimum wage hike, all the while pretending that it is to benefit the workers that they 'represent'. Once the initiative goes through, and 'private' businesses are subject to the law, the union leaders then petition for an exemption that will allow unionized companies to pay a sub-minimum wage to their employees. Who might benefit from this scenario?
Unions, of course, along with their 'leaders'. By increasing the 'minimum' wage to such a ridiculous level, if unions are given an exemption, companies would be foolish to not allow their businesses to unionize, because it will allow them to keep their labor costs down. The net result is that there is no real gain for the average worker, but there is a money transfer from the lower level (the "99%") to the upper levels (union leaders, or the "1%".)
The rhetoric won't play out that way, because the union leadership is not as dumb as most of the nation is. They'll spin how great a deal it is for their workers, and the members will parrot what they're told, because just like in 1984, it's what you do. You do what is asked of you, and never question why your leaders can't seem to move you forward. This is nothing more than a shell game, and the big losers in the equation are the employees who thought their lot might somehow be improved.
