Company refuses to reconize employees right to organize

pilotyip

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
13,629
Total Time
14000
Some news is an obligation to report, but sometimes it?s a real pleasure. The latter is the Service Employees International Union?s use of the McDonald?s defense to oppose unionizing its own workers.
The SEIU has hired workers across the country to protest outside businesses and restaurants, especially McDonald?s. Suffice to say they have no union and some don?t make $15 an hour, the union?s nationwide minimum-wage target. At a ?Fight for 15? conference in Richmond, Virginia this month, the protest organizers showed up to demand to unionize themselves. According to the website In These Times, a woman from Las Vegas who works as a union organizer tried to deliver a letter asking the SEIU to confirm it employs them and will allow them to unionize. She was blocked by security.
The SEIU responded that it ?supports the ability of all workers? to unionize, ?including organizers in the Fight for $15.? But the union also claims it doesn?t employ the workers because the organizers are directly employed by individual organizing committees in each city that has a Fight for $15 campaign.
That?s pretty rich considering that most of the money paying the organizers comes directly from the SEIU. It?s also hilarious since the SEIU claims that it should be able to organize all McDonald?s workers everywhere across the country as a single bargaining unit. But McDonald?s operates on a franchise model with individual store owners. Now the SEIU claims its organizers are essentially franchisees.
In 2014 National Labor Relations Board General (NLRB) Counsel Richard Griffin said companies could be held jointly liable for the business practices of its franchisees. In August 2015, the NLRB ruled that a business need only exercise ?indirect? control over workers to be on the hook in labor disputes.
The Union of Union Representatives, which is seeking to represent the organizers, says the SEIU needs to recognize its status as the employer of the organizers and it has filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the NLRB. We look forward to seeing how the SEIU?s new franchise model works out.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/big-labo...nse-1472856614
 

PCL_128

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Posts
15,296
Total Time
5000+
There's a difference between a subsidiary and a franchise. You would think someone workout for the WSJ would know that.
 

pilotyip

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
13,629
Total Time
14000
There's a difference between a subsidiary and a franchise. You would think someone workout for the WSJ would know that.
What about the part where SEIU wants to organize all McDonald's event he one that are franchises? But says employees doing SEIU's work are franchises and cannot organize against them? Sounds confusing.

Anyone looked at what has happened in Seattle with the $15 wage mandate.

[FONT=&quot]WSJ Aug. 14, 2016 6:28 p.m. ET [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Few ideas have been so thoroughly dismantled by reality as minimum-wage laws, which price some jobs out of existence and some workers out of jobs. Yet progressives keep expecting different results, and on Thursday Hillary Clinton endorsed a national increase. So let?s check in on the latest experiment: Seattle?s increase last year seems to be reducing employment.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That?s the finding of a new report by researchers at the University of Washington. The study compared nine months of 2015 in Seattle, where the wage is ticking up gradually and hit $13 an hour in January, with similar areas elsewhere in Washington. The authors produced a statistical model to figure out what Seattle would have looked like if the city?s planners hadn?t increased the wage floor.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The researchers found that the ordinance decreased the low-wage employment rate by about one-percentage point. Median wages went up for those who earned less than $11 an hour in 2014: to $11.14 at the end of 2015, from $9.96. Yet the study notes that only an estimated 73 cents of the increase is owed to the minimum wage. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Students and other supporters protest on the University of Washington campus in Seattle on April 1, 2015. Photo: Associated Press [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The authors say much of the fillip is thanks to a strong economy, which is the best route to higher wages. The job growth rate in Seattle ?tripled the national average between mid-2014 and late 2015.? This helps businesses absorb higher labor costs more easily than, say, Stockton, Calif., where unemployment is 8.3%. Yet nationwide labor-union campaigns like Fight For $15 would pound less prosperous areas of the country with zero regard to economic disparities. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Even so, Seattle?s uptick in hourly wages is offset by a reduction in employment and hours. The ordinance ?modestly held back? employment of low-wage earners, and hours worked ?lagged behind? regional trends, on average four hours each quarter (or 19 minutes a week). Many such individuals moved to take jobs outside the city at ?an elevated rate compared to historical patterns,? says the report.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The progressive response is: So what? The effects are relatively small, and the report didn?t find evidence that businesses are failing at a higher rate. Yet the minimum wage will keep rising to $15 over the next two years (later for small businesses), and the authors predict the long-term consequences are ?likely to be greater.? The business investment cycle is longer than a year, and one question is whether some employers?a fast-food franchisee, for example?will leave town when his lease ends.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]None of this will surprise anyone who understands that increasing the cost of something will reduce the demand for it. Then again, that concept seems to elude both major presidential candidates, who have floated national minimum-wage increases. The results will be the same as in Seattle: Fewer opportunities for the people the law is intended to help. [/FONT]
 
Last edited:

PCL_128

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Posts
15,296
Total Time
5000+
What about the part where SEIU wants to organize all McDonald's event he one that are franchises? But says employees doing SEIU's work are franchises and cannot organize against them? Sounds confusing.


It's confusing because you aren't recognizing the difference between a franchise and an independent entity. SEIU is not setup as a franchise operation. Their local operations are essentially independent, just like ALPA MECs, free to make their own decisions and operate as they see fit. A franchise is much different. You advertise how the franchiser tells you to. You serve what the franchiser tells you to. You price how the franchiser tells you to. Etc. Franchises are basically just a scam that allow a multinational or national corporation to expand exponentially while pushing the costs and the risk off on local operators, but still retaining almost complete control over them. Allowing them to skirt union organizing through this scam would not be acceptable.
 

pilotyip

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
13,629
Total Time
14000
It's confusing because you aren't recognizing the difference between a franchise and an independent entity. SEIU is not setup as a franchise operation. Their local operations are essentially independent, just like ALPA MECs, free to make their own decisions and operate as they see fit. A franchise is much different. You advertise how the franchiser tells you to. You serve what the franchiser tells you to. You price how the franchiser tells you to. Etc. Franchises are basically just a scam that allow a multinational or national corporation to expand exponentially while pushing the costs and the risk off on local operators, but still retaining almost complete control over them. Allowing them to skirt union organizing through this scam would not be acceptable.
Wrong this about a company not wanting to pay a $15/hr wage. It might cause reductions in executive bonuses.
 

PCL_128

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Posts
15,296
Total Time
5000+
Wrong this about a company not wanting to pay a $15/hr wage. It might cause reductions in executive bonuses.


Union leaders don't get bonuses.
 

pilotyip

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
13,629
Total Time
14000
Union leaders don't get bonuses.
Your funny with your artful dodge, I see you could not address the union not wanting to pay what they are trying force on other people to pay.
 

PCL_128

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Posts
15,296
Total Time
5000+
Your funny with your artful dodge, I see you could not address the union not wanting to pay what they are trying force on other people to pay.


You're.

And that's false. The salaries are determined by the locals that hired them, not the national union. You keep ignoring that fact.
 

Imissmypilot

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Posts
536
Total Time
7500
Come on - this is hilarious - my 5 year old can recognize the difference between a temporary contract worker and trained employee.

I have a side business where I employ both day workers and utilize trusted contractors on a longer term basis who for this example I'll refer to as employees. I pay my "employees" a much better rate because I am investing in a long term relationship. My day workers are able to prove themselves as valuable enough to work up to the "employee" status but until then they don't get the benefits of a an "employee". This case is clear these workers were never intended to be brought on as employees.

You are just anti union. It blinds you from recognizing logic.
 
Top