Wall Street Journal: “To Protest Hiring of Nonunion Help, Union Hires Nonunion Pickets“
Get this. Unions are protesting two things: that certain companies hire nonunion workers, and that the pay is low. But the union members don’t want to actually protest themselves, so they hire nonunion members to protest for them… and pay them minimum wage.
Someone needs to organize a union picketers’ union, so they can go on strike and demand better wages.
What the article doesn’t mention is that this union doesn’t even bother making personalized signs. It just has a form sign that has a blank space, after which it says “does not pay area standard wages & benefits.” They just fill in the name of the business they’re protesting that morning. They protest frequently in the area where I work (when I’m not studying for the bar, that is). And it’s always just bizarre passing them on the street. They’ll be protesting T.D. Bank allegedly not paying enough, while they’re (a) not employees of T.D. Bank, (b) not members of the union protesting T.D. Bank’s wages, and (c) making less than the people who are striking over low pay … while being paid by the union allegedly concerned about workers’ rights.
To defend this absurdity, we get this choice quote:
The union’s Mr. Garcia sees no conflict in a union that insists on union labor hiring nonunion people to protest the hiring of nonunion labor.
He says the pickets are not only about “union issues” but also about fair wages and benefits for American workers. By hiring the unemployed, “we are also giving back to the community a bit,” he says.
It’s a bad economy, and it’s better to be employed at low wages than to be unemployed. I get that… but am I the only one who finds that argument strange coming out of the mouth of a union rep?