Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday November 13 2015, @07:16AM   Printer-friendly
from the better-compensated-workers-makes-many-people-happy dept.

The Center for American Progress reports:

In August, New York-based Amalgamated Bank announced it would immediately raise its minimum pay to at least $15 an hour.

The bank, which is owned by the union OPEIU (Office and Professional Employees International Union), came to the $15 wage floor in the midst of contract negotiations with the union. The contract also specifies automatic 3 percent increases each year.

[...] "Morale in our bank is just great after this" [said CEO Keith Mestrich.] He's even heard from potential customers who say they have sought out the bank after the announcement.

[...] But the bank isn't satisfied to make its own changes. It also wants to change the industry. A recent report from the National Employment Law Project (NELP) found that bank tellers, the most common job in the financial services industry, make a median wage of just $12.44 an hour; and three-quarters make below $15. That means that about a third of bank tellers rely on some kind of public [assistance], such as Medicaid, food stamps, or the Earned Income Tax Credit, to get by. Many who work in customer service, maintenance, protective service, and production also make below that wage.

[...] Amalgamated has launched a campaign to get a $15 minimum wage--a level that has already been passed in cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle--and encourage all other banks to adopt one in their own businesses. It also recently sent a letter to other banks urging them to adopt other practices that it calls "principles of responsible banking" such as ending the intense opposition to regulation, advocating for policies that would help customers, and embracing corporate transparency.

I hope you have your bloat blockers engaged before clicking the links to the bank's site.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by davester666 on Friday November 13 2015, @07:57AM

    by davester666 (155) on Friday November 13 2015, @07:57AM (#262551)

    The bank, which is owned by the union, negotiated with said union for a workers contract.

    How you say "conflict of interest".

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @08:18AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @08:18AM (#262555)

    Could be worse. A certain popular chain of stores similar to walmart created and owns the union all employees must join. The employees literally pay for the privilege of the store owners dictating they deserve the bare minimum required by law.

  • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by frojack on Friday November 13 2015, @09:32AM

    by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 13 2015, @09:32AM (#262566) Journal

    Hmmmm, seems the Union should have long ago told the bank exactly what the minimum wage should be.
    I'm having a hard time figuring which is more corrupt, the bank, or the union.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday November 13 2015, @07:34PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday November 13 2015, @07:34PM (#262801) Journal

      I'm having a hard time figuring which is more corrupt, the bank, or the union.
       
      I'm having a hard time figuring out how paying people $15/hr implies corruption.

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday November 14 2015, @05:37AM

        by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 14 2015, @05:37AM (#263087) Journal

        It's not the Finally paying them, its the denying them all these years, and the union, who owns the bank, letting them get away with it.
        That wasn't so hard to figure out.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @02:31PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @02:31PM (#262651)

    I had to "join" the most popular union in order to work at a union job location. The funny thing is, the non-union company benefits were better than the union contract benefits that had a $350 initiation fee and $45 month dues. The union reps were fat lazy assholes driving expensive cars on our dime. When there was a problem, they didn't do a thing to help out. We finally voted the union out, and 20 years later the lawsuit between the company and union still hasn't been settled, the union rep said they would keep it tied up in the courts to fuck the employees as long as possible. For that reason, the one benefit I lost out on was a company matched retirement plan, it couldn't be instated until the case was settled. Think about that when you have to join a union.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @11:04PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @11:04PM (#262870)

      Pretty much my experience with unions too.

      Oh, you have a problem? Tell the steward. He'll know which shredder gets your form.

      Oh, your problem is unaddressed? That there sure is a shame, son.

      You had the cheek to call OSHA? Hope you enjoy finding a new job.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @03:00PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @03:00PM (#262664)

    I'm not sure I understand. If the union owns the bank, it has the right as the primary shareholder, both morally and legally, to compel the bank to act in its best interests as it sees fit - which includes adjusting pay.

    Am I missing something? Could you expand?

    • (Score: 2) by davester666 on Friday November 13 2015, @05:49PM

      by davester666 (155) on Friday November 13 2015, @05:49PM (#262771)

      Yes, effectively, the union is sitting on both sides of the table and you can't 'negotiate' with yourself.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday November 13 2015, @07:31PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday November 13 2015, @07:31PM (#262799) Journal

    The bank, which is owned by the union, negotiated with said union for a workers contract.
    How you say "conflict of interest".

     
    It's two different unions:
     
    Amalgamated Bank is majority-owned by Workers United, an SEIU Affiliate.
    The union representing the employees is OPEIU International (Office and Professional Employees International Union)

    • (Score: 1) by andersjm on Saturday November 14 2015, @12:46PM

      by andersjm (3931) on Saturday November 14 2015, @12:46PM (#263207)

      There's still no conflict, only interest. Both parties to a negotiation want the same thing, so they agree on it.