[HN Gopher] Apple to withhold its latest employee perks from uni...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple to withhold its latest employee perks from unionized store
Author : alphabetting
Score : 224 points
Date : 2022-10-12 18:07 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| unknownaccount wrote:
| Unions are good for lazy employees because it makes them harder
| to fire. Theyre bad for the hard workers because they have to
| work even harder to make up for the lazy workers that arent
| fired. As someone who works hard I definitely would never want a
| union.
| kej wrote:
| This argument assumes that non-union jobs are all magically
| perfect meritocracies and that unions provide no benefits other
| than protecting lazy people. Neither of those things have been
| true in my experience.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _bad for the hard workers_
|
| Some industries resist unionization, not through management
| being dicks, but because the talented workers start a
| competitor that wins market share. Most industries aren't like
| that, however, and to the degree they are, it's a transient
| state.
| yohannparis wrote:
| This is an interesting opinion. The fact that an employees as
| to make up for another colleagues is weird. If your manager is
| unloading on you, you have a bad manager, nothing to do with
| your "lazy" colleague.
| unknownaccount wrote:
| Its just the reality of how many jobs are. It makes sense for
| managers to structure the work in this way, using an informal
| system of what amounts to group punishment if the team as a
| whole performs poorly. That way the team manages itself, lazy
| employees will be peer pressured into getting improving or
| quitting. Is it unfair? yes. Is it highly prevalent in jobs?
| Also yes.
| jfghi wrote:
| knappe wrote:
| Look, I don't agree with the parent's viewpoint either
| but this comment is entirely unhelpful and borderline a
| person attack. Can we not?
| lovich wrote:
| It is a personal attack but I don't know what one would
| expect when the OP opened up with characterizing everyone
| wanting a union as lazy
| [deleted]
| systemvoltage wrote:
| > Theyre bad for the hard workers because they have to work
| even harder to make up for the lazy workers that arent fired.
|
| Yea, and without any upside, so they'll eventually leave. Union
| power will then sort of get in a chinese finger trap situation,
| continually defending malaise and bankrupting the company.
|
| Unions are destructive IMO. They're an indication of the
| current times. The entire society is getting into "insurance"
| mode because we don't have any definite ideas anymore.
| NickC25 wrote:
| You should go talk to the railway workers who are about to
| strike. Your perspective might change.
| harlequinn77 wrote:
| devmor wrote:
| You are already making up for lazy workers without a union.
| It's just that they're your bosses, not your co-workers.
|
| You are working harder than you need to so more money goes to
| shareholders and executives can hire less and delegate less.
|
| A union doesn't solve or make that problem worse, it just gives
| you more power in the relationship.
| saxonww wrote:
| I strongly agreed, until I started seeing things like my
| company 'laying off' a few hundred people and then that
| afternoon telling everyone left "we're hiring!" Or my favorite
| "this office is no longer able to host this job function, we
| really want to keep you but you have to move to this higher
| cost of living area within 90 days - sorry, we can't make
| compensation adjustments at this time - or we'll have to let
| you go." Or, seeing someone paid vastly more or less than I am
| for the same work; if you think a peer is doing good work and
| they are paid a lot less than you are, that's not you whining
| about not making enough money.
|
| It's absolutely true that there are people who toe the line
| with respect to doing the minimum they can get away with and
| keep their job. I've seen it, and I'm sure other people have
| seen it. It's absolutely true that (in the US at least) union
| leadership is not immune to leaders who think leadership is
| about being in charge of others or building a fiefdom. I don't
| think these negatives are exclusive to unions, though, and I
| think it's a bit dangerous to let businesses convince you that
| they are.
| bwestergard wrote:
| My coworkers and I were all illegally fired in retaliation for
| forming a union a few years ago. The federal agency that
| investigates violations of labor law found the employer to be
| obviously at fault, and we settled for cash.
|
| As part of the federal investigation it came out that the
| employer had drawn up a list of employees they wanted to keep
| if at all possible. I was on that short list; but once it
| became clear I was pro-union, they fired me anyway.
|
| Contrast that with the actual union contracts coverings
| software devs being bargained at places like the New York Times
| or Kickstarter. I'll take my peers' idea of a fair process over
| the employer's any day.
| tibbon wrote:
| I'm a coder, and now in a union. I'm happy about this. No
| longer can management kick the can down the road on things that
| many of us wanted to directly address.
|
| I'm also not just concerned about myself and my own
| compensation, I greatly care about my team overall. Sure, I can
| muscle my way up through performance reviews and such but not
| everyone has the same background or privilege I do. I'm happy
| to have a union to represent _everyone_ , and not be happy with
| a few people having a lot of leverage.
|
| Caring about others... who would have thought?
| [deleted]
| unknownaccount wrote:
| Sorry but Im not a charity worker. Its great that you are
| priveleged enough that you are in a position where you can
| be, but I cant afford to accept working harder to make up for
| less competent/lazier workers.
| kbenson wrote:
| > less competent/lazier workers
|
| That's an extremely naive view of the people a union is
| intended to protect. Even a minimal amount of research, or
| even some simple pondering of the situations your fellow
| employees might find themselves in that benefit from a
| stronger work contract would lead to many other cases where
| a union has benefit.
|
| That's not to say a union is right for every company or
| job, but to think it only benefits those you outlined is
| just plain silly when any thought it put into it. If you
| really need some help in figuring out a beneficial case,
| consider what purpose insurance often serves, and also
| consider power imbalances when you have a bunch of
| individuals against one large unified opponent (when any
| negotiation can be considered adversarial under these
| conditions).
| ericb wrote:
| > less competent/lazier workers
|
| Not the op, but that isn't naive. Did a short stint in a
| union shop. The day had more breaks than it did work in
| it. Me and the other new guy started cranking on our task
| list, and were told by our manager to "slow down or
| you'll work yourself out of a job."
| kbenson wrote:
| It's not naive to think that may be the case for some or
| that it happens. It's very naive to think that's the only
| reason for or result of unionizing, and it was presented
| as the only ting that matters enough to be mentioned.
| bwestergard wrote:
| Do you know how much income the investors/managers in your
| firm are taking home? How does it compare to your income?
| Are they factoring in your time and stress when making big
| strategic decisions?
|
| I've had coworkers that didn't pull their weight in non-
| union shops that were able to skate by because they were
| buddies with a manager who played political games well. My
| union (CWA) is pushing at multiple workplaces to have a
| more objective review and hiring process.
|
| But the occasional struggling or unprepared coworker has
| affected me way less than instances of poor management.
| bwestergard wrote:
| > No longer can management kick the can down the road on
| things that many of us wanted to directly address.
|
| I'm also a union coder now. I agree.
|
| The work we do is inherently collaborative. Any issue that
| affects one of my coworkers at this company or anyone doing
| similar work will eventually affect me. Without a union,
| employers force us all into a race to the bottom to
| internalize costs that they should bear a greater share of
| (e.g. crunch time due to failure to plan).
| billions wrote:
| "No longer can management kick the can down the road on
| things that many of us wanted to directly address."
|
| so you choose to prioritize your desires over customer needs?
| what if end users preferred to keep their cash instead of pay
| for your code refactor of a feature nobody uses?
| lovich wrote:
| Does that not apply to management? What if the end users
| preferred a cheaper product rather than paying out exec
| bonuses? What if end users preferred a well made product
| rather than cutting corners to keep costs down?
| billions wrote:
| The higher up the hierarchy, the more accountable they
| are to the customer. If management doesn't increase sales
| by providing an offering at a competitive price, sales
| will slump and someone will get fired. This is the
| opposite of union shops where the manager to employee
| ratio is much higher because nobody gets fired for being
| a burden on the customer's wallet.
| lovich wrote:
| I think we might come from very different worlds if
| people higher up the chain are more accountable for
| customer disgruntlement in your experience.
|
| That being said, I could see your point of view if you
| were in an org where that was true
| billions wrote:
| By your logic an unqualified person could attain the CEO
| job. The CEO is picked by the shareholders to maximize
| shareholder value. The top boss is extremely well vetted
| to make sure they make good decisions to protect
| shareholders' money. The CEO's #1 job is to hire & fire
| managers that let him keep his job by increasing sales.
| And so on down the chain.
|
| How could people at the bottom be more "accountable for
| customer disgruntlement"? They have less skin in the game
| than people up the hierarchy.
| spoonjim wrote:
| Yes, only highly qualified people attain CEO jobs. You
| never see any baffling CEO hires who flame out
| spectacularly taking shareholders and employees down with
| them.
| lovich wrote:
| > By your logic an unqualified person could attain the
| CEO job.
|
| That's kind of less my logic and more my lived
| experience, unless you count being politically connected
| as the only qualification for CEO's.
|
| > How could people at the bottom be more "accountable for
| customer disgruntlement?"
|
| Have you never seen execs grand schemes fail and make up
| for their mistakes by firing scapegoats or laying off
| workers and saddling the rest with more work to make the
| numbers look good?
|
| > They have less skin in the game than people up the
| hierarchy.
|
| Do they? In my experience workers typically have their
| entire income stream at risk while execs get golden
| parachutes and another executive position at a different
| company despite failing massively. If skin in the game is
| just "get higher compensation" then why aren't the
| richest people on the planet the most environmentally
| conscious since they have more "skin in the game" than
| everyone else?
|
| Edit: fixed typo, sassing -> saddling
| kepler1 wrote:
| Sometimes union expectations are as ridiculous as what
| corporations try to get away with. In some ways of course,
| they're the same motivation -- trying to remove yourself from the
| normal rules of economics and what you can bargain for with
| customers and suppliers.
|
| In what magical world do unions expect that they can achieve all
| of 1) high wages, 2) great benefits, 3) long, protected
| employment contracts, 4) reducing anyone's work obligation to the
| minimum? I too would love if by legislation against reality, I
| could be paid a lot, forever, to do a job I could phone in via
| Zoom.
|
| Life comes with tradeoffs, unless you're very lucky.
| worik wrote:
| 1) high incomes
|
| 2) great benefits,
|
| 3) long, protected employment contracts,
|
| 4) Minimum risk
|
| Those benefits belong to the owners of capital. The suppliers
| of labour must endure low wages, poor benefits, at whim
| employment and uncertainty.
| coredog64 wrote:
| My capital portfolio is down by tens of thousands of dollars
| this year. Labor might have to forego future pay, but it's
| pretty uncommon for an employer to claw back 1/3rd of your
| cash salary after they've paid it.
| kennywinker wrote:
| Nope, but it is pretty normal for employees to be laid off
| when the stock price plunges
| hamandcheese wrote:
| Your speculative stock investments may be worth 1/3 less,
| but Apple doesn't have 1/3 fewer factories now compared to
| last year. They still control the means of production just
| as before.
| g_sch wrote:
| Exactly. Unions fundamentally exist in order to prevent
| owners and investors from harvesting all the profits (and
| from pushing off the consequences of losses to the workers
| alone). If companies were equally owned and operated by their
| workers, unions wouldn't have a purpose for existing.
| kepler1 wrote:
| I see, so all the stats about how many business fold and go
| bankrupt, how most startups never get to success -- those are
| all just fake news I guess? Business is just rolling in the
| money, risk free, huh?
| einherjae wrote:
| That magical world is called Scandinavia.
| [deleted]
| braingenious wrote:
| The topic of unions on here is one of the funniest I've seen.
|
| So many posters will breathlessly run into the comments to loudly
| declare that "Unions are bad!!" instantly upon seeing the word.
| It's as if too many pro or neutral opinions about unions get
| posted in row, a pesky Union will be summoned and materialize
| like Beetlejuice.
| goatcode wrote:
| It's unfortunate that those who are against unions don't
| realize that they may, in some cases, be against the current
| state of a given union, and that they, if they belong to a
| given union, can change the state of it.
|
| I was once in a union local of several thousand people that was
| directed by the fewer than 20 who showed up to the meetings. I
| pushed for a campaign of greater publication of upcoming
| meetings and in a few short months, the meetings filled a
| decent portion of a 500-person room. The changes that came
| about prove that the democracy under which many of these unions
| operate can lead to changes that cause them to better represent
| their collective body of workers.
|
| You can change your union, if you want to, and that's a
| beautiful thing. Your union shouldn't have a predictable
| political slant (which is what a lot of anti-union normal
| people dislike). It should represent the collective views of
| its whole body -- which was the whole point of unions to begin
| with: to represent its whole body.
| [deleted]
| drstewart wrote:
| Ironically, I don't see any of those takes, but lots of people
| like yourself immediately running around claiming there are
| people posting in bad faith about unions.
| braingenious wrote:
| That's interesting, I don't see another instance of "bad
| faith" on this page. Maybe it's because I'm on mobile and my
| browser sucks.
|
| I _have_ seen comments like "Welcome to collective
| bargaining", a few (now-downvoted) posts like "They're no
| longer Apple employees", "Unions are good for lazy
| employees", and quite a few posters offering their legal
| perspectives that essentially boil down to "Apple is right to
| make this choice". The latter is more mundane than "Unions
| are bad", but "Actions against union members are okay" is an
| opinion, not a neutral statement of fact.
| raunak wrote:
| https://archive.ph/rfISq
| somenewaccount1 wrote:
| The main benefit mentioned in the article is a $400 annual credit
| to Coursera. Everything else is "some education" or "some
| doctors", which usually translates to practically nothing useful.
|
| They should have found out what the average pay is for union vs
| non-union, and then compared if the new benefits actually
| translated to something meaningful.
|
| My guess is that the union members earn more than $400/yr in
| cash, and then they can spend it on whatever they want -
| education, doctors, whatever.
| fundad wrote:
| Benefits were not withheld from the union, they get to
| negotiate separately. They earned the right to negotiate. Most
| of the company is under at-will employment.
|
| Non-union Apple employees didn't get to choose those
| "additional" benefits and didn't have a choice of taking the
| cash value or bargaining for something else.
| droopyEyelids wrote:
| A union will almost always eschew a contingent, quirky perk
| like 'Coursera credit' in favor of a smaller increase in take
| home pay, anyway.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| Rightfully so. My company provides a whole list of "benefits"
| nobody ever uses. I much prefer cash.
| ericmay wrote:
| > _The reason given was that the Towson store needs to negotiate
| benefits with Apple via the collective bargaining arrangement
| that comes with a union. The approach isn't unique to Apple._
| bwestergard wrote:
| In other words, they are withholding improvements to the job
| from the first workers who unionized. This gives them something
| to trade in bargaining, but perhaps just as importantly signals
| to other workers that they will play hardball with anyone who
| demands a seat at the table.
| pydry wrote:
| It's more likely they will give a better deal overall to the
| unionized store but they will spin the hell out of it to the
| non unionized stores that the extra $1k they earn isnt
| _really_ worth it because they dont get a fossball table,
| free coffee and bonuses that _could_ be _up_ to $1k.
|
| A company I worked for used these kinds of tactics to try and
| convert contractors into perm. They talked as if the perks
| were 3-10x as valuable as they actually were.
|
| Apple will also probably also try to keep the wages quiet but
| publicize the perks (or lack thereof) pour decourager les
| autres.
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| Does the unionized store have a contract with apple already?
| If so, it would seem like until the contract is up, apple
| should continue operating under the terms of that contract
| with respect to the unionized store.
| bwestergard wrote:
| They are currently bargaining a first contract.
| collegeburner wrote:
| so it makes sense they are keeping it for negotiations
| then.
| bwestergard wrote:
| I suppose you could say it "makes sense" if you confine
| your field of view to one round of bargaining at one
| employer who is interested in minimizing short-term labor
| costs. But does it even make sense for Apple
| managers/investors on a longer time horizon? Is it part
| of an approach that's good for the wider world?
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| For better or worse we don't globally optimize during an
| adversarial two party negotiation. We seek a local
| equilibrium. It's hard to fault apple for this since any
| other model would ultimately require a reorganized
| society to work on a long term basis. Apple can't do that
| unilaterally.
|
| And as for the idea of freely giving concessions to
| unions to avoid bad news cycles: it's been tried and the
| results are not always fiscally ideal.
| Alupis wrote:
| You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
|
| Apple is willing to provide these Employee Perks to everyone,
| but the Union will still insist on getting _something_ out of
| their collective bargaining agreement. Therefore this just
| became the _something_. It 's that simple.
|
| Unions are not always automatically a good thing folks. For
| every good union story out there, there are an equal amount
| of bad union stories. As a union member, you give up your
| rights to negotiate things directly with your employer, which
| include receiving new perks. Now your union has to do the
| negotiating, and you better hope they get what you want out
| of it.
| dangus wrote:
| I've never been able to negotiate a damn thing with my
| employer. There's no such thing as individual negotiation
| except on the day you get an offer letter, and that's if
| you're lucky enough to be an in-demand professional worker.
|
| This is retail we are talking about here. Do any of you
| remember what it's like to work hourly jobs? I'll say it
| one more time: there's no such thing as negotiation.
|
| "For every good union story out there there are an equal
| amount of bad stories" seems like a false equivalency. All
| I see is union members on average making better
| compensation than non-union employees. The numbers do not
| lie. [1]
|
| Apple knew this news story will read exactly like it's
| reading when it took the actions it took. Giving non-union
| employees something visible like this is a well-known union
| busting tactic. They want people thinking of unionizing to
| feel bad for not getting some relatively worthless perks.
|
| Meanwhile, Apple's unionized store will be able negotiate
| far better benefits than non-unionized stores, the kinds of
| "perks" that matter like better hourly pay and healthcare,
| not some one-time benefit that's arguably just a tool for
| the job.
|
| The pitch against unions in America works just the same as
| the concept of "temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
|
| "You don't want all this scary union bureaucracy because
| you're so above average that the union's contract is going
| to hold you back."
|
| It's a lie.
|
| [1] [PDF] nonunion employees make 83% of the salary that
| union employees make:
| https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf
| bsder wrote:
| Non-union employees also make more when in proximity to
| unions. See: states without "right-to-work" laws.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > For every good union story out there, there are an equal
| amount of bad union stories.
|
| There's both, for sure, but I don't know about "equal".
|
| Except in a cardinality sense, where you can get as many as
| you want if you keep looking indefinitely.
| threeseed wrote:
| > For every good union story out there, there are an equal
| amount of bad union stories
|
| Do you have empirical evidence for this claim ?
|
| Because when you look back over time many fundamental
| workers rights came from union involvement.
| ejb999 wrote:
| >>Do you have empirical evidence for this claim ?
|
| Do you have empirical evidence that this is not true?
| guerrilla wrote:
| Yes, they just presented that evidence to you:
|
| > Because when you look back over time many fundamental
| workers rights came from union involvement.
| Alupis wrote:
| I don't think we're in any danger now, in 2022 of
| returning to 18 hour work days and acceptable workplace
| deaths.
|
| Yes, unions helped usher in a new age of employee rights,
| and we are all thankful for them. However, in the absence
| of anything real to fight for, unions in the modern day
| have increasingly become more of a nuisance than a
| necessity - for both the employee and employer side.
| dontlaugh wrote:
| That's not true. Unions negotiate minimums, using
| collective power to balance the employer's power over
| employees.
|
| Individual employees are free to negotiate individually
| beyond that. Many do just that, but of course it's less
| likely to succeed since individuals don't have the ability
| to threaten industrial action.
| ejb999 wrote:
| >>That's not true. Unions negotiate minimums, using
| collective power to balance the employer's power over
| employees.
|
| It is absolutely true in every union contract I have
| negotiated.
| whycombinetor wrote:
| I've never heard of an individual union member
| negotiating a higher individual wage or benefits than
| what's negotiated by the union. My cursory google search
| results say the same. Do you have examples of this?
| guerrilla wrote:
| It's extremely common, but I don't really know how to get
| you evidence of that over the Internet.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| A citation?
| Alupis wrote:
| I really doubt this anecdote.
|
| The entire point of being in a union is for collective
| bargaining power. What incentive would an employer have
| to bargain with individuals directly, only to then get
| raked over the coals by the union for everyone else too?
|
| Treating you special is a liability for the employer when
| dealing with unions.
|
| When you joined a union you stopped being an individual
| and you became part of the collective union. That's what
| you signed up for... and these are the consequences of
| that decision.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| > Individual employees are free to negotiate individually
| beyond that.
|
| That is typically false. You are bound by the collective
| bargaining agreement.
| dontlaugh wrote:
| The employer is bound by the bargained minimum. They're
| free to offer more, to one or many or all employees.
| bwestergard wrote:
| You are both slightly off.
|
| It's entirely up to the parties bargaining how much
| discretion the employer has to adjust terms during the
| life of a collective bargaining agreement.
|
| For pay specifically, it's not uncommon for the union to
| propose wage floors and allow some individualized
| bargaining. It's also not uncommon to specify a full wage
| schedule for the sake of transparency.
|
| The workers get to decide what makes sense for them.
| Sometimes they decide on different systems for different
| career tracks.
| dontlaugh wrote:
| Sure, but I've yet to see anything but a floor in
| bargaining agreements.
| Alupis wrote:
| Given that the union will _insist_ on gaining something
| during collective bargaining negotiations - completely
| regardless of whatever personal concessions an employer
| has made during the fiscal year - an employer has zero
| incentive to just give away _anything_ for free to a
| unioned employee.
|
| That's the deal you made when you joined a union. If you
| did not understand that deal, then I'm not sure what to
| say. Being in a union isn't some automatic path to
| employment nirvana or something...
|
| In fact, there could even be a doorway to a lawsuit
| against the employer for treating a specific employee
| differently than all the other unionized employees.
| Unions make things... difficult, despite whatever
| nostalgic views some may carry towards them.
| dontlaugh wrote:
| Unions are democratic organisations. If they're insisting
| on gaining something, then a majority of the members are
| insisting on it.
|
| Employers are already not giving anything for free to
| employees. They do it when forced, either by market
| forces or the threat of organised workers.
| ejb999 wrote:
| I find my employer quite generous when times are good,
| even when they don't need to be, less so when things are
| tight.
|
| Maybe you should work for better companies?
| Alupis wrote:
| > Unions are democratic organisations. If they're
| insisting on gaining something, then a majority of the
| members are insisting on it.
|
| This is not how unions operate in reality. But
| regardless, you either get something because your
| employer thinks it will make your happier, or you get
| something because your union insists on it.
|
| Why would you get special treatment just because you're
| in a union? Your union has to negotiate and accept things
| on your behalf... not you. You lost that right when you
| joined the union.
| spoonjim wrote:
| LOL. This is not how "democracies" work. They are co-
| opted by the same mechanics of power just like any other
| governance structure.
| Alupis wrote:
| The bureaucracy exists to serve the bureaucracy (a play
| on the infamous Oscar Wilde quote).
|
| It's inescapable and unavoidable for any sufficiently
| long-lived bureaucracy. By the time you have full-time,
| professional union employees running things, the
| disconnect between what actual workers need/want grows
| uncontrollably.
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| In my country only unions get a seat at the table and
| whatever they negotiate applies to everyone.
|
| Pro: This makes certain that corporations can't steamroll
| Hassan the semi literate immigrant with a contract done by
| business school suits.
|
| Con: Kills Union membership because there's no perk to
| being in one.
| [deleted]
| efsavage wrote:
| Once a union matures into its own thing, independent of the
| original idealistic/altruistic founding group of employees,
| giving things to members that the union didn't "win" for them
| becomes a big problem in their eyes.
| mulderc wrote:
| I am in SEIU (and also AFT and IWW, but that is a whole other
| deal) and this is not my experience at all. The union doesn't
| have any issues with management providing benefits that were
| not a part of the contract negotiations, hell it happened all
| the time during the pandemic and the union was fully on
| board. SEIU is about as mature as a union gets and in my
| experience, across three rather established unions, the Union
| is the people that run it, which is my case has been my
| fellow employees.
| tomohawk wrote:
| If the employees wanted Apple to deal directly with them, they
| would not have unionized.
|
| They unionized.
|
| Now there is an intermediary between them and the company.
|
| This works both ways. They are now bound to work with their union
| to address any grievances, and the company is likewise bound.
|
| So they are getting exactly what they wanted by unionizing, but
| likely few if any of them have had any direct experience with
| what having a union means.
| puffoflogic wrote:
| It only takes a vocal minority and meddling by NLRB to set up a
| union, then all employees are bound by it whether they wanted
| it or not.
| kennywinker wrote:
| Explain? My understanding is it takes a majority of employees
| voting to form a union. Is there some process by which a
| minority can force a union on the majority?
| tomohawk wrote:
| When employees "vote" it may not be by secret ballot. It
| may be by a method such as card check whereby people know
| who's voting which way. There is a long history of humans
| using intimidation to get their way, and without a secret
| ballot, that becomes a thing.
|
| Beyond that, people have a tendency to vote "yes" on things
| when they don't know about those things. There's always a
| fight on referendums on the language to be on the side of
| the "yes", because "yes" wins most of the time.
| ok_dad wrote:
| > There is a long history of humans using intimidation to
| get their way
|
| Indeed.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in
| _th...
|
| Specific example of this:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_massacre
| kennywinker wrote:
| Those both sound like situations where the majority has
| chosen something. Bias towards "yes" sure, but people
| also have a pretty strong bias towards NO CHANGE - unless
| things are bad.
|
| I believe the general dislike of secret ballots among
| pro-union people has to do with the voting process being
| controlled by the companies. The accusation being that
| when the company controls the process, they are
| interfering in the result. Given the choice between
| coworker interference or employer interference... I'll
| pick coworker any day, they've got a lot less on me than
| my employer. If the vote could be truly independent and
| secret, sure... but burden of proof is high
| red_trumpet wrote:
| Is that true in the US? I know that in Germany there are
| workplaces where you have a choice if you want to join the
| union or not.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| The union systems in the US and Europe are vastly different
|
| In the US you can only have one Union per workplace and job
| classification. Employer must treat the union and non-union
| workers the same. In most States employees have the right
| to not join the Union, but they are still obligated to pay
| partial fees to the union.
|
| For example, they cannot pay non-union workers a higher
| rate wage then the union worker.
| tomohawk wrote:
| If you are in a "right to work" state, then you have a
| choice. In other states you have no choice.
| gigatexal wrote:
| I don't understand Apple's take here. Embrace the unions so that
| you can shape them. Happy workers are more productive workers.
| Hippie Steve would be pro-union me thinks.
| kennend3 wrote:
| > Hippie Steve would be pro-union me thinks.
|
| It is always weird when someone who has no connection to an
| individual responds and attempts to state how that person
| things/feels on an issue.
|
| Question for you:
|
| If Steve Jobs ran the company, and in your view he was "pro-
| union" why isn't it already unionized?
|
| Steve often got what he wanted (he was DRIVEN).. So if
| unionization was something he wanted, one would think he would
| have done it?
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| Read the story how he treated a lot of employees when Apple
| went public. There wasn't much hippie in him. It took Wozniak
| to give stock to employees because Jobs refused.
| somenewaccount1 wrote:
| Hippie Steve died once he became rich.
| hoistbypetard wrote:
| > Hippie Steve would be pro-union me thinks.
|
| Can you cite a reason for that? His words would seem to run
| counter to your thoughts: https://www.wired.com/2007/02/steve-
| jobs-proud-to-be-nonunio...
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| You know nothing about Steve Jobs lol
| spoonjim wrote:
| LOL, the most ruthlessly effective capitalist of the last 100
| years would be pro-union? What gives you the confidence to make
| such a wildly implausible claim?
| gigatexal wrote:
| Yikes. Ok. So I guess I should have googled before I wrote
| that. I just figured he would be a pro union guy given his
| background. I guess not. Then this makes sense that Apple is
| fighting unions since it's what Steve would do.
| anamexis wrote:
| He most certainly wouldn't:
|
| https://www.wired.com/2007/02/steve-jobs-proud-to-be-nonunio...
| [deleted]
| rideontime wrote:
| Same tactic Starbuck's is using - insist that the store needs to
| negotiate via the union, while simultaneously refusing to engage
| with the union.
| wil421 wrote:
| The company I work for has over 150k unionized employees and
| about 50k white collar workers. Including a massive amount of
| retail employees. The union negotiates on behalf of their
| employees this is nothing new. Not sure what Starbucks is doing
| but Apple is going to negotiate with them.
| [deleted]
| exabrial wrote:
| No idea why this is getting downvoted; its simply true.... and
| it's totally within Apple's right to do so.
| anamexis wrote:
| It isn't within Starbucks or Apple's rights to refuse to
| engage with the union.
|
| With the union having won an NLRB election, the employer is
| required by law to bargain with the union in good faith.
|
| https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-
| law/ba...
| badwolf wrote:
| is Apple refusing to bargain or engage with the union?
| anamexis wrote:
| Not to my knowledge, but that wasn't my point.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _insist that the store needs to negotiate via the union,
| while simultaneously refusing to engage with the union_
|
| American unions are adversarial to management. I don't see why
| one has an obligation to negotiate with an adversary.
| [deleted]
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| I don't know what you mean by "obligation," but I assure you
| employers have a legal duty to negotiate in good faith with
| their employees' representative. See 29 U.S. Code SS 158
| (a)(5) - It shall be an unfair labor practice for an
| employer...to refuse to bargain collectively with the
| representatives of his employees, subject to the provisions
| of section 159(a) of this title.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _employers have a legal duty to negotiate in good faith
| with their employees ' representative_
|
| Sure thing. But that typically takes place in scheduled
| sessions. Casting Starbucks as refusing to engage when
| they're adding it to the next meeting's agenda is what I'm
| pushing back against.
| VictorPath wrote:
| The heirs who own the majority of Apple stock - the idle
| class which generation to generation does not work, but which
| expropriates surplus labor time from workers - they already
| know they are in an adversarial relationship with the
| workers. The new thing is the workers who do all the work and
| create all the wealth have woken up to the fact that they are
| dealing with an "adversary" as you call it.
| VictorPath wrote:
| The heirs who own the majority of Apple stock - the idle
| class which generation to generation does not work, but which
| expropriates surplus labor time from workers - they already
| know they are in an adversarial relationship with the
| workers. The new thing is the workers who do all the work and
| create all the wealth have woken up to the fact that they are
| dealing with an "adversary" as you correctly call it.
| worik wrote:
| American management is adversarial to unions.
|
| American management is adversarial to workers.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _American management is adversarial to unions_
|
| Yes, adversarial relationships have this symmetry.
|
| > _American management is adversarial to workers_
|
| Strongly disagree. Between tech and finance we have proven
| models for gains sharing that doesn't require workers and
| managers be at each others' throats. Many European models
| similarly have workers aligned with the company's long-term
| goals and vice versa without a militant union butting heads
| with sociopathic management. (They're symbiotic.)
| Meanwhile, American ports are embarrassingly inefficient
| because the port unions don't want to modernize.
|
| These models need refinement. But for many industries, they
| seem better than inserting a middleman whose existence is
| reliant on an adversarial relationship between employee and
| employer.
| couchand wrote:
| You raise a good point, not every industry has a history
| of capitalists intentionally harming and killing workers!
| beardyw wrote:
| > I don't see why one has an obligation to negotiate with an
| adversary.
|
| But that the situation when negotiation is most needed. I
| agree that the unions are under no obligation to negotiate
| with management, its just a good idea.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Welcome to collective bargaining.
| bluedino wrote:
| Every company I know of with unionized, and non-unionized
| employees, have different perks etc for each group.
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| Don't expect anything beyond a single letter of a collective
| bargaining agreement. It's pretty simple.
| paxys wrote:
| - Why did my store not get this new benefit that other non-
| unionized stores are getting?
|
| - Why was my store not affected by layoffs but other stores in
| the area were?
|
| - Why was my raise X% but employees at other stores got Y%?
|
| The answer to all of these is the same - you will get exactly
| what is in your collective bargaining agreement, not a penny more
| or less. If you want more perks, ask your union reps to bring it
| up in the next contract negotiation.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Seems reasonable. Either Apple controls the employee relationship
| or you negotiate the terms under a contract.
| chadlavi wrote:
| It's really surprising that that is legal to do. It should most
| definitely not be. (and I say this as a typical apple fanboy)
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| The main benefit of being in a union - IMO - seems that you can't
| be fired or "cancelled" for expressing your political opinion on
| Twitter.
|
| The next best seems to be severance (more if you've been with the
| company longer).
|
| I think any company can implement these unilaterally.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| The advantage to a union is it's not up to the company alone
| whether they implement such things unilaterally.
| vkou wrote:
| The third benefit is that you have a lot more bargaining power
| behind you. One employee is fungible, the entire workforce is
| not.
| kennend3 wrote:
| > One employee is fungible, the entire workforce is not.
|
| Not sure what it is, but man i dislike this term being used
| like this.
|
| To be "fungible" is a contract for a physical good without a
| specific "sample" of that good being specified.
|
| So you can put a contract on for "100oz" of gold, and the
| counter-party can complete their obligation by supplying one
| 100oz bar, or 10 10oz bars, etc.
|
| Legally, they met their obligation as these are "fungible".
|
| People are rarely "fungible" and it is a pet-peeve seeing
| this being used all the time like this.
| kennywinker wrote:
| One of the major aims of industrialization has been to make
| people as fungible as possible. People are not fungible,
| you're right, but a whole lot of effort + technology +
| process exists to try to make people fungible. e.g. the
| assembly line, or customer support scripts.
| kennend3 wrote:
| Agreed.. except the point of industrialization was to
| make people replaceable.
|
| Fungibility is a legal construct tying into contract law.
|
| It is a misuse of business "terms" by technology people.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Fungible goes beyond replaceable, and the intent here is
| closer to fungible. An amorphous blob of labor-hours.
| kennywinker wrote:
| Second definition is "interchangeable"
| https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fungible
| kennywinker wrote:
| Another benefit is employees who've unionized make higher
| wages. Depending on who you ask and what study the average is
| somewhere in the range of 10-25% more than non-unionized
| employees.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| Unions need to be honest that - like any negotiation - they might
| "win" something but lose other things.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| It's also possible Apple never would have offered any new perks
| if they didn't feel pressure of a union
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| As far as I can tell, none of the unions were asking for more
| educational benefits.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| Because cash is king. Apple just found a benefit that costs
| them less and offered that instead.
| kennywinker wrote:
| That doesn't matter. With the recent wave of unionization,
| companies are going to be playing hardball with union
| busting tactics. The play of "figure out some small perk
| that sounds good and is news-worthy, then give it to all
| the non-unionized stores" is a solid one.
| jonas21 wrote:
| It's not "union busting" to negotiate with the union on
| new benefits that you'd otherwise give to employees.
| That's how the process works.
| aaomidi wrote:
| What Apple is doing is literally illegal. Our department of
| labor is absolutely useless.
|
| If the DoL continues this way, people are going to unionize
| without doing the "recognition" process. e.g. IWW
| itake wrote:
| Can you cite a source for why this is illegal?
| aaomidi wrote:
| Sure! This is considered retaliation by announcing/offering
| "benefits" that are only available for non-unionized
| employees:
|
| https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-
| law/in...
| otterley wrote:
| And you don't think Apple has labor lawyers advising them
| differently? Are you a labor lawyer yourself, or are you
| just making your conclusion based solely on a summary of
| the law (which might not even apply to this particular
| situation) on a website, without access to case law?
| aaomidi wrote:
| I'm saying it because the NLRB has literally not been
| enforcing any of the labor laws. Of course Apple doesn't
| care. The penalties of non-compliance are also
| negligible.
| otterley wrote:
| Please don't counsel people on what the law is here.
| You're out of your element.
| itake wrote:
| Everything I see in that document says employers can NOT
| withhold benefits for employees in the process of
| organizing a union. I don't see anything about
| withholding benefits for employees already in a union.
|
| My understanding is that Apple has many stores starting
| the process of unionizing, but only the store that
| already has been unionized are the benefits been
| withheld. Apple seems to be compliant to the law you
| shared.
|
| Do you mind quoting which sentence?
| anamexis wrote:
| I suspect they are getting confused with the NLRA Section
| 8(a)(1), which among other things prohibits employers from:
|
| > Withhold changes in wages or benefits during a union
| organizing campaign that would have been made had the union
| not been on the scene, unless you make clear to employees
| that the change will occur whether or not they select the
| union, and that your sole purpose in postponing the change
| is to avoid any appearance of trying to influence the
| outcome of the election.
|
| However, this is only relevant _during_ the organizing
| campaign. Not after, as is the case here.
| aaomidi wrote:
| > However, this is only relevant during the organizing
| campaign. Not after, as is the case here.
|
| Except there are unionizing efforts going on in a lot of
| their stores. So this is illegal for any of the stores
| that are currently in the progress of it, but have not
| yet committed to it.
| anamexis wrote:
| It would be illegal for them to withhold those benefits
| in those stores that have an active union campaign, but
| that's not what they are doing.
|
| I'm fairly confident in this (I was a union organizer who
| has gone through an NLRB election), but do you have any
| precedent suggesting otherwise?
| itake wrote:
| > So this is illegal for any of the stores that are
| currently in the progress of it, but have not yet
| committed to it.
|
| The article says only the store that is unionized isn't
| getting the benefit. What am I missing here?
| [deleted]
| hacym wrote:
| No offense, but your "view" on labor law sounds untrained at
| best and dangerous at worse. Please stick to what you know.
| rat9988 wrote:
| Why is he wrong?
| hacym wrote:
| Labor laws are complex. No trained lawyer would make a
| comment saying something is "literally illegal" based on
| some article posted on an online forum. This should be a
| red flag on this opinion.
|
| That being said, companies do this all the time, at least
| in my experience. I've worked at multiple companies that
| employee union and non-union employees. Unionized workers
| have a contract, which is one of the things you're
| accepting when you unionize. Companies can offer new
| benefits, but I think most assessments aren't going to
| see this as "literally illegal". Some of the benefit
| differences I've seen firsthand is the amount of PTO,
| sick leave, and education benefits. I'm not a lawyer in
| the least, and Apple may be breaking the law in some
| other way, but this seems like a normal practice based
| solely on the number of companies that employ it.
| jlarocco wrote:
| We don't know if they've lost anything, though.
|
| The union may ask for the extra perks next time they negotiate.
| until then they get what they previously agreed to.
| GartzenDeHaes wrote:
| This is also my experience dealing with unions. Management is
| legally required to make concessions during collective
| bargaining, so anything that can be considered an improvement to
| mandatory bargaining topics (pay, benefits, or working
| conditions) gets held back for the contract negotiation.
|
| In one case, management wanted to purchase sit/stand workstations
| for employees, but HR pointed out that this was a change to
| working conditions and should be included in the collective
| bargaining negotiation. However management had already started
| taking measurements for the tables, so the union knew what
| management was intending. During the negotiations, the union
| decided to try and call HR's bluff and refused to ask for the
| workstations as a concession. So in the end, the whole plan was
| scrapped so that HR would have concessions available for future
| negotiations.
| pastor_bob wrote:
| >Management is legally required to make concession
|
| This is false. The NLRB explicitly says so:
|
| > It is an unfair labor practice for either party to refuse to
| bargain collectively with the other, but parties are not
| compelled to reach agreement or make concessions.[0]
|
| They are only required to bargain 'in good faith.' Withholding
| benefits they would normally give is an intimidation tactic and
| an attempt to maintain leverage.
|
| [0]https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-
| right...
| gojomo wrote:
| That the benefits are new, and specific to the workplaces
| without the extra overhead/limits of a unionized workforce,
| suggest that weren't "normally given".
| bwestergard wrote:
| "This is also my experience dealing with unions."
|
| I'm sorry this happened to you. But this sounds like your
| experience dealing with a low-road employer, not with "unions".
| If you don't mind me asking, which union were you and your
| coworkers affiliated with?
|
| "In one case, management wanted to purchase sit/stand
| workstations for employees, but HR pointed out that this was a
| change to working conditions and should be included in the
| collective bargaining negotiation. However management had
| already started taking measurements for the tables, so the
| union knew what management was intending. During the
| negotiations, the union decided to try and call HR's bluff and
| refused to ask for the workstations as a concession. So in the
| end, the whole plan was scrapped so that HR would have
| concessions available for future negotiations."
|
| You experienced two standard union busting techniques favored
| by management-side labor lawyers. First, try to divide the
| workers to weaken their bargaining power, with the ultimate
| goal of portraying the workers active in the union as an
| unrepresentative minority. Then, blame "the union" or "labor
| law" (i.e. your coworkers who are active) for negative changes
| that are entirely their doing.
|
| "Management is legally required to make concessions during
| collective bargaining"
|
| If this is the United States we're talking about, you were
| misinformed. Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA),
| management has a duty to bargain over certain issues with
| unionized workers, but there is no obligation to make
| "concessions" (i.e. changes the workers find favorable).
| nothowthatworks wrote:
| > _If this is the United States we 're talking about, you
| were misinformed. Under the National Labor Relations Act
| (NLRA), management has a duty to bargain over certain issues
| with unionized workers, but there is no obligation to make
| "concessions" (i.e. changes the workers find favorable)._
|
| And just how do you think you go about proving that you
| engaged in good faith negotiation? All the union has to prove
| in a lawsuit to a preponderance of the evidence, that _more
| likely than not_ , management did not negotiate in good
| faith. Good luck winning that as management by not budging on
| anything at all.
| bwestergard wrote:
| It's a purely procedural standard.
|
| To oversimplify a bit: if the employer meets with the
| union's designees (e.g. workers elected by their peers, a
| lawyer hired by the union), exchanges proposals verbally or
| in writing, and goes through the motions until reaching a
| so-called "valid impasse", they have made good on their
| duty to bargain. They could propose nothing but cuts to
| wages and conditions, and indeed this happens often if
| workers don't have a credible strike threat.
|
| See: https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-
| law/ba...
|
| The model you have in mind - make concessions or have more
| general terms impose by a regulatory body - does exist in
| other countries, where parties have to go to a sectoral
| body, interest arbitration, etc. when impasse is reached.
| Interest arbitration was a proposed reform in the (now
| dead) PRO Act that the Biden administration favored early
| on.
| peyton wrote:
| Sounds like a pretty reasonable negotiating tactic. Everyone
| holds stuff back.
| GartzenDeHaes wrote:
| I was an executive level manager at the time. My
| understanding is that employers are required to "bargain in
| good faith" and the easiest way to demonstrate good faith is
| by making concessions.
| bwestergard wrote:
| This is a common misunderstanding. For example, an employer
| can propose a wage cut (obviously not a concession) as part
| of good faith bargaining.
|
| To your point, making concessions will often prevent any
| worker (or the union as a body) from filing an Unfair Labor
| Practice charge. But employers with good counsel seldom
| worry about such charges, because the penalties are so
| weak.
| petre wrote:
| Say I don't like bargaining or know how to bargain with
| someone in a position of power. I'd rather have a union do
| it for me. An organisation should have more leverage and
| employ people who are better negotiators and who concern
| themselves with employee rights. It's just like companies
| that are outsourcing work or hiring HR positions to hire
| and fire people or to negotiate pay.
| [deleted]
| justizin wrote:
| if the belief is that employees using sit/stand workstations
| will improve productivity and output, it's a business' own
| choice not to do so for employees who have collective
| bargaining.
|
| there is also a cost associated with maintaining different
| workspaces and equipment for employees of different status, and
| it's a company's choice to take that on.
|
| typically when discussing working conditions, you're talking
| about minimum standards. it's not very smart to refuse to
| improve working conditions across the board.
|
| you said in a reply further down that you were an executive
| level manager, you should have told HR to shove it because your
| individual performance would be impacted by the collective
| output of your employees, and the costs of improving working
| conditions would be returned in several multiples, some of
| which you might receive as a bonus.
|
| it was, however, your choice and right not to do this. :)
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| > you said in a reply further down that you were an executive
| level manager, you should have told HR to shove it because
| your individual performance would be impacted by the
| collective output of your employees, and the costs of
| improving working conditions would be returned in several
| multiples, some of which you might receive as a bonus.
|
| This assumes the EMgr is compensated/recognized more on
| performance of collective output than on politics and
| relationships. I dont know specifically about Apple, but
| plenty of orgs are imperfect enough that relationships are
| actually more highly rewarded/recognized than optimal
| collective outcomes (which are disparate and difficult to
| take credit for.)
|
| This is part of the reason why "glue" workers[1] are usually
| overlooked and kept back. They neither please anyone, nor
| have a specific item to take credit for, usually simply
| boosting the outcomes of others who take all the credit for
| their work, plus some for that of the glue worker.
|
| [1]: (ones which keep a team functioning well, but do nothing
| particularly stunning of their own)
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| I highly recommend the "glue" worker path. The catch phrase
| I use is "a rising tide raises all ships." When I was a
| young buck I took the "shooting star" path where I'd knock
| out user stories at 10x or more compared to the team
| average. Basically everyone hated me. Then I chose the
| "rising tide" path and most people loved me. All of my
| greatest $ opportunities came from people I raised up. Even
| little behaviors like instead of speaking up in meetings I
| DM people to offer suggestions/corrections to things
| they've said in meetings. And then they can seamlessly take
| credit for my ideas by incorporating them as they continue
| to talk. If you care about promotions, it's important to
| also do this for leadership.
|
| If you measure my work by lines of code or user stories
| completed, etc. I will come up short for sure. But teams
| love having me around and I never lack for opportunity.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| I appreciate you sharing your experience. Mine has been
| essentially the opposite, but I suspect the root cause
| being working for a company with a terrible culture.
|
| Any tips out rooting out the companies that actually
| reward this virtuous behavior?
| novok wrote:
| You do it in a way where you're helping the careers of
| people, not doing it because you think is abstractly
| best. Where having you around is good for them, and not
| having your around is bad for them. Where if you're gone,
| it's fuck, now my life is going to be harder. Some might
| call it 'relationships', but maybe it's more about
| choosing what has more effective impact?
|
| Also a lot of glue people are missing the marketing
| aspect, and I think that is why it is unappreciated. If
| you never made a sound, do you exist? Glue people exist
| outside of the typical marketing machine for most
| employees, which in lies its power too, because the
| opportunity set is also richer.
|
| The parallels to business and sales is very apt. You
| can't just make a product and expect adoption with no
| marketing, and the same applies when you're doing a job
| too. If you think you shouldn't do it, your essentially
| saying someone should do it for you, and they can, to a
| point, but you are your own best marketer, because you
| work with your work 24/7, while your manager has 5 to 25
| other people to also think about.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| About the same reasons I never joined ones, when I had the
| option (which lets be honest in IT is not that often). Great
| ideas on paper, properly poor execution that ends up in
| entrenched folks, power games and politics
| [deleted]
| cma wrote:
| The ownership side is in a union whether employees are or
| not, with their own dollar-weighted democracy, legalized
| collusion between owners (say two restaraunts agree with each
| other to lower wages, that's illegal; say they both merge and
| become shareholders: a coordinated wage decrease across both
| restaraunts with the same two owners involved is now
| considered done by one entity).
| djbebs wrote:
| There is nothing wrong with collusion, whether its from
| employees, or employers.
|
| The state should stay out of it, and the laws forcing
| negotiations, or giving either the company or the employees
| protections should not exist.
|
| If employees want to get together in a union and negotiate
| collectively, that's their right and they should not be
| legally barred from doing so.
|
| If companies want to fire the employees who do so, and not
| deal with a union in any way, that too is their right and
| they should not be legally barred from doing so.
|
| The primary purpose of labor laws should be to establish
| the expectations in the absence of an article in the
| contract establishing those expectations (ie: if the
| contract doesn't mention which safety procedures are to be
| followed in the steel foundry, the thing that's in the law
| prevails. If the contract outlines other procedures, then
| the contract prevails).
|
| A secondary purpose of the labor law is to enforce the
| contract. (Ie: if an employee doesn't get paid for hours
| worked, the courts should be therefore to enforce the
| payment)
|
| Anything else the state should stay out of.
| lovich wrote:
| That sounds like a quick path to having people sell them
| into slavery the first time the economy goes south and
| people get desperate
| redeeman wrote:
| why is it only people that get desperate? why doesnt the
| companies, in these scenarios?
|
| why do we always assume its the "slave-minded plebs" that
| blinks first?
|
| if companies really are so greedy, surely they could see
| the benefit in paying more than they would prefer(which
| would naturally always be 0), and get to earn decent,
| rather than employees saying "too bad, wont work" and
| they get to earn nothing?
|
| this kind of thing strikes me as very elitist, how can
| someone listening to the argument interpret it as
| anything other than "those regular working joes are so
| stupid they will just offer themselves up as slaves the
| second a company talks sternly or the price of food
| increases!!!!" ?
|
| is it really that much to expect, that people
| individually take some responsibility, say no to
| conditions that are, by THEIR judgement, poor, and save
| up a decent enough buffer that they wont have to say
| "well it was a good run, im a slave now" the instant a
| company might not immediately cave to a demand or meet at
| a reasonable spot?
| lovich wrote:
| > why is it only people that get desperate? why doesnt
| the companies, in these scenarios? why do we always
| assume its the "slave-minded plebs" that blinks first?
|
| Because companies are a legal fiction that dissolve if
| things get that bad? If they didn't provide legal
| protection for liability than most would just be
| privately owned assets with direct, as in legally direct
| not that they necessarily speak, negotiations between the
| owner and employees
|
| > if companies really are so greedy, surely they could
| see the benefit in paying more than they would
| prefer(which would naturally always be 0), and get to
| earn decent, rather than employees saying "too bad, wont
| work" and they get to earn nothing?
|
| Observed behavior? Are you unfamiliar with the small
| businesses complaining about how "nobody wants to work"
| while offering minimum wage? Or in the tech industry how
| the majority of firms have settled on providing below
| market yearly salary increases and eating the replacement
| cost for employees rather than pay a few percent more to
| keep people from looking for new jobs. To the point that
| it's commonly accepted for jobs to be 2-3 year stints
| instead of the lifelong careers of the past?
|
| > this kind of thing strikes me as very elitist, how can
| someone listening to the argument interpret it as
| anything other than "those regular working joes are so
| stupid they will just offer themselves up as slaves the
| second a company talks sternly or the price of food
| increases!!!!" ?
|
| You're reading into it if you think I'm referring to just
| "working joes". It's what desperate people do in the rule
| set you propose. It's how we had indentured servants in
| the American colonies. It's how there were literally
| people who sold themselves into slavery to pay off bets
| in the Roman Empire.
|
| > is it really that much to expect, that people
| individually take some responsibility, say no to
| conditions that are, by THEIR judgement, poor, and save
| up a decent enough buffer that they wont have to say
| "well it was a good run, im a slave now" the instant a
| company might not immediately cave to a demand or meet at
| a reasonable spot?
|
| If someone is in a desperate enough situation to consider
| selling themselves into slavery, how pray tell, do they
| save up a decent enough buffer?
| lovich wrote:
| As opposed to the entrenched folks, power games, and politics
| that exist currently? Those don't appear because a union is
| formed, you just have less of a say at the bargaining table
| without one
|
| Edit:removed an extra "don't"
| klondike_klive wrote:
| Forgive me, I'm struggling to parse that triple negative!
| Can I flip that to be "you have more of a say with one"? Or
| am I getting it wrong?
| lovich wrote:
| Fault was mine, had an extra "don't" that made it a
| triple, rather than the intended double, negative.
|
| Your interpretation of that last sentence was correct
| thesuitonym wrote:
| The moral of the story here is that HR tried to withold
| something they were already planning on doing to avoid paying
| employees more, and you think the answer is to just accept
| whatever management wants?
| butterNaN wrote:
| So the HR would rather impose authority than make workers'
| lives easier?
| collegeburner wrote:
| no, the point is maybe the union wants a 9% raise. if you put
| new desks in you now pay a 9% raise and new desks. if you
| keep it for bargaining then maybe you pay an 8% raise and
| include some other benefits like new desks.
| sitkack wrote:
| Why should employees pay for desks? Sounds like a strategy
| to make the work environment suck so that people are
| willing to spend their own money on work supplies,
| traditional corporate welfare.
|
| Which reminds me, all those jobs I brought my own monitors
| ... I should have just resigned.
| that_guy_iain wrote:
| No, the point is you get to make demands and make the company
| meet your way. That means once the deal is done, that's the
| deal. It's literally fair. You made a deal, now that is the
| deal. Your deal is different from other employees deal. There
| are upsides and downsides to both. Upside for the union
| employees, they got all the benefits they demanded with the
| downside of no new benefits. Upside for non-union employees
| is they get all the new benefits with the downsides they
| don't have all the benefits the union employees demanded and
| got because they thought they were that important.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| Except there is no singular "other employees' deal" -- each
| non-union employee has their own contract.
|
| Do you think Apple made everyone individually negotiate for
| these perks? Or did they just give the perks to all non-
| union employees because they think it'll prevent other
| stores from unionizing?
| RC_ITR wrote:
| Well, the point of a union is that management actually has a
| very bad sense for what employees want, so employees can't
| rely on management to meet their needs.
|
| Like in this metaphor, sit/stand desks are a visible 'we care
| about you' move that cost $500/head one time. Meanwhile, the
| dental plan sucks and management ignores it because only a
| small subset of the employees notice and even then, it's only
| periodically.
|
| So from that point of view, HR probably just said "well,
| based on the union negotiations, they don't seem to care
| about the desks, might as well shelve it and put the money to
| use elsewhere."
|
| OP is the one adding the color about 'saving it for the next
| negotiation'
| ldoughty wrote:
| Firstly: I support unions...
|
| Playing devil's advocate though:
|
| HR's hands might be tied.
|
| I don't know the language of the collective bargin contract,
| but I've heard of unions making it difficult to replace
| carpeting due to the wording on contracts...
|
| Even assuming a good-faith employer, there's an additional
| legal burden to make sure you DONT violate the contract,
| which can slow things down weeks or months... Unfortunately
| this article is behind a paywall so I can't get the details,
| but from the glimpse, "money for school" likely is considered
| a salary-like benefit (it's taxed as such), so it likely has
| contract wording considering it.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| If only that store had some kind of, I don't know, process for
| labor making collective bargaining demands to establish some
| perks and benefits they could use.
| evanwolf wrote:
| I think that this tradeoff is empowering to unionized workers
| Kinda. It forces them to design their own preferred workplace
| conditions and perks. Some perks, like a free company jacket, are
| chosen by the employer to make you feel loyal to the company.
| Perhaps you'd like the value of that jacket in cash or paid time
| off or better funding for retirement? Or maybe you want to extend
| company cafeteria access to your family?
|
| The problem is that collective bargaining happens every X years
| but changes to regular employee perks and HR benefits can happen
| as inspiration strikes (management). They can also be withdrawn,
| as when a division underperforms despite the workers all doing
| their jobs well.
| manv1 wrote:
| That's how collective bargaining works: you only get what your
| union bargains for.
|
| Anything else? Too bad.
|
| Did you not get the memo as to what unionization means and how it
| works?
| InTheArena wrote:
| This is standard contract law. With a contract in place,
| companies are required to adhere to the language of the contract,
| any any change needs to be negotiated (or the contract needs to
| expire).
|
| Adding a benefit or removing it without going through a contract
| causes all kinds of legal liabilities (employees may assume it as
| a permanent perk). Union leadership also don't typically want
| perks granted that they didn't negotiate for (why would people
| "choose" to pay for a union otherwise).
| couchand wrote:
| Except there's no contract in place yet, and there's absolutely
| nothing preventing them from being good people. Except, of
| course, the vicious demands of capitalism.
| InTheArena wrote:
| This is the problem with the adversarial union system.
|
| You can call it a failure of the vicious demands of
| capitalism, but after decades of watching independent
| adversary unions destroy whole industries that my family was
| involved in (aerospace, airlines and steel) - with zero-sum
| negotiations where one side must loose for the other to win -
| I've come to the conclusion that the only way to deal with it
| is to give in and deal with unions and only unions and only
| in the context of the law.
|
| The unions know that - of course - which is why the Union in
| Australia is threatening to extend their strike if Apple asks
| it's local workers there to vote on a proposal, when only
| 1/4th of the workers are represented by the union.
| jacobr1 wrote:
| Worth noting ... there are non-adversarial union systems,
| cooperatives, worker-councils and even sectorial
| tripartitism outside of the US legal system way to
| structure a union.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| Also worth noting, non-union employee-employee
| relationships are also adversarial.
| ok_dad wrote:
| > adversarial union system
|
| Alternatively, you could frame the system as the
| "adversarial employer system" because Apple also chose to
| be adversarial. Apple could, in good faith, extend the
| additional benefits to the unionized employees or add their
| dollar-value worth to their paychecks, contingent on re-
| negotiating them the next cycle, but instead they choose to
| hold themselves directly to the minimums they negotiated
| this cycle and do nothing additional for those employees.
|
| I think this is a pure anti-union move that Apple is
| marketing via "look, if you just trusted us, and not the
| evil unions, we could be giving you more!" Where, in
| reality, the important thing for a union to protect from is
| the cutting of benefits and lowering of working conditions
| in those times where it's normal to do so (downturns),
| because time has proven that those "austerity measures" are
| rarely reversed by a company when profits rise.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-12 23:00 UTC)