@[email protected] to Work [email protected] • 2 months agoCathy, do the math.slrpnk.netimagemessage-square202fedilinkarrow-up11.56Kcross-posted to: [email protected][email protected][email protected]
arrow-up11.56KimageCathy, do the math.slrpnk.net@[email protected] to Work [email protected] • 2 months agomessage-square202fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected][email protected][email protected]
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink0•1 month 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@[email protected]linkfedilink0•edit-21 month 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•1 month 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@[email protected]linkfedilink0•1 month agoYou are saying it’s union members vs non union members being separated. And it’s not.
minus-squareOBJECTION!linkfedilink0•1 month agoThe union members are included in the “we” that contractually makes $0.50/hr more than… union members?
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink0•1 month agoThe contract negotiated by the unions just defines the minimum, union members can earn more.
minus-squareOBJECTION!linkfedilink0•1 month 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-square@[email protected]linkfedilink1•1 month 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.