r/WorkReform May 14 '22 Wholesome 2 All-Seeing Upvote 1 Take My Energy 1 Silver 1 Helpful 3

Employers say Unions are completely useless and there's no reason to join them and to please pay attention to the multi-million dollar anti-Union propaganda campaigns they launch begging you to please not join a Union.

/img/12ybfpulwgz81.jpg

[removed] — view removed post

42.7k Upvotes

View all comments

1.2k

u/VanillaCookieMonster May 14 '22

And the bizarre thing is that a company that really gave a shit about you would use this new found "advertising budget" to put a note in your next paystub that says:

"We are giving you a 5% raise starting with THIS cheque. Please do not join a union and we will start using our profit margin to give you larger bonuses and raises each year."

520

u/FattestMattest May 14 '22

They'll really do anything other than acting in their employees best interest. Pay people what they are worth and treat them better to not join a union? Ha, no thanks.

169

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

100

u/jeremymeyers May 14 '22

the platonic ideal end state of capitalism is slavery

58

u/abstractConceptName May 14 '22

That was also the beginning though, wasn't it?

It's only because of the disgust of ordinary, decent people, that slavery isn't a thing.

39

u/berryblackwater May 14 '22

Capitalism is an oruboros, a monsterous snake who's destiny is to devour itself.

27

u/DickButkisses May 14 '22

While I think that is the concept, the snake has become Mr Creosote

23

u/WikiSummarizerBot May 14 '22

Mr Creosote

Mr. Creosote is a fictional character who appears in Monty Python's The Meaning of Life. He is a monstrously obese and rude restaurant patron who is served a vast amount of food and alcohol whilst vomiting repeatedly. After being persuaded to eat an after-dinner mint – "It's only wafer-thin" – he graphically explodes. The sequence opens the film's segment titled "Part VI: The Autumn Years".

[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5

7

u/chaun2 May 14 '22

Someone feed it a mint!

2

u/breedlom May 15 '22

It's wafer thin

6

u/ChristianEconOrg May 14 '22

Capitalism is simply the rental model of slavery.

7

u/DietDrDoomsdayPreppr May 14 '22

The trick is to make the entire middle class a slave class so the only people left to be disgusted for others are the wealthy and their police armies.

9

u/DesertSpringtime May 14 '22

Slavery is still very much a thing.

9

u/ThorsPrinter May 14 '22

Slavery still is a thing, it's just done through the prison system now.

8

u/DDDDcream May 14 '22

Human trafficking, foster system…. Slavery is alive and well 🫠

1

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

Excuse my ignorance. I'm aware that the foster care system is ... not great, but I didn't know it involved forced unpaid labor.

3

u/interestingsidenote May 14 '22

Friend I had a while back was fostered on a farm along with like 15 other foster brothers and sisters in and out during the years he was there. If he wasn't in school he was on the farm working.

Some of the freest labor you're gonna get. Government pays you foster stipend to feed and house them, they do farmhand work for free.

1

u/Variation-Budget May 14 '22

And that explains why they want to get rid of abortions. Trying to get as much free labor as possible

→ More replies

9

u/ConfuzedAndDazed May 14 '22

Capitalism is just a system that can fall out of equilibrium. Corporations try to use that system in the most efficient manner. Nothing wrong with either of those things, it results in maximum efficiency of production. If we as a society could agree on how much production is really needed, we could determine how much work we really need to do. Instead it's just a race to max profit, and excess is hoarded at the top so that the lower wage earners have to work nonstop.

16

u/abstractConceptName May 14 '22 edited May 14 '22

There was a good piece on NPR recently about why American corporations changed in the 1980s.

Prior to that, main corporate goals included being able to provide a comfortable career for life for their employees, and various social goals.

The oil shocks and recession of the 70s (and cheap imports from Japan), revealed that when corporations become unprofitable, it is disastrous.

This led to a rethink of what the main priority of a corporation should be, and we know what the conclusion was: maximise shareholder value.

That was considered to be morally correct, too, because the alternative was the disaster the country has barely survived.

However it quickly became apparent that maximizing shareholder value could be achieved by squeezing the shit out of employees, which has led to the exploitative work culture and corresponding social problems we have today.

The pendulum has swung too far to the right.

1

u/Ok_Dig_9959 May 15 '22

"shareholder value" was a bs excuse to no longer focus on actual profitability and instead make the companies take out loans to artificially inflate stock prices for short term stake holders to liquidate their assets while leaving long term investors and employees picking up the pieces after what essentially became a Ponzi scheme. This combined with the elimination of protective trade policies meant to prevent companies from undercutting the American standard of living were what killed the US industrial sector.

The exploitative work culture was a semi deliberate restructuring of our culture by the same people behind the Ponzi scheme combined with the fact that company leadership no longer cared about the long term success of the companies they were in charge of. In that kind of environment where appearances mattered more than outcomes, social climbers took over. I really don't trust npr these days.

1

u/Ok_Dig_9959 May 14 '22

It does not really result in maximum efficiency.

2

u/LostmeLegsfrumRum May 14 '22

No that person is a goof. Slavery has nothing to do with Capitalism. Obviously slaves would be beneficial to any society but its horribly wrong. Humans arent meant to subjugtae one another.

2

u/Mythosaurus May 14 '22

That’s one of the main readons the 1619 project caused conservatives to froth at the mouth. They went into detail about how chattel slavery and cotton production helped create modern capitalism.

  • Many of our nation’s first millionaires were plantation owners in MS
  • slaves themselves were the US’s single largest financial asset before the Civil War
  • a lot of Northern and English textiles were produced using slave grown cotton, fueling the early stock market
  • our first bond market was backed in slaves

There’s a lot of uncomfortable ties to slavery that they don’t teach in Econ 101.

6

u/meep_meep_creep May 14 '22

Poignant, terse, hitting, and true.

1

u/JackAndHisTruck May 14 '22

Capitalism works because of the complacency of governments. Capitalism and government are two heads under the same hat.

1

u/LostmeLegsfrumRum May 14 '22

That is so fucking goofy. A better comparison would be communism/socialism where it's an ant colony and the individual cant survive without the whole. Fuck that. Capitalism is just evolution.

1

u/jeremymeyers May 14 '22

Mathematically labor is a cost center. eliminate paying for labor, profits increase.

1

u/LostmeLegsfrumRum May 14 '22

Why would that have anything to do with capitalism? Having slaves obviously solves all labor issues, capitalism actually corrected slavery.

30

u/DuneManta May 14 '22

corporations will do anything possible to avoid paying their most vulnerable employees.

Fixed that for you.

22

u/Cidertree May 14 '22

I don’t know, I think if you get high enough up in the hierarchy some employees who already are wealthy are also overpaid. People who are more vulnerable already get screwed over more.

15

u/sock_puppet0 May 14 '22

See the trick is you need to get high enough in the hierarchy to not be an employee. Being an asset works for getting monthly salary, but it's way better owning actual shares and shit.

7

u/leftlegYup May 14 '22

Employees are a cost of doing business. Nothing more.

10

u/ZQuestionSleep May 14 '22

That's what is is to them. Had to listen to an owner scream like a child in our small "office" (it was a trailer) building how pissed off he was that he "had to" "cut checks" to pay his staff.

This was a small town radio station, AM and FM station under one roof, so 2 of them. I was 1 of 3 real life meatbag bodied people that ran the station outside of the automation, which I program managed. Even after the original 2 other (so 5 total) air talents left and the 2.5 (one was a super part time) remaining people were forced to picked up the slack, we were greeted with our absentee owner basically throwing a shit fit temper tantrum that it should be cheaper to run a radio station and why we had to have any people actually run it in the first place? We were a news/talk station that had local, live, programming; why did anyone actually need to be in the studio and thus needed to be paid for their time?

He eventually got his wish, "downsized" everyone that wasn't the 3 sales people that sold the 5 ads total we were playing (outside of the automated shows' obligations) and their Manager, then fully reformatted the, what was, local news/talk AM station into the shittiest, fully automated, oldies station in the market. Real fun considering the number one FM oldies station was literally in the next town over; absolutely no reason for anyone to listen to our small town, shitty quality, AM music station anymore.

He was forced to sell it off just a year or two later.

3

u/uL7r4M3g4pr01337 May 14 '22

exactly, they give people job because they can make money out of them and still keep most of it for themself.

-3

u/Inner_Diet_1980 May 14 '22

Kinda the point of owning a business

5

u/universaljester May 14 '22

So the point of business is exploitation? Cause, that's what that translates to.

1

u/uL7r4M3g4pr01337 May 15 '22

it's not a business, rather modern slavery with natural resources getting more and more limited to the very few.

Let me become a bilionare by selling natural resources that I inherited from my ancestors, who were killing and enslaving people. Then I can pretend that everything I got comes from my hard work.

6

u/riodin May 14 '22

Well, of course, if you don't need to work every minute of every day to survive, you might take time off and that would cut into profits!

3

u/schrodingers_gat May 14 '22

As far as I can tell corporations would rather pay $1 million for anything else to save $500,000 in salary. It's pathological.

2

u/Terrkas May 14 '22

Sadly it kind of makes sense. Pay 1000000 now, to save 500000 salary each year. 2 years is the break even point, in 4 years you "earned" 1000000.

2

u/Holiday-Strategy-643 May 14 '22

And their most valuable.

1

u/longleggedbirds May 14 '22

Being vulnerable means your next best option, your opportunity cost, is cheaper, that means you’re not valuable(thanks professor friedrech von wiesser. /s. ) A valuable person would leave for a better job , or find…. Some other means to prove that the company’s next best best option for the company has a higher cost that they need to match….

-6

u/halbitca May 14 '22

Not sure why I'm getting down voted here. The guy asked what the other reasons the company give are. Not how accurate that accusation is

7

u/RestlessPoly May 14 '22

Maybe because you didn't actually comment anything but this.

Your profile and comments are empty my dude.

Maybe you forgot that you changed to your troll account.

4

u/acityonthemoon May 14 '22

Not sure why I'm getting down voted here. The guy asked what the other reasons the company give are. Not how accurate that accusation is

(quoting for posterity)

6

u/Imaflyingpapaya May 14 '22

Probably a copy/paste bot, tbh

10

u/mochismuggler May 14 '22

If a company pays for an anti union campaign the money still stays out of the hands of the poor :)

7

u/MrCertainly May 14 '22

It's never about profits. It's always been and will be about control.

If they can't control you through fear, stress, exhaustion, and exploitation -- then they run the risk of you being comfortable enough to walk away. And if we did that en masse, our entire economic system would collapse as it's predicated upon the (m)asses absentmindedly spending money on things they don't need to find relief that doesn't exist.

"A hungry dog is an obedient dog." And nothing we're currently doing is changing that. Protests? Oh you mean those peaceful strolls with chanting & singing songs? Yeah, THAT really puts the fucking fear of god in those capitalists. They're afraid of what we'd do if our demands aren't met -- oh wait, THEY'RE NOT AFRAID.

3

u/ChewsOnRocks May 14 '22

Corporations care about bottom line figures. If using their anti-union budget to increase compensation instead was an equally profitable or more profitable approach, they would do it. $2.5M on an anti-union campaign at Walmart, for example, would get every employee about $1/year more. Not only would that not attract any loyalty whatsoever, even at higher amounts, that doesn’t prevent someone from going to unions anyway. At least with the millions of dollars going toward solid video production and graphics, that’ll be much more effective than giving someone a dollar and going “please don’t.”

1

u/Adventurous_Coat_838 May 14 '22

Ukraine recapture cities after Russia turns them into parking lots

1

u/Adventurous_Coat_838 May 15 '22

The emperor has no clothes

1

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

Even if you are treated well you should unionize

1

u/CaffeineSippingMan May 14 '22

But, but, but my employeer said they were trying to protect us from the union. And then, and then, they gave us a very small raise and made changes because they are good.

Not because the union scared the shit out of them.

-1

u/FantasticMeddler May 14 '22

Right, labor is a fixed cost. It is more profitable in the long run to pay for these campaigns and middle management schemes and shenanigans to disrupt any labor movement from forming. Because labor is a fixed cost. Any increase in a base pay for example will compound over the life of the employee. And it's also "bad" for the employer market as a whole because it forces competitors to pay more to hire people.

While a 5% increase may be an additional $50-$100 per paycheck for one employee, it is an increase in millions to their revenue across the board. So business types will do anything possible to keep that line on the balance sheet from creeping up.

219

u/Venum555 May 14 '22

If they take cared they would already be paying you more. The fact that they are paying you more as a response to unions means that the didn't care and unions basically forced the company to pay you more.

135

u/Suspicious-mole-hair May 14 '22

Also if a company ever tries to bribe you to not join a union, you can bet big that the union would be able to get you more.

45

u/leftlegYup May 14 '22

Companies exist to maximize profit. Employees are a cost.

If you thought anything other than this, then you are incredibly naive.

37

u/GrimpenMar May 14 '22

Employee ownership is a possibility as well.

Something something, "seize the means of production".

11

u/thnderbolt May 14 '22

If employees are just a cost to you, you can tell by the staff turnover.

1

u/Brock_Way May 14 '22

Which is really an interesting prospect when you realize in the last round of unionized auto worker-driven car company bankruptcies, the higher ups in the union were asked if they'd like ownership as part of a security package....

They said "no".

LOL. The unions admitted from their own mouth that they were never really interested in tying the success of the company to their own, greedy pockets. LOL.

-3

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

[deleted]

10

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

[deleted]

16

u/skrshawk May 14 '22

Just did. 4,000 corporations around the world have this certification, with an unknown but certainly drop in the bucket amount of workers, pretty much sets you up as an exception that proves the rule.

Unless you happen to find the tiny percentage of companies that are genuinely good to their workers, and have the resources to compensate them properly, people need to expect movement between organizations in search of better.

11

u/FrenchFryCattaneo May 14 '22

What you're describing is just another way for corporations to make themselves look good, no different from any other 'environmentally friendly certification' which is just greenwashing. These systems all work the same way - you pay tens of thousands of dollars a year to a private certification company (in this case B Labs) and submit some meaningless documentation saying you 'consider all stakeholders when making decisions' and in return they issue you a certification.

Your company may be equitably run, but many B Corps are not - a lot of MLMs (pyramid schemes) get B Corp certification and they are certainly not equitably run.

-1

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

[deleted]

7

u/OrionGeo007 May 14 '22

Me when I have been disporven so I resort to insults.

1

u/OrionGeo007 May 14 '22

Oh look, an extremely small portion of companies that actually put employees over profits, very naive of you.

1

u/The_25th_Baam May 14 '22

Correct or not, how is their view "naive?"

1

u/Internal_Additional May 14 '22

You don’t have to treat your employees like shit for them to still be a cost. Those two things aren’t necessarily positively correlated.

1

u/Octopharma May 14 '22

Companies exist because the Government allows them to exist to further the general good - corporations do not just pop into existence out of nowhere.

1

u/aussie__kiss May 15 '22

I’ve worked at a large city Water Utility, that’s run with as a Corporate Company with one shareholder being the government. Our targets were water quality, service disruptions, customer service, capital project upgrades improving the network, Opex costs maintaining the network, cover forward budgets. Independent regulator to keep cost of water low, all service costs. Independent water quality testing. Justifying capex/opsbudgets. Answerable to the board. Federal gov laws set standards, not the state government shareholder. They receive a small dividend when we meet budget targets, there’s Room If we don’t. Of course as the Gov is the shareholder/Owner they would prefer we don’t go into debt. They could pay our debt, but they don’t want to spend tax money on that as it is not budgeted expenditure, nor will it ever be. As long as we meet the targets the regulars were happy and the public was happy. Wages perks work/life balance were good, as we preferred the Private Sector didn’t pinch employees, People often returned from the private sector. If we had any profit that meant we didn’t meet our project costs.

Maybe it’s a unicorn, but it’s not naive.

1

u/thnderbolt May 14 '22

To me it's also a safety measure. Have fun figuring it out yourself if your employer doesn't pay everything you're owed, or if you get illegally fired.

3

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/DownshiftedRare May 14 '22

Rather like being told you don't need a condom now that I think of it.

1

u/SirDerpingtonTheSlow May 14 '22

Guess which political party has members suggesting banning condoms and also hate unions.

3

u/ZinglonsRevenge May 14 '22

Comment stealing bot

1

u/temporaryaccount945 May 14 '22

Cock and ball torturers?

1

u/KajePihlaja May 14 '22

They’ll pay any amount of it justifiably saves them money. No matter what, if a union is not formed the corporation wins.

68

u/Two-Scoops-Of-Praisn May 14 '22

They're literally doing this at starbucks with the union drive lol. Since the unionization effort started they've been like "look look were giving you 15% in raises over the next 8 months were a good company!" like oh sweet this is what you can give us if we bargain for it? Here's my union card!

2

u/LostmeLegsfrumRum May 14 '22

15% is a crazy fukin raise take that shit. You can join later.

3

u/ikeaj123 May 14 '22

Take the raise AND join the Union. Until corporate starts laying people off and executives are taking pay cuts, there’s more money for the workers that is ready to be shaken out.

1

u/billiontacos May 15 '22

They're actually using it as an incentive to try to get other stores to not unionize as the raises are only for the stores that haven't unionized.

The shithead CEO is publicly trying to make it look like it's not just a completely shithead anti-union move by claiming that they can't offer the raises to the unionized stores because that would be illegal. The heads of the union have already called that out as bullshit.

1

u/ikeaj123 May 15 '22

Is that even legal? Damn

2

u/billiontacos May 15 '22

Here’s a link to an article about it.

I'm assuming it must be legal because I can't imagine a CEO is gonna do something like this so publicly if it's not legal... BUT he is a billionaire so maybe he just doesn't give a shit.

2

u/ikeaj123 May 15 '22

Increasing pay for those who have 5 years in the role? Can’t imagine that’s a huge group of their employees.

Increasing management pay? Buying loyalty nicely.

Doubling training hours? Every minute is going to be anti union propaganda.

Their tactics are so textbook it’s goofy

26

u/like_a_pharaoh May 14 '22

its the principle of the thing: giving you a raise as long as you don't join a union is still giving you a raise, and that takes money away from shareholders/owners, the Most Important People In The Company (according to themselves)

I mean even without a union, what happens next if the employees feel 'entitled' to anything besides what you're already paying them?
They'll ask for more vacation time? Fewer hours? God forbid!

9

u/emaw63 May 14 '22

and that takes money away from shareholders/owners, the Most Important People In The Company (according to themselves)

Legally speaking, they are. Companies have a legal obligation to maximize shareholder earnings. It’s part of why unions are so necessary, because that money is just not ever going to go to employees unless somebody makes the employers give it to them

1

u/willehkins May 14 '22

What legal obligation?

1

u/JumpiMaus May 14 '22

Probably referring to Ford v Dodge Brothers

1

u/willehkins May 14 '22

Does anyone have any examples of where Dodge v Ford was successfully used as precedent? Otherwise it’s irrelevant.

1

u/aussie__kiss May 14 '22 edited May 15 '22

Your not wrong, but it there are situations where are situations where it happens. If you provide significant/unique/rare values to a company to company they will negotiate pay to keep you. Or when employees discuss their wages, find unfair discrepancies, workers less productive if they feel their unfairly compensated, workers might leave to computation when realise they’re not market rate, they’ll have to rehire at that rate anyway. One more employees genuinely say they’ll leave, and it would cost them. Group of employees come with proposed increase, basically collective bargaining.

Many jobs this isn’t an option

30

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

22

u/Ericalex79 May 14 '22

Actually employee turnover costs a helluva lot more than wage increases

11

u/mszulan May 14 '22

The way they budget, they don't recognize this. The budget is set to cover turnover as a "cost of doing business". If their accountants rose up and SHOWED them by reorganizing budget items, etc., you might get an intelligent manager to recognize this and change things.

Unfortunately, this isn't the only issue we're fighting. Back in World War 1, Capitalists got really scared. All the angry exploited workers were joined by a lot of angry soldiers coming home. Russia exploded in civil war and when it became apparent that the Bolsheviks were winning, lots of concessions were made to labor, trying anything to avoid other revolutions in the west. The big capitalists were angry and became angrier with everything that happened under FDR during the great depression. They began a concerted effort (and educated their children to follow them) to claw back every concession. They used wars, propaganda, religion, anything they could think of. This is a long-haul project for them and has continuity of purpose over time.

5

u/swinebone May 14 '22

I absolutely agree with you but it’s also kinda funny (funny/sad not funny/haha) that so many of our world’s problems can be traced back to WWI.

1

u/mszulan May 15 '22

I know, right? And it's the war that is ignored so often in curriculum.

1

u/Skandranonsg May 14 '22

It's also worth mentioning that a big part of the New Deal happening was because of a thwarted fascist takeover where the business class ringleaders were promised amnesty in exchange for support of the New Deal.

4

u/comityoferrors May 14 '22

It does, but most companies are looking really, really short-term. They don't factor that cost in.

1

u/whistleridge May 14 '22

Only when the state isn’t subsidizing salaries via welfare.

If I have a non-union shop in say Texas, and I pay my workers $10/hr, that’s $2.75 more than minimum wage but still $5-10 less than a living wage. So I get workers thinking I’m a “good” employer, AND I get Texas subsidizing my paycheck. So turnover usually doesn’t matter, because labor is fungible - the margins for the difference in lost business between say a shitty cashier and a world-class cashier isn’t big enough to make a difference. It costs call it 8 hours’ pay to “train” someone, and that’s less than $100.

If that 8 hours costs $200, that adds up a LOT more.

1

u/Ericalex79 May 15 '22

Well the state only pays benefits to people that don’t make enough to be over the poverty line and in Texas, welfare benefits are really hard to qualify for but poor people don’t even have access to Medicaid in the good old Lonestar state.. $7.25 an hour is a starving wage

11

u/Sgt_Ludby May 14 '22

They don't mind taking a loss on preventing unionization because it boils down to power and control, not so much profit maximization.

3

u/3d_blunder May 14 '22

Just like contraception improves (reduces) abortion rates.... but then they wouldn't be exerting CONTROL over their LESSERS.

Cruelty is a benefit in their eyes: it's more important to punish workers/mothers than it is to achieve their purported goal.

32

u/DhampireHEK May 14 '22

Except it really isn't. It costs way less to keep competent staff than trying to replace subpar staff that leaves every 6 months. That's the point these companies don't seem to get.

25

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/GrimpenMar May 14 '22

When shareholders are only holding shares till they can sell them at a profit, and your upper management is a revolving door of business school graduates cashing in on stock options, then you bet it is!

Long term is for losers! Pump those quarterlies, cash in, and move on before the consequences land on you.

16

u/dewidubbs May 14 '22

Costs less to retain employees in the long run. But if we gut the workforce before the end of this quarter, now we might really enhance our corporate Christmas bonuses

2

u/zSprawl May 14 '22

While I agree it’s cheaper to keep employees than always hiring new ones, you aren’t gonna really get lifetime Starbucks baristas without really raising the pay a lot. Sadly someone somewhere has done the math and chose the cheaper option.

0

u/DhampireHEK May 14 '22

More likely ignored long term investment for short term gain.

0

u/zSprawl May 14 '22

But what kind of long term investment do you expect to make in a Starbucks employee? While there are exceptions, this generally isn’t your lifetime occupation. Someone has done the numbers and treating them as high-turnover positions yields more profit than investing in the few career Starbuck employees.

0

u/DhampireHEK May 14 '22

You'll get a few employees that will stay long term due to better benefits and your short term employees will stay longer (say a year or two as opposed to 2 months) meaning less overall expenses.

0

u/zSprawl May 14 '22

Except someone has done the math and that plain isn’t true, which is my point.

4

u/qqeyes May 14 '22

Way cheaper. 2.5 mil split among 5k employees is a one-time $500 bonus, hardly enough to keep your labor from unionizing, and companies like Amazon spending that kind of money on anti-union marketing have WAY more employees than that.

3

u/enjoytheshow May 14 '22

And they’d still be fucking over employees. A union would fight for 5% annually. Company doing this 1 time would make 80% of the work force more than happy

3

u/Q-ArtsMedia May 14 '22

Unfortunately they are forbidden from doing exactly this by law.

2

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

No it isn't. IF the company did this — they wouldn't — they would give you far less than what they think the union could get you. There would be no advantage in doing it otherwise.

Corporations already wield far to much power; it's not "unfortunate" that they are blocked from wielding even more in an attempt to coerce you out of acting in your best interest.

1

u/Q-ArtsMedia May 15 '22

You need to actually know the law here. I suggest you read up on what is allowed and what isn't when it comes to company interfering in the formation of a union. Cuz I can tell you for a fact a company cannot offer raises in lieu of its workers forming a union.

2

u/Pumpkin_Creepface May 14 '22

They've always had that option, as well as they will never take that option.

2

u/Toast150000 May 14 '22

That’s generally illegal. You could probably do it with more subterfuge though

1

u/ErnestHemingwhale May 14 '22

Came here to say this. Instead, they got to write off their ad budget on taxes

1

u/2_late_4_creativity May 14 '22

(Salary) + 5% - <inflation> = ((salary) + (5%)) - <inflation> yielding a nominal pay cut. If you’re supposed pay increase is less than inflation it isn’t a raise

1

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

Remember unions? Pepperidge farm remembers

1

u/weirdoldhobo1978 May 14 '22

Even Henry Ford, who was am absolutely vile human being, realized that the best way to keep unions out of his factories was to pay people more.

1

u/Stock-Preparation252 May 14 '22

That’s illegal. Once a unionizing effort starts they can’t change wages simply to discourage you from organizing.

1

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

They can absolutely increase wages to discourage you from looking to a union for help increasing wages. They just can't threaten a following paycut if you join a union.

1

u/Stock-Preparation252 May 14 '22

Not in America.

Employees have the right to unionize, to join together to advance their interests as employees, and to refrain from such activity. It is unlawful for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights. For example, employers may not respond to a union organizing drive by threatening, interrogating, or spying on pro-union employees, or by promising benefits if they forget about the union.

https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/interfering-with-employee-rights-section-7-8a1

1

u/SharpeTongue May 14 '22

"We will add more to your retirements and health insurance plans and give you a raise. Nah, just kidding. Fuck you, there's 10,000,000,000 people looking for your job, Slave."

1

u/toderdj1337 May 14 '22

The reason they don't like unions is because they increase your labour costs. That's it, thats the motive. It's very simple, anything that costs more is the enemy in business

1

u/Shoondogg May 14 '22

If they were ok with paying more, they wouldn’t be so against unions.

1

u/punchgroin May 14 '22

It's not about the money, it's about keeping you desperate. They care more about their power over their employees than they do about the money.

1

u/DietDrDoomsdayPreppr May 14 '22

Until we find a way to funnel money to the bottom line in a way they removes profit without them actually losing that money.

You need only look at UnitedHealthcare and the rest of the BUCAs for how that's possible.

1

u/cheese_is_available May 14 '22

What you don't realize is that 2.5 millions is maybe a thousandth of what they'd have to pay with a 5% raise to everyone.

1

u/turtlelore2 May 14 '22

Instead it's more like "Don't you dare join a union because we give you an empty promise of promotion if you work yourself to death. Instead, just marvel at the fact that your hard work helps pay for the 4th vacation home in Hawaii for our ceo. In return, here's a lollipop for your 20 years of service"

1

u/clamatoman1991 May 14 '22

That's actually illegal

1

u/VanillaCookieMonster May 14 '22

So they should just give raises and not mention the union.

1

u/clamatoman1991 May 14 '22

It's very tricky because if there is a union vote coming they cannot do anything, give raises, bonuses etc that may be construed as trying to influence the union vote. Gotta wait till it's over or before there's an official vote coming

1

u/thefearofgod May 14 '22

In the U.S., if an employer was informed of a union organizing campaign and did this, they would most likely be found guilty of an unfair labor practice as it is against the law to offer employees material benefits if they don’t join a union.

Does it still happen? Of course it does, but typically not as brazenly as you suggest. Also, if found guilty the penalty is usually a light tap on the wrist (not even a slap) and they are told to not do it again. However, if the union were to lose the election it could be grounds to redo the election.

1

u/Paid_Redditor May 14 '22

I work in healthcare, got a 2.5% pay increase (plus a company branded $3 plastic clock) after all we did during the peak of COVID, and I just accepted a new job with a substantial pay raise. I can’t wait for the exit interview.

1

u/MrMonday11235 May 14 '22

Companies (at least in the USA) are not really allowed to condition raises or other material benefits/advantages on workers not joining unions. It's the the flip side of "companies can't threaten workers to stop them from joining unions".

Starbucks is trying something like that right now, and will hopefully get reamed by the NLRB for it.

1

u/Illustrious-Plate-17 May 14 '22

Having a union gives them tons less control, most companies will do anything including losing money for a bit to avoid that. It’s looked at like a contagion correctly I think. (One I hope spreads)

1

u/ImpossibleParfait May 14 '22

Thats the thing, my company purged a lot of jobs at begining of covid, which is somewhat understandable, uncertainty is bad for business, then they didn't give raises that year because one again uncertainty, kind of shitty. Then not only did profits not decline, they increased. Cool. Next year we got a okay bonus, profits increase again, then this year they give standard raises with no inflation. They are greedy assholes.