Max wage extract at 25/15/7% labor costs firms -- ask the 40/50/60%

Most would agree that a minimum wage should extract the max consumers will pay -- which fits mostly at highest labor costs/low wage firms (e.g., 25% labor cost, Burger King).

Allowing that, why should consumers be spared, for years, paying as much as minimum wage labor is really worth to them -- why so many multi-year steps up to the bottom of the barrel?

Most should also agree that employees at lower labor costs businesses (e.g., 15% labor costs Walgreen's and Target; 7% costs Walmart) should equally be able to extract the max from consumers.  Why should we desire a different standard of wage setting for different labor cost levels -- or because maxing labor's take results in $20/25 hourly wages instead of $15 -- kind of arbitrary, no?

Collective bargaining: is there any other way for the 40/50/60% to recoup their long lost living wages?  40% today earn less hourly than what the minimum wage should be -- $15 -- most substantially less.
https://content.fortune.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/workers-by-demographic-group.png

If, early in American labor history, we laid down truly efficacious federal protections for collective bargaining rights, then, starting a couple of generations ago, it would have been much tougher for ownership to begin (illegally) dismantling, door jam by door jam, our former labor union superstructure (down to -7% private union density).

Too late for such laws now.  Institute card check, fines that are more than the cost of doing business, Canadian seriousness implementation NLRB orders -- and in ten years American labor unions might crawl back to 15% density -- never know.  Think of those interchangeable workers at Target and Walgreen's: think most are ready and eager to hit the picket lines?  The testosterone premium (ask my old, 1970, 804 Teamsters or today's CTU) is not universally on tap.  We need more like 50-75% unions to take our country back from the billionaire state -- same total campaign finance and most of the votes (plus lobbying critical mass to tackle every issue from drug prices to student loans).

Two inequality-menders management cannot disrupt or discombobulate -- two laws: minimum wage laws and regularly scheduled, by law, union cert/re-cert/de-cert elections.

Why Not Hold Union Representation Elections on a Regular Schedule?
Andrew Strom — November 1st, 2017
"Republicans in Congress have already proposed a bill [*] that would require a new election in each unionized bargaining unit whenever, through turnover, expansion, or merger, a unit experiences at least 50 percent turnover.  While no union would be happy about expending limited resources on regular retention elections, I think it would be hard to turn down a trade that would allow the 93% of workers who are unrepresented to have a chance to opt for unionization on a regular schedule."
[*] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2723/text
https://onlabor.org/why-not-hold-union-representation-elections-on-a-regular-schedule/

What kills me: Andy Strom's proposal could potentially leave every other campaign topic in its center-of-attention dust and serve up Democrats a guaranteed 2020 big win -- but nobody even takes a poll.  Ask the 40/50/60%.