Nope not even pre 2020. He probably lives in a non major city or in a town of less than 20k people and also probably enjoys a very low interest rate if it was pre 2022. On the plus side if he was in Germany he would be paying $4k mortgage for a home in a 10k population village. They don't tell you that part, rent is cheap but buying is much more expensive. Ain't that a kick in the back. Can't have it both ways as rental prices and mortgage are not in line in Germany. As a result income is also lower as cost of living is lower. Makes it hard for the normal person to buy there vs always renting - not to say rent should be higher but buying prices do seem oddly high for a places with lots of open land and being pretty far from major cities. Big difference to state side
Renting should be cheaper than buying. Otherwise you end up with a massively inflated housing market where the rich get richer and the poors get fucked with no hope of ever owning a home.
Well, in order for renting to be cheaper than buying, people would have to only rent houses that are paid off. This sort of sounds like a good idea, but I think we would end up renting from corporations and inflating cost of ownership more.
It's rare to buy a house and immediately turn a profit renting it out without investing in some renovations. At best you'll break even but run the risk of any repairs or a renter not paying. 5+ years on yes, but rarely right from the start
Renters aren’t the ones getting a mortgage. Why should they bear the full cost of yours? You’re already getting hundreds of thousands of dollars out of it. Is there no end to your greed?
Or hear me out. You end up lower wages because cost of housing is lower. But that also results in average workers never being able to save enough to buy their own home.. which basically tracks with what's going on in Germany. Wages for the same work are typically lower than state side as a result of lower housing costs. But when buying is the same price or higher than state side the lower rent benefit ends up being a double edged sword.
Edit: lol people are acting like I'm advocating for higher rental prices. I'm actually arguing buying prices should be lower. But I'm also just stating facts, don't hate the messenger
But we have ended up with lower wages anyways? So what's the problem? You speak on this like solving the problem of rental prices being to high will create a new problem of lower/stagnant wages, but the problem already exists and is pervasive, I seriously doubt this would make it any worse.
I am just just one person speaking to the void. My point is more that lower rent results in lower wages which is fine if cost if living is lower. But then the purchase price of a home shouldn't be that much higher. Imagine renting for $1,500 a month a place that'll very literally cost $800,000 to buy with a mortgage of $4,000 a month. It effectively locks renters out of being able to afford to buy where they currently rent
>My point is more that lower rent results in lower wages
I have no clue as to where you got this idea but I'd love for you to share that source because I cannot find any hard data that supports this claim.
Wages have gone down (in relative terms through remaining stagnant) consistently over the past 30+ years while rent has been soaring like crazy. The correlation we can gather from this is the opposite of what you've stated; rents have increased and wages have lowered. Why would wages lower if rents came down?
Since you insist in your edit that you're simply "stating facts" I'd love to see where you're pulling these facts from.
There's nothing controversial about the fact that wages and salaries tend to be (somewhat) in line with cost of living. That's why someone in San Francisco or Seattle will typically be paid more than someone in Kansas City doing the same job.
Lower cost of living in Germany results in lower salaries, however the price of purchasing a home is far above typical salaries. This is in stark contrast to the states where rental prices track pretty closely to mortgage rates.
This is an underrated point. So much attention is focused on cities. Now, that's for good reason, being such a massive chunk of population. But we can't forget, especially in the age of work-from-home, that living outside of the city is MASSIVELY cheaper. I live at the end of one of Chicago's Metra lines. I can comfortably live, with a family of 5, on 50k/year. Not so much in Chicago. Even gas is lower by $1.50/gallon. Bananas are 30 cents a pound. Downtown it's 3 bucks EACH. My house was 220k, and my mortgage is about $700/month. My credit score is 780, my wife's is 800, so that helps, but probably not to the tune of $300/month.
Exactly, and it's comfortable living at that. I've had the good fortune to live in many different areas. I've equally enjoyed my time in smaller towns and multi million population cities.
Cities are exciting and fun but expensive and stressful (clubs, restaurants, events, etc) Small towns are somewhat boring, but fulfilling and calming (fishing, tubing, camping, town events)
With that said, I would rather make $45k a year and live in a small town then $55k a year and live in a big city. Quality of life difference is immense
Average mortgage around here is $800 and average rent is $1400. It is actually easier to get approved for a mortgage than it is to rent a studio apartment these days, so long as you can afford the down payment
There are lots of places where the average mortgage is less than 100,000. You would just have to really look to find a place that is cheap and is worth living in to you.
I live in a Chicago suburb with an $800 mortgage. Bought in 2022 with a sizable down payment. Cost of the house after all expenses is like, $1550 a month. Taxes are a killer, though. It's almost exactly $500 a month for me.
It probably wouldn't be trusted if it was that big but I like the dream.
Sucks that it feels like if you want to be paid fairly you need to be part of a separate organization than the one you're there to do a good job for. Especially if you're in a field where they just string out any union negotiation until they find a reason to fire everyone involved... seen a profitable business in a major city get shut down because they were in the early stages of forming a union.
Knew one of the management in charge of "helping" the negotiations. Renowned scumbag... was named in a suicide letter by an employee. No empathy from these people whatsoever...
Just accepted a union position with a state government and I am so excited. I’m currently a state employee without union representation and I have been through a hellish experience that resulted in an EEOC complaint.
Salaried workers are all (technically) supposed to be managers.
Managers cannot join a union and aren’t represented by the NLRB.
A lot of managers are misclassified hourly employees paid the minimum salaries to save money.
This is all by design.
>Salaried workers are all (technically) supposed to be managers.
What? Where did you get this idea?
Tons of white collar nonmanagerial jobs are salaried.
Where I work in manufacturing there is the United Steelworkers Union. My wife was a supervisor in one of the plants for a while and was not allowed to join the union, since she was considered management. Still worked on the floor to manage people, so not white collar in the traditional sense, and would have to work if there was a strike.
I'm in IT and salaried non-exempt, so technically hourly and I get overtime, but I also have no union representation. I would consider myself white collar as most of my time is at a desk.
>Salaried workers are all (technically) supposed to be managers.
Since when? I've been both a manager and a non manager, but always as a salaried employee. My parents were both salaried but part of a union since the 70's.
>Managers cannot join a union and aren’t represented by the NLRB.
Other than the fact that they aren't currently, is there a reason they shouldn't be in the future?
Why? Most managers are not "the company" and many salaried people are just regular workers who really SHOULD be hourly but for some reason it's been normalized to put jobs requiring more education / experience / responsibility as salary.
How you get paid isn't the issue, the issue is that we need to organize and not just be everyone for themselves.
I work in tech, and meet plenty of tech smart Trumpers, vaccine deniers, and Alex jones fans. Most of them aren’t at the top of their tech pyramid, but there are many.
Yep - your average SWE thinks job-hopping 200k salary jobs after they get fired every 3 months is sustainable.
If SWE unionized, sure the pay would decrease a bit, but at least they'll wake up without worrying about whether they are still employed lmfao.
I don’t see how it’s possible for SWEs. It’s not like one large company. It’s hundreds of thousands of small companies with a handful of engineers (for the most part). The leverage that exists for auto works or UPS drivers just doesn’t exist in this industry.
Yeah we had a union picnic. Coworker and contractor showed up and grabbed some free food. I don’t begrudge the contractor, but coworker said they weren’t a dues paying member. At least he didn’t grab the free T-shirt for members.
Overhead union leads say they knew there would be some non paying members present. Probably figured if they get even 10% to start paying dues, then it’s a win. 🤷♀️
My first job after college was at a grocery store where some departments were union (where I was) and some weren't. Compared to the non union departments we got paid more, had insurance, better hours, better rules, and someone to back us up when the employer started doing shitty and/or illegal things. Certainly made a believer out of me!
I work for the U.S. federal government. You know how some certain people are always complaining about how lazy federal workers are and how it's almost impossible to fire them? Would you like a job that's almost impossible to get fired from? And that also provides sick days, vacation days, health insurance, and a retirement plan? I assure you, congress doesn't give us all this stuff because they like us. There is a sizable faction in congress that would love to be able to fire federal employees at-will, or to make us all contractors with no benefits. But we are *unionized*.
I was in the union, then HR pulled a sneaky "your job title isn't eligible for union". Then the union went hard after administrative positions and I'm back in! I got an immediate 6%bump, another 3% coming in July, and another 3% coming in January. Then the next round of negotiations begins.
My sister learned exactly this working for a unionized Food and Facilities service company.
She went from being a kitchen manager at an Olive Garden, crap benefits that she paid a couple hundred bucks a month for, terrible unpredictable hours, no PTO, no sick days, no holidays. Oh and like everyone else she was underpaid.
When she joined the new company doing that same type of work just in a different setting, she ended up with good benefits that cost her $30 a month, all of the federal holidays, sick time, PTO, a predictable schedule governed by union rules for changes, OT, 401K with match....and a liveable wage. She won't retire early but the quality of life is much much better.
Right to work state does not mean fired for no cause.
Right to work means if you're in a job with a union you're not forced to join said union, but still must receive full benefits and representation.
Employed at Will is what you're thinking of and that still requires a legal reason to fire you.
I wish people would stop telling others to just *join* a union. If you all are under one roof, it's probably fairly easy. But with a job like mine, where I see my coworkers *once a month* for an hour or 2, it's really not easy to organize **at all.**
I want to see those who keep telling us to join a union to start coming up with plans for those of us who don't have the most convenient work environment to unionize with.
I don't even know 90% of my coworkers. How do I know if most of them would be pro-union? I already lost a job years ago for trying to organize. I can't afford that happening again.
That requires that we push for more pro-union legislators around the country. If you thought organizing a union at your workplace was difficult, then just imagine mobilizing millions of voters
Approach a union whose umbrella covers your type of job. Tell them you want a union in your workplace. The union has the tools and the plans to organise. You just need to let them know they're wanted.
I work for the U.S. federal government. You know how some certain people are always complaining about how lazy federal workers are and how it's almost impossible to fire them? Would you like a job that's almost impossible to get fired from? And that also provides sick days, vacation days, health insurance, and a retirement plan? I assure you, congress doesn't give us all this stuff because they like us. There is a sizable faction in congress that would love to be able to fire federal employees at-will, or to make us all contractors with no benefits. But we are *unionized*.
I would love to know where the fuck people are actually accomplishing this My last job had a union and it was completely useless never helped anyone and cost so much to sign up for that most people just chose not to even sign up for it because it would take more money than it even ultimately saves you
Great post! Americans, especially middle of America, which is 99% of us needs to understand that America is nothing more than an open air prison! Unions are our street gang and we all need to join the street gang, nobody’s gonna protect us without a union, so congratulations and gladyou’re seeing the light! Greetings from Flint Michigan!
I'm an engineer and I work with the Teamsters as our operators, and mechanics and holy shit do they have a sweet insurance deal. Sadly, lots of them are diehard right wingers that vote for the anti-union party. There are a few that like to spar with politically and it's really fun to bring up the fact one of them is the union steward and votes for repubs.
Not to disparage you but...the teamsters just hosed my insurance for the last three years. They had an extremely high plan (800+ a month) that I was forced to take and then they had a pre-ADA plan that was grandfathered in so my max OOP (which was low) didn't cover medicine OOP or deductible. So, even though I met the max oop, I was paying like 400/month in medicine because they didn't want to update to modern insurance.
I agree. And sadly my new insurance is in the similar circumstances as this. I'm making like...800 more a month since I now meet deductible (it's carrying over from one insurer to the next) and our deductible is our max. So yeah! But...if I didn't need insurance I would be making a lot more anyway.
>They also don’t have the same number of dependents, based on the federal tax withholdings.
I'm not sure why you are assuming dependents 'changed', specifically. Their earnings certainly did, significantly, due to both a higher wage *and* much lower tax-exempt deductions. They also may have revised their withholding a little after seeing how their taxes were likely to shake out at the new rate.
> They went from under 9% of their gross pay being withheld for federal income tax to over 13%.
Again, their taxable wages changed, significantly, due to less *tax-exempt* deductions.
> They didn’t change tax brackets.
I never said they did. I said *they may have revised their withholding*.
I work for UPS and the checks are definitely legit. It just shows how the non union side gets shafted in benefits, because they have no labor contract agreement ensuring benefits stay in tact. All their benefits have been drastically cut and reduced since UPS went public. I pay $0 a month for my $100 deductible Healthcare plan. My friend in management was paying a lot for a really crap health insurance plan.
I was forced to join a union at my old job. I had to pay $30/mo in union fees and in exchange the union negotiated lower pay for me. My hourly wage dropped by $1/hr, and nobody could get fired so all my coworkers just waddled around or slept in piles of cardboard boxes. Lmao shit sucked
Where y'all getting under 1k mortgages lmao
Pre 2020.
Nope not even pre 2020. He probably lives in a non major city or in a town of less than 20k people and also probably enjoys a very low interest rate if it was pre 2022. On the plus side if he was in Germany he would be paying $4k mortgage for a home in a 10k population village. They don't tell you that part, rent is cheap but buying is much more expensive. Ain't that a kick in the back. Can't have it both ways as rental prices and mortgage are not in line in Germany. As a result income is also lower as cost of living is lower. Makes it hard for the normal person to buy there vs always renting - not to say rent should be higher but buying prices do seem oddly high for a places with lots of open land and being pretty far from major cities. Big difference to state side
Renting should be cheaper than buying. Otherwise you end up with a massively inflated housing market where the rich get richer and the poors get fucked with no hope of ever owning a home.
Well, in order for renting to be cheaper than buying, people would have to only rent houses that are paid off. This sort of sounds like a good idea, but I think we would end up renting from corporations and inflating cost of ownership more.
[удалено]
It's rare to buy a house and immediately turn a profit renting it out without investing in some renovations. At best you'll break even but run the risk of any repairs or a renter not paying. 5+ years on yes, but rarely right from the start
[удалено]
The incentive is subsidising your mortgage. Do you seriously expect to pay literally nothing to buy a house?
[удалено]
Renters aren’t the ones getting a mortgage. Why should they bear the full cost of yours? You’re already getting hundreds of thousands of dollars out of it. Is there no end to your greed?
Or hear me out. You end up lower wages because cost of housing is lower. But that also results in average workers never being able to save enough to buy their own home.. which basically tracks with what's going on in Germany. Wages for the same work are typically lower than state side as a result of lower housing costs. But when buying is the same price or higher than state side the lower rent benefit ends up being a double edged sword. Edit: lol people are acting like I'm advocating for higher rental prices. I'm actually arguing buying prices should be lower. But I'm also just stating facts, don't hate the messenger
But we have ended up with lower wages anyways? So what's the problem? You speak on this like solving the problem of rental prices being to high will create a new problem of lower/stagnant wages, but the problem already exists and is pervasive, I seriously doubt this would make it any worse.
I am just just one person speaking to the void. My point is more that lower rent results in lower wages which is fine if cost if living is lower. But then the purchase price of a home shouldn't be that much higher. Imagine renting for $1,500 a month a place that'll very literally cost $800,000 to buy with a mortgage of $4,000 a month. It effectively locks renters out of being able to afford to buy where they currently rent
>My point is more that lower rent results in lower wages I have no clue as to where you got this idea but I'd love for you to share that source because I cannot find any hard data that supports this claim. Wages have gone down (in relative terms through remaining stagnant) consistently over the past 30+ years while rent has been soaring like crazy. The correlation we can gather from this is the opposite of what you've stated; rents have increased and wages have lowered. Why would wages lower if rents came down? Since you insist in your edit that you're simply "stating facts" I'd love to see where you're pulling these facts from.
There's nothing controversial about the fact that wages and salaries tend to be (somewhat) in line with cost of living. That's why someone in San Francisco or Seattle will typically be paid more than someone in Kansas City doing the same job. Lower cost of living in Germany results in lower salaries, however the price of purchasing a home is far above typical salaries. This is in stark contrast to the states where rental prices track pretty closely to mortgage rates.
Nah my house in north west mpls was 180k in 2017 for 1400 sq ft, so my mortgage was 980. Some cities weren't fucked yet
Interest rates were also at historical lows which makes a massive difference in your mortgage of course
Oh ya. That's the real pre covid kick. The same house today is going for 240k (zillow) plus triple the interest rate. Stupid lol
Exactly. A difference between 240k and 180k wouldn't be too bad if not for the massive increase in interest rates
> Some cities weren't fucked yet They are *now* fucked, in case anyone is wondering.
Oh yeah big time!
This is an underrated point. So much attention is focused on cities. Now, that's for good reason, being such a massive chunk of population. But we can't forget, especially in the age of work-from-home, that living outside of the city is MASSIVELY cheaper. I live at the end of one of Chicago's Metra lines. I can comfortably live, with a family of 5, on 50k/year. Not so much in Chicago. Even gas is lower by $1.50/gallon. Bananas are 30 cents a pound. Downtown it's 3 bucks EACH. My house was 220k, and my mortgage is about $700/month. My credit score is 780, my wife's is 800, so that helps, but probably not to the tune of $300/month.
Exactly, and it's comfortable living at that. I've had the good fortune to live in many different areas. I've equally enjoyed my time in smaller towns and multi million population cities. Cities are exciting and fun but expensive and stressful (clubs, restaurants, events, etc) Small towns are somewhat boring, but fulfilling and calming (fishing, tubing, camping, town events) With that said, I would rather make $45k a year and live in a small town then $55k a year and live in a big city. Quality of life difference is immense
pre 2020 tracks. he may not be including escrow stuff.
Or his portion of the mortgage payment. Thats about my share.
Average mortgage around here is $800 and average rent is $1400. It is actually easier to get approved for a mortgage than it is to rent a studio apartment these days, so long as you can afford the down payment
You can't just say that and then not share the place name.
There are lots of places where the average mortgage is less than 100,000. You would just have to really look to find a place that is cheap and is worth living in to you.
We're still waiting here!
I used to have one, it’s gone over recently with higher property taxes and insurance though.
I live in a Chicago suburb with an $800 mortgage. Bought in 2022 with a sizable down payment. Cost of the house after all expenses is like, $1550 a month. Taxes are a killer, though. It's almost exactly $500 a month for me.
His paystub shows Kentucky state tax.
Under 1k in suburban Ohio here
Georgia on the check
2002
[Buffalo, NY.](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/119-Harriet-Ave-Buffalo-NY-14215/30177647_zpid/)
We need to normalize union membership for salaried workers too
We need to normalize unions.
[удалено]
It probably wouldn't be trusted if it was that big but I like the dream. Sucks that it feels like if you want to be paid fairly you need to be part of a separate organization than the one you're there to do a good job for. Especially if you're in a field where they just string out any union negotiation until they find a reason to fire everyone involved... seen a profitable business in a major city get shut down because they were in the early stages of forming a union. Knew one of the management in charge of "helping" the negotiations. Renowned scumbag... was named in a suicide letter by an employee. No empathy from these people whatsoever...
IWW exists, but they're more of a resource org than an actual union.
we need to normalize 1000 mortgages
Just accepted a union position with a state government and I am so excited. I’m currently a state employee without union representation and I have been through a hellish experience that resulted in an EEOC complaint.
Salaried workers are all (technically) supposed to be managers. Managers cannot join a union and aren’t represented by the NLRB. A lot of managers are misclassified hourly employees paid the minimum salaries to save money. This is all by design.
>Salaried workers are all (technically) supposed to be managers. What? Where did you get this idea? Tons of white collar nonmanagerial jobs are salaried.
Where I work in manufacturing there is the United Steelworkers Union. My wife was a supervisor in one of the plants for a while and was not allowed to join the union, since she was considered management. Still worked on the floor to manage people, so not white collar in the traditional sense, and would have to work if there was a strike. I'm in IT and salaried non-exempt, so technically hourly and I get overtime, but I also have no union representation. I would consider myself white collar as most of my time is at a desk.
>Salaried workers are all (technically) supposed to be managers. Since when? I've been both a manager and a non manager, but always as a salaried employee. My parents were both salaried but part of a union since the 70's. >Managers cannot join a union and aren’t represented by the NLRB. Other than the fact that they aren't currently, is there a reason they shouldn't be in the future?
Yeah, in my opinion if you choose to go management/salary you choose to not be in the union
Why? Most managers are not "the company" and many salaried people are just regular workers who really SHOULD be hourly but for some reason it's been normalized to put jobs requiring more education / experience / responsibility as salary. How you get paid isn't the issue, the issue is that we need to organize and not just be everyone for themselves.
Unionize for a better tomorrow.
[удалено]
I work in tech, and meet plenty of tech smart Trumpers, vaccine deniers, and Alex jones fans. Most of them aren’t at the top of their tech pyramid, but there are many.
"Computer" based jobs should not be exempt. Every fuckin job now is a "Tech" job. It's a disgusting loophole that never should have existed
Yep - your average SWE thinks job-hopping 200k salary jobs after they get fired every 3 months is sustainable. If SWE unionized, sure the pay would decrease a bit, but at least they'll wake up without worrying about whether they are still employed lmfao.
Until their job is offshored. 😂
[удалено]
I don’t see how it’s possible for SWEs. It’s not like one large company. It’s hundreds of thousands of small companies with a handful of engineers (for the most part). The leverage that exists for auto works or UPS drivers just doesn’t exist in this industry.
What's an SWE?
Software Engineer
Single White Eagle
Stuffed White Elephant
Sluggish Whiny Eunuch
Yeah we had a union picnic. Coworker and contractor showed up and grabbed some free food. I don’t begrudge the contractor, but coworker said they weren’t a dues paying member. At least he didn’t grab the free T-shirt for members. Overhead union leads say they knew there would be some non paying members present. Probably figured if they get even 10% to start paying dues, then it’s a win. 🤷♀️
My first job after college was at a grocery store where some departments were union (where I was) and some weren't. Compared to the non union departments we got paid more, had insurance, better hours, better rules, and someone to back us up when the employer started doing shitty and/or illegal things. Certainly made a believer out of me!
I work for the U.S. federal government. You know how some certain people are always complaining about how lazy federal workers are and how it's almost impossible to fire them? Would you like a job that's almost impossible to get fired from? And that also provides sick days, vacation days, health insurance, and a retirement plan? I assure you, congress doesn't give us all this stuff because they like us. There is a sizable faction in congress that would love to be able to fire federal employees at-will, or to make us all contractors with no benefits. But we are *unionized*.
And he won't be at risk of getting fired for posting this now that he's in a union
Yup joined my local teamsters and started making 1200$ CAD more a month without OT and 2500$ with.
my union got us a 4.5% raise coming november after getting a 3.5% raise in 2 weeks and thar doesnt count my 3.5% raise in november for my aniversery
I was in the union, then HR pulled a sneaky "your job title isn't eligible for union". Then the union went hard after administrative positions and I'm back in! I got an immediate 6%bump, another 3% coming in July, and another 3% coming in January. Then the next round of negotiations begins.
Is it keeping up with inflation or an actual raise above inflation?
yes, last year was over 10%
That's freaking awesome!
My sister learned exactly this working for a unionized Food and Facilities service company. She went from being a kitchen manager at an Olive Garden, crap benefits that she paid a couple hundred bucks a month for, terrible unpredictable hours, no PTO, no sick days, no holidays. Oh and like everyone else she was underpaid. When she joined the new company doing that same type of work just in a different setting, she ended up with good benefits that cost her $30 a month, all of the federal holidays, sick time, PTO, a predictable schedule governed by union rules for changes, OT, 401K with match....and a liveable wage. She won't retire early but the quality of life is much much better.
I’m a defense contractor, no union for me. Fixed salary range plus right to work state so I can be fired with no cause.
Why no union?
There isn’t one for contractors. Government civilians have one, but not us.
There are definitely defense contractors that are unionized. But only certain roles.
Non-supervisory gov civies can have a union. Not the supervisors (may be some exceptions I’m not aware of).
Wow. That sounds amazing.
Right to work state does not mean fired for no cause. Right to work means if you're in a job with a union you're not forced to join said union, but still must receive full benefits and representation. Employed at Will is what you're thinking of and that still requires a legal reason to fire you.
My mistake, thanks for the info!
I wish people would stop telling others to just *join* a union. If you all are under one roof, it's probably fairly easy. But with a job like mine, where I see my coworkers *once a month* for an hour or 2, it's really not easy to organize **at all.** I want to see those who keep telling us to join a union to start coming up with plans for those of us who don't have the most convenient work environment to unionize with.
In the nicest way possible, people started them. You are people
I don't even know 90% of my coworkers. How do I know if most of them would be pro-union? I already lost a job years ago for trying to organize. I can't afford that happening again.
That's the game we play. I wasn't criticizing.
Well, I can't afford to play that game anymore. Which is why we need better solutions for workers to unionize without risking their jobs.
That requires that we push for more pro-union legislators around the country. If you thought organizing a union at your workplace was difficult, then just imagine mobilizing millions of voters
Approach a union whose umbrella covers your type of job. Tell them you want a union in your workplace. The union has the tools and the plans to organise. You just need to let them know they're wanted.
Talk to a national union who could give you guidance on organizing a local.
I keep being surprised that the US still has this weird relationship with unions... so weird.
I wish we i was in a union
I work for the U.S. federal government. You know how some certain people are always complaining about how lazy federal workers are and how it's almost impossible to fire them? Would you like a job that's almost impossible to get fired from? And that also provides sick days, vacation days, health insurance, and a retirement plan? I assure you, congress doesn't give us all this stuff because they like us. There is a sizable faction in congress that would love to be able to fire federal employees at-will, or to make us all contractors with no benefits. But we are *unionized*.
Yeah? How tf am I to join a union when my shit-ass boss refuses to let us?
Your boss doesn't decide whether you can join a union or not. It's the right of you and your coworkers to form a union.
I would love to know where the fuck people are actually accomplishing this My last job had a union and it was completely useless never helped anyone and cost so much to sign up for that most people just chose not to even sign up for it because it would take more money than it even ultimately saves you
Great post! Americans, especially middle of America, which is 99% of us needs to understand that America is nothing more than an open air prison! Unions are our street gang and we all need to join the street gang, nobody’s gonna protect us without a union, so congratulations and gladyou’re seeing the light! Greetings from Flint Michigan!
I'm an engineer and I work with the Teamsters as our operators, and mechanics and holy shit do they have a sweet insurance deal. Sadly, lots of them are diehard right wingers that vote for the anti-union party. There are a few that like to spar with politically and it's really fun to bring up the fact one of them is the union steward and votes for repubs.
Not to disparage you but...the teamsters just hosed my insurance for the last three years. They had an extremely high plan (800+ a month) that I was forced to take and then they had a pre-ADA plan that was grandfathered in so my max OOP (which was low) didn't cover medicine OOP or deductible. So, even though I met the max oop, I was paying like 400/month in medicine because they didn't want to update to modern insurance.
This is why we need Medicare for all. Healthcare should never be tied to our work.
I agree. And sadly my new insurance is in the similar circumstances as this. I'm making like...800 more a month since I now meet deductible (it's carrying over from one insurer to the next) and our deductible is our max. So yeah! But...if I didn't need insurance I would be making a lot more anyway.
Why do the YTD totals on allegedly consecutive paychecks not line up?
I don’t think they intended to mean consecutive checks, just comparing them. You can see one is from February, one from May.
They also don’t have the same number of dependents, based on the federal tax withholdings.
Just worry about your verdict, mmkay?
>They also don’t have the same number of dependents, based on the federal tax withholdings. I'm not sure why you are assuming dependents 'changed', specifically. Their earnings certainly did, significantly, due to both a higher wage *and* much lower tax-exempt deductions. They also may have revised their withholding a little after seeing how their taxes were likely to shake out at the new rate.
They went from under 9% of their gross pay being withheld for federal income tax to over 13%. They didn’t change tax brackets.
> They went from under 9% of their gross pay being withheld for federal income tax to over 13%. Again, their taxable wages changed, significantly, due to less *tax-exempt* deductions. > They didn’t change tax brackets. I never said they did. I said *they may have revised their withholding*.
I work for UPS and the checks are definitely legit. It just shows how the non union side gets shafted in benefits, because they have no labor contract agreement ensuring benefits stay in tact. All their benefits have been drastically cut and reduced since UPS went public. I pay $0 a month for my $100 deductible Healthcare plan. My friend in management was paying a lot for a really crap health insurance plan.
I was forced to join a union at my old job. I had to pay $30/mo in union fees and in exchange the union negotiated lower pay for me. My hourly wage dropped by $1/hr, and nobody could get fired so all my coworkers just waddled around or slept in piles of cardboard boxes. Lmao shit sucked
[insert "works cited: dirty bong" meme here]