[HN Gopher] Apple signs union agreement for Glasgow Apple Store ...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple signs union agreement for Glasgow Apple Store staff
Author : DemiGuru
Score : 114 points
Date : 2023-02-08 16:26 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (appleinsider.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (appleinsider.com)
| Melatonic wrote:
| Big companies are now so large that they can influence policy and
| politicians in a way that it is impossible for the individual to
| fight back.
|
| If only there was a way for us to get together...as people...to
| unite as a group. To hold hands and stand up for ourselves. To
| become so large that the corporations and politicians must notice
| us and must change.
|
| Fucking Union!
| Xeoncross wrote:
| This is where Union on paper falls apart. Eventually Unions
| (like large companies and governments) end up being part of the
| issue they were forced to solve. You don't have a choice, you
| have to join the union that runs the area. Union boss is a real
| thing. It's just another government you're forced to pay taxes
| too even if you don't want to be a part of it.
|
| Unions are great at first though.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| To the extent that this is true in the USA it would be so
| thanks to the Taft Hartley Act of 1947, which restricts Union
| power in general while placing all of the unions power in the
| hands of the union leadership. The act makes wildcat strikes
| illegal so all strikes must be agreed upon by leadership. It
| makes sympathy strikes illegal. And that's just what I
| remember off the top of my head (IANAL).
|
| The act should be repealed so union members have the power to
| strike regardless of whether union leadership agrees. Many
| common issues with unions people will share in this thread
| are experiences had under the Taft-Hartley Act, which is not
| the natural state of unions but an act of the state to weaken
| their power.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act
| Xeoncross wrote:
| This is a really great point. The laws that get put on the
| books have a habit of benefiting the few over the many even
| if the sales pitch was to help everyone.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Well the whole point of this law was that there were a
| lot of strikes after WW2 and the government wanted to
| weaken union power, so while they may have pitched this
| as helping everyone it was obviously a way to empower the
| business class over workers.
| gruez wrote:
| >If only there was a way for us to get together...as
| people...to unite as a group. To hold hands and stand up for
| ourselves. To become so large that the corporations and
| politicians must notice us and must change.
|
| Isn't that what the state is? It has all of that, plus a
| monopoly on violence, which a union doesn't have.
| Xeoncross wrote:
| No, remember we're anti-local government. We want a massive
| centralized federal government that is to large to care about
| the peasants in a certain state.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| At the same time, what is any local government going to do
| to Apple?
| Xeoncross wrote:
| The same thing the union just did and more.
| tdeck wrote:
| When gruez says "the state" they're talking mainly about
| countries and governments in general, not specifically
| about US states.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| A union more directly puts power in to the hands of workers
| than does the state.
| hector_vasquez wrote:
| Corporations are people, so no, we don't have the state.
| nfriedly wrote:
| I really like the German system where employees get
| representation (usually union reps) on the board of the company -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany - I
| think it helps bring a lot more balance to business decisions.
| snotrockets wrote:
| Honeycomb did something similar, voluntarily. Paul Osman, the
| employee serving on the board, posted about the experience:
| https://paulosman.me/2022/10/17/being-on-a-board/
| nebula8804 wrote:
| But then at the same time you have something like Volkswagen
| who just fired their CEO that was pushing hard into EVs. The
| inertia of the old ICE portion of the company (including the
| union people who may lose their jobs) just puts a hamper on
| their speed of execution which shouldn't be the case since
| incentives are generally aligned. If the company succeeds then
| the employees + union succeed as well. In this case it seems
| like they want to hold on to the old way of doing things as
| long as they can but I don't know what their game plan is going
| to be once reality comes knocking?
|
| It makes me wonder, can unionized shops survive when some fast
| moving competitors(eg. Tesla) are not unionized?
| gcr wrote:
| Tesla isn't exactly a fast-moving competitor. Musk has been
| saying full self-driving is coming "any day now" for at least
| six years and counting1, but Tesla's own lawyers say it's
| still largely vaporware2. Meanwhile, other EV manufacturers
| like Mercedes-Benz are handily outpacing Tesla in both
| functionality3 and legal responsibility4 toward the driver.
| Consumer Reports rated Cadillac's self-driving system higher
| than Tesla two years ago now.5 I'd say Tesla's the one
| dragging their feet here.
|
| [1]: For more on Musk's SAE level 5 timeline predictions, see
| https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/05/tesla-autopilot-
| directo...
|
| [2]: Tesla says full-self driving is "failure, not fraud"
| https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-12-08/tesla-
| laws...
|
| [3]: Mercedes-Benz claims their driving pilot system is
| already SAE level 3: https://gizmodo.com/mercedes-benz-tesla-
| autonomous-driving-d...
|
| [4]: Mercedes-Benz is so confident about this in fact that
| they're even willing to accept legal liability for accidents
| while their system is active:
| https://insideevs.com/news/575160/mercedes-accepts-legal-
| res...
|
| [5]: Consumer Reports compares FSD systems:
| https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/cadillac-super-
| cr...
| kirillbobyrev wrote:
| I worked in Germany for a while and one of such unions was
| built at my company. I can't think of a single good thing they
| did and I remember plenty of ways they made the life of
| employees worse in ways that looked deliberate. The way the
| union/council was built looked very bad to me to the point
| where I completely stopped following the office politics.
|
| I'm not saying this is a bad idea and I certainly don't have
| enough knowledge of the German system to have an objective
| assessment, but this looks like another example where the law
| is produced with good intentions but the implementations of
| such rules are serving some other purpose.
|
| Other than that, I felt like Germany has incredibly good laws
| for the workers/employees, the working culture there is very
| healthy and I like it a lot.
| nortonham wrote:
| lets see how long Apple keeps the store open.....
| changoplatanero wrote:
| As an Apple investor, I wish that Apple would do more to make
| working conditions such that the retail employees would be less
| likely to want to join a union. A large share of the employee
| grievances will be things not related to pay and could be helped
| by having ways for the employees in the stores to communicate
| their needs to corporate.
| capableweb wrote:
| > A large share of the employee grievances will be things not
| related to pay
|
| Might be in other cases, but in this case it's about low pay,
| and shitty shift patterns:
|
| > Reportedly, retail staff at Apple Glasgow earn 12 ($15) per
| hour. Workers at the store say that low wages, plus unfair
| shift patterns and a lack of pay transparency have prompted the
| move toward unionization.
|
| https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/06/10/glasgow-apple-sto...
|
| They seem to also have asked for ways to enable better
| communication to corporate but it seems to have fallen on deaf
| ears, even their colleagues in other countries have ways but no
| one listens:
|
| > "In the UK, Apple have staff forums, but these are
| continually shown to be ineffectual and feedback is ignored,"
| one anonymous worker told the Glasgow Evening Times. "It is a
| one-way conversation."
|
| I guess the conclusion is that people tried, Apple didn't want
| to, so now the workers forced them to listen.
|
| I hope workers in other countries are following what's
| happening here and realize they have more power than what they
| think.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| In the wake of someone driving an SUV through an Apple store,
| I saw a LinkedIn post by some VP of retail stores. They were
| in a position that sounded sort of like they were in an HR-
| ish, "people management" role.
|
| Lots of talk about family, and close knit this, and "it's my
| job to support them" that. The usual self-righteous linkedin
| bullshit, but unusually brazen given someone was killed and a
| couple people injured.
|
| I remember thinking "if they're so 'supported' by one of the
| world's richest companies, why do so many of them want to
| unionize?"
|
| $15/hour for high-end retail is peanuts in almost any urban
| area. Given how much cash Apple has, and how fast they
| continue to accumulate it, they can absolutely afford to pay
| a livable wage to their retail employees.
| skippyboxedhero wrote:
| $15/hour in Glasgow in retail is good. That is PS19k/year
| net. The minimum wage in the UK is ~PS9.50, and a lot of
| people in retail will be on substantially less (because the
| rate varies by age).
|
| You may not know a lot about Glasgow either, it isn't like
| "any urban area". It is one of the poorest places in the
| UK, massive opioid problem, lowest life expectancy in the
| UK (in the poorest areas), derelict housing everywhere,
| highest rate of refugees per capita, high levels of violent
| crime (amazingly, this has got substantially better and it
| is still terrible by the metric of anyone familiar with
| crime in other countries)...the only big employers are govt
| and retail, this compares well with low-skill govt work.
| You cannot compare this to any city in the US either, maybe
| Detroit or somewhere? But the US is just another world
| relative to Europe (Glasgow is more like somewhere like
| rural West Virginia...but a city).
| mjhay wrote:
| According to this site, the average salary in Glasgow is
| north of 17/hr: https://uk.talent.com/salary?job=glasgow
|
| Glasgow isn't like it used to be. Scotland in general is
| one of the wealthier of the UK outside of the SE.
|
| The poor areas are mostly in Wales and the North.
| skippyboxedhero wrote:
| Right, and what is the average age in Glasgow? What is
| the average age of people working in the Apple store?
|
| I live in Scotland near Glasgow, my family is from there,
| I have been there frequently over the span of decades.
| Parts of it are wealthy, but the vast majority is not.
| Almost everyone who can leave when they are young, does
| leave...that speaks for itself (I grew up in Scotland, I
| know maybe 40-50 people who grew up in Glasgow...I cannot
| recall one person who still lives there, it happens but
| not by choice). And if you look at any statistic, it is
| poor (and the heavily reliance on govt spending inc.
| jobs).
|
| Scotland is not wealthy "in general" at all (again,
| before you reply: I have lived there for over two
| decades). Edinburgh is relatively wealthy, it is at the
| top of cities outside London. Aberdeen is wealthy because
| of oil. But the rest of the country is not.
|
| And even then, these stats are misleading. Edinburgh has
| individuals who drag up the average (to a large extent,
| these people do not exist in Glasgow...there is no
| "upside" scenario) but if you look at the worst areas of
| Edinburgh, they are worse than anywhere in the UK. This
| kind of grinding poverty is unique to Scotland and hasn't
| changed. In fact, one of the lowest life expectancy
| neighbourhoods in Europe (iirc, it was under 60...and
| this was in 2005) was in Edinburgh. They redistricted the
| area (they actually knocked down almost all the housing
| in the worst area) so it dropped out of the stats, but
| those areas still exist.
|
| It isn't like the North-East either. In the North-East
| you have high levels of deprivation but you see less harm
| than in Scotland. If you look at the worst places in the
| UK for life expectancy -
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/296698/local-areas-
| with-... - almost all of them are in Scotland. The only
| place that really compares in England is Blackpool and
| possibly Sunderland, both places are regarded as
| exceptional...and you see it in: Ayrshire, Lanarkshire,
| Glasgow, Dundee, etc. Blackpool is a tiny place, it is
| all over Scotland.
|
| Btw, this is one of the common misconceptions from people
| online who have only ever been to Scotland on holiday.
| Cities like Edinburgh are more segregated than any other
| city in the UK. I know people who lived in Edinburgh for
| years (I went to university there), and you take them
| into the areas for locals (often down a side street near
| a tourist area) and they have never seen anything like it
| (the only place I have been that compares is public
| housing in Milan and rural Eastern Europe, I haven't seen
| anywhere in the UK like it).
| Gordonjcp wrote:
| Why would you not want the employees to join a union?
| Melatonic wrote:
| Theoretically if we had perfect labor laws and companies had
| a profit motive to keep their employees happy then
| Unionization might not be necessary (and could create
| additional overhead). But this is a VERY idealistic scenario.
| I say this as someone who is very pro union.
| Melatonic wrote:
| It pretty much always comes down to pay (assuming there are not
| dangerous working conditions). People will say things like "too
| many hours" but you know what? If you pay a shitload for those
| then generally people (or at least some of them) will be okay
| with the overtime.
| Arkanum wrote:
| I might argue that the issue is not "having ways for the
| employees in the stores to communicate their needs to
| corporate.". But rather having corporate act on those needs,
| and in the face of larger investors like Buffet and Vanguard,
| who would probably like more to see dividends and share price
| increases, unions are a good way to balance the scales a bit.
| danpalmer wrote:
| That's not incompatible with unionisation. Union employees
| still have company bosses who will hopefully try to make their
| working environment better for them. What won't change is the
| employment contract, as that will be negotiated collectively,
| but those are typically the same for all employees anyway, at
| least for hourly waged jobs like this.
|
| I don't think there's really much of a downside to unionisation
| here. It's not like one staff member asking to be paid more was
| ever going to happen being such a small cog in such a big
| machine.
| changoplatanero wrote:
| > I don't think there's really much of a downside to
| unionisation here.
|
| This thread started off from the perspective of an apple
| investor not a retail employee. As an investor, I think there
| is a real downside to unionization.
| mort96 wrote:
| And that real downside is that it affects your stock
| portfolio. It improves the life of those unionizing, but
| that has no direct benefit to your bank account, so you
| wish they'd just accept the low wages, right?
| maxsilver wrote:
| > As an Apple investor, (things) could be helped by having ways
| for the employees in the stores to communicate their needs.
| (snip) A large share of the employee grievances will be things
| not related to pay
|
| They've already communicated their needs (wages are too low),
| and you've already dismissed their concerns. Your comment here
| is kind of proving _exactly_ why Apple employees so desperately
| need to unionize -- they aren 't going to get fairer wages any
| other way.
| doublepg23 wrote:
| It's interesting seeing unionization back on the table in the
| 2020s.
|
| I worked at a union retail job for three years and saw the pros
| and cons firsthand.
|
| We had a problem employee who was untouchable regardless if he
| was completing his job duties (assuming he showed up at all).
| Eventually this came to a head as he would spend 30min+ in the
| restroom. To address this they instituted a "log all bathroom
| breaks" policy _for everyone_ which caused the employee to not
| show up again.
|
| However, the company kept the policy in place for weeks until I
| sent a strongly worded email to the union rep (who was unaware he
| was overseeing our store). He made a visit the next day and the
| policy was promptly changed.
|
| So while I was glad to have a Union to override such policies I
| do wonder if the problem employee would have been around for so
| long without it.
| izacus wrote:
| I think the perfect balance is having the companies in deathly
| fear of unionisation without actually being bound by a union.
|
| But unfortunately in 2023 we're now in a state where company
| leads don't respect their workers anymore and think they can
| get off with any kind of abuse, disrespect and exploitation.
| Time to remind them about the past I think.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| If problem employees are the cost of employers being reined in
| and not abusing employees with no recourse, so be it. All
| systems have some sort of drag on them, the question is not
| elimination of that drag, but how much you're comfortable
| living with.
| doublepg23 wrote:
| This employee and another... lackadaisical employee were both
| full time. Full time guaranteed more hours, sick pay, accrued
| paid vacation time, actual healthcare, etc.
|
| Pretty cozy benefits for retail work which is thanks to the
| union.
|
| At the same time multiple part time workers, such as myself,
| would pick up slack or work OT due to these unmotivated
| workers. It definitely lead to a weird culture.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| I would strongly agree there is room for improvement with
| regards to the disparity you mentioned (accountability,
| benefits, workload equity), but also that without a union,
| you get the current socioeconomic situation: a total lack
| of labor power where you are at the mercy of a
| corporation's whims, which is no way to go through life.
| Work should not be constant grueling or suffering. Maybe it
| should be more cozy.
|
| High level, there's room to improve where workers have a
| decent work experience and investors still see some benefit
| (even if it's less than they would like to maximize for).
| These are not binary decisions.
| capableweb wrote:
| Usually union employees can be fired if there is "just cause".
| Not showing up for work at all would definitely to considered
| "just cause" for most unions I've been involved in. Did no one
| even try to fire him or was he related to someone in a
| management position?
|
| Being in a union doesn't mean you're "untouchable", it just
| means you can't be fired without hard proof that the worker is
| not doing what they are hired to do.
| IMTDb wrote:
| > Not showing up for work at all would definitely to
| considered "just cause" for most unions I've been involved in
|
| Not with some of the one I have had to deal with. There are
| _tons_ of way to justify not coming to work and some unions
| representative (not all !) take a posture of << we will fight
| tooth and nail for every single employee that gets fired
| regardless of the reason >>. This includes having handbooks
| of all the legal options at your disposal that are hard to
| counteract by management.
|
| In their views, unions exist as a counter power vs management
| so they need to fight every single possible decision.
|
| There are some unions that are taking a different approach
| and that are focusing one or or two issues that are important
| to them. They will be vocal about those, but be a bit less
| concerned by the rest unless there is some obvious abuse.
|
| The thing is that it's really hard to tell which way it's
| going to fall.
|
| And it's also not obvious to tell which approach gives the
| best results.
| deaddodo wrote:
| > There are tons of way to justify not coming to work and
| some unions representative (not all !) take a posture of <<
| we will fight tooth and nail for every single employee that
| gets fired regardless of the reason >>. This includes
| having handbooks of all the legal options at your disposal
| that are hard to counteract by management.
|
| As they _should_. This is the entire _point_ of a union, to
| act as your collaborative defensive line against your
| employer. You argument is essentially the same as "well, if
| we had universal healthcare, homeless /minimum wage people
| would use it too!"
|
| OP makes it sound like this person was egregiously not
| doing his job. I'm sorry, but there isn't a union agreement
| in the world that lets you No Call/No Show repeatedly and
| be fine. This is anti-Union FUD.
|
| > In their views, unions exist as a counter power vs
| management so they need to fight every single possible
| decision
|
| Yes, exactly. As they should. It's the exact same logic as
| employers fighting every Unemployment claim, every
| workman's comp claim, etc. If you don't, you've moved the
| goalposts to a lesser defendable point.
| IMTDb wrote:
| > I'm sorry, but there isn't a union agreement in the
| world that lets you No Call/No Show repeatedly and be
| fine.
|
| But there are unions agreement that say: if you are fired
| for _any_ reason, come and see us. Usually the question
| << how is this justified ? >> is not really used as a way
| of asking << should we help you or not ? >>, but rather
| as << which page go the handbook should we leverage to
| justify that this is definitely an abuse from management
| >>.
|
| The starting point of the discussion is that _any_ firing
| is necessarily an abuse. And by extension _any_ decision
| by the company is done to hurt employees.
| deaddodo wrote:
| > The starting point of the discussion is that any firing
| is necessarily an abuse. And by extension any decision by
| the company is done to hurt employees.
|
| It would be useful to include the rest of the context of
| my message instead of snipping out a single line to
| counter. As I said, of course they do; _as they should_.
| Just like it's in the best interest of the company to
| assume all employees are scamming, scummy liars; it's in
| the best interest of the Union to assume the employer is
| a money-hungry uncaring entity focused on maximizing its
| profit. Why should one side shoot themselves in the foot
| while the other maximizes their advantage? That doesn't
| change the fact that if the employee actually wasn't
| coming into work, was abusing privileges or was somehow
| abusive they are going to be fired; so what's the
| problem?
|
| Is this antagonistic? Sure. But we're well past companies
| giving respect to employees and employees owing loyalty
| to employers. And, here's the important bit: _it wasn't
| the employees that started nor perpetuated it._
| [deleted]
| doublepg23 wrote:
| Yes, when I say "didn't show up" I meant he called in "sick"
| every week to the point my manger would need to schedule on
| the assumption he would call off.
|
| Once he did completely stop showing up he was still on the
| schedule for months due to union contract stipulations as he
| was full-time.
|
| The bathroom policy was put in place after having multiple
| meetings with the district manager.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > he would spend 30min+ in the restroom
|
| > The bathroom policy was put in place after having
| multiple meetings with the district manager.
|
| Did he have health issues? I have never seen a healthy
| adult hide in the Bathroom. Is this something that happens?
| Has an effort been made to figure out whats wrong with
| them?
|
| I have also had a junior colleague and a family member go
| through stomach related issues where they required over 100
| days of sick leave and 4 surgeries. If they were working
| for amazon warehouse, they'd be disposed of quickly.
|
| I definately dont want to work for a company that timea how
| long I spend taking a shit.
|
| For every 'lazy' or 'unproductive' employee i've seen, I
| can name two that create negative productivity for an
| entire team through office politics and maneuvering.
|
| They are much more damaging and management never seems to
| catch on!
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > For every 'lazy' or 'unproductive' employee i've seen,
| I can name two that create negative productivity for an
| entire team through office politics and maneuvering.
|
| Is there a reason to assume the same ratio exists across
| all businesses?
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| There is a good reason to believe it's non-zero across
| all business, but only the first problem is ever talked
| about.
|
| I suspect that rank and file employees are better at
| identifying the second problem than managers are. What it
| second problem is less common in places where unions are
| present? Maybe it's a tradeoff, you gain A but you loose
| B.
|
| I am just saying this is never examined
| big_oof2023 wrote:
| This may be the intent of the rules/contract. But real world
| stories and experience show that unions tend to make bad
| employees untouchable, to the detriment of their fellow union
| members. And I say this as someone who generally supports
| unionization (but not necessarily the union management beast)
| doublepg23 wrote:
| Having worked in non-Union and Union retail for that long
| I'm still on the fence. I'd probably lean Union but at the
| same time it really isn't propaganda that there are
| downsides.
| pocket_cheese wrote:
| The worst case scenario with a union is bad employees taking
| advantage of a company. Without unions, the worst case is a bad
| company taking advantage of its workers.
|
| If you are a capital owner, I can see why unions are bad. If
| you are a worker,(i.e. 99.9% of people), I have no idea why you
| wouldn't want unions.
| nickff wrote:
| Some unions can neglect certain locals, especially if the
| local is small and distinct from the union's 'main area'.
|
| For example, if a group of retail employees forms a new local
| for a large office worker union, the large union may not put
| much effort or many resources into achieving a 'good
| agreement' for the retail employees (because it's not worth
| the prospective increase in dues). Then, the 'good employees'
| will leave out of frustration, and only 'bad apples' remain,
| until the retailer shutters the store for under-performance.
| deltree7 wrote:
| 1) If you are an above average employee, your upside is
| limited.
|
| 2) If you are an employee, you'll pay higher prices in other
| places.
|
| Unions are cancer. If I wanted socialism, I'd have stayed in
| my shithole country
| Maursault wrote:
| > I have no idea why you wouldn't want unions.
|
| A union can get a monopoly over a certain employer, such that
| all hires are required to join the union or they don't get
| the job. Union dues can be half the annual salary with no
| benefit to the union member unless they remain a member for
| 10-20 years. Though this practice is technically illegal, it
| goes on without any Labor Department intervention. Why would
| you want to give up half your salary for no benefit until
| you've been working for years?
| maxsilver wrote:
| > Union dues can be half the annual salary
|
| Come on, is that really the honest truth? What occupation
| or union has union dues at 50% of salary?
|
| In the US, UAW's dues max out around ~1.5% of salary (or an
| hourly approximate equivalent), the teachers union maxes
| out at 1.6% of salary (highest possible dues cap out at
| $55/month max), the nursing union dues cap out at
| $65/month, our local teamsters are approximately ~1.45% of
| salary ($50/month for someone at a $20/hr job), and so on.
|
| The "expensive Union Dues" mess is almost always FUD or
| outright lies. Union dues are _usually_ pretty modest.
| Maursault wrote:
| Anecdote time. I interviewed for a position that I wanted
| in the beltway area that paid $70K/yr in the mid-1990s. I
| had a lot of experience, loved what I did, and personally
| didn't meet any peers that were as accurate and as fast
| as I was. The only reason they interviewed me was because
| they wanted to hire me, and that was the only reason I
| travelled 400 miles to the interview other than to look
| for a place to live. Interview went well, and I thought I
| was taking the job, and when wrapping up, "oh, and by the
| way, we're a union shop. You'll be required to join the
| union, and the union dues are $45K/year." I immediately
| said, "you can't require me to join a union. That's
| illegal. Nor can you discriminate against me in hiring if
| I opt not to join." It went in one ear and out the other.
| I went home with a bad taste in my mouth, reported the
| employer and my interview experience to the US Labor
| Dept., but I have no idea if there were any consequences
| for them, and I seriously expect not.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Unions can also take advantage of employees, and set them
| against each other.
|
| In my friends union shop, the union prohibits working from
| home because >50% of union members have to do hands on work
| and are jealous of the computer workers. The majority had the
| votes so the union fought _against WFH_ , and management
| caved.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| > The worst case scenario with a union is bad employees
| taking advantage of a company.
|
| The worst case scenario is bad employees harming other
| employees or the public. People who create a horrible
| workplace for others, people who harm the people the company
| or organization is meant to serve, but can't be fired.
|
| Having robust policies to make it clear this _won 't_ happen
| and is _not_ a goal would go a long way towards countering
| anti-union sentiment.
| AceJohnny2 wrote:
| Looking forward to the headlines of Apple taunting the Glasgow
| staff by offering benefits to other stores but not them, with the
| defense that the new benefits aren't part of the Glasgow
| agreement.
| Gordonjcp wrote:
| You might want to look into Glasgow's history with the trade
| unions.
|
| When it comes to things like this, Glasgow is the epitome of
| "fuck around and find out".
| skippyboxedhero wrote:
| The "find out" bit being finding out that you have no
| economy.
|
| The store is in the centre of Glasgow, by 2030 almost all of
| that area will be residential. Almost all the manufacturing
| jobs have gone. Docks have gone. Everything is gone. Govt and
| retail were the only major employers, retail is now going too
| (employee density of places outside the city is a fraction of
| what is was). This is stupid, the pay is fine for what it is,
| and Apple can and will just close the store.
|
| Btw, my family is from Glasgow, one of my relatives was a Red
| Clydeside leader, the labour movement today is worlds away
| from what it was then. All the old trade unionists began
| moving away in the 60s. Middle-class people moved in seeking
| the status of a working-class movement, needless
| confrontation ramped up, and the leaders lost all their
| member's jobs.
|
| Glasgow is one of the purest cautionary tales about the
| dangers of unions (and, to be clear, this was never a
| question for the early union leaders...unions were supposed
| to be about collaboration, not confrontation, all the
| countries in Europe that have collaborative unions have
| workers in industry, all the ones that had confrontational
| unions don't...it is that simple).
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> Glasgow is the epitome of "fuck around and find out"_
|
| As a non-UK-an, can I ask what happened?
| Gordonjcp wrote:
| https://electricscotland.com/history/union/chapter20.htm
|
| https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-
| core/c...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Clydeside
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Barbour
|
| and more recently,
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nae_Pasaran
|
| You should watch that last one, when you get a chance.
|
| Edit: In the mid-1980s when South African Apartheid was a
| matter of global protest, Glasgow City Council renamed St
| George's Place in the centre of Glasgow to Nelson Mandela
| Place, just to mess with the South African Consulate.
|
| Glasgow is a wonderful city full of wonderful people, but
| don't piss them off.
| AceJohnny2 wrote:
| For context: https://www.imore.com/apple/apple-is-withholding-
| benefits-fr...
|
| (to be clear, I'm not applauding Apple's efforts here at all,
| just observing an interesting, awkward, but mostly hilarious
| response)
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| "So...we unionized and got better job protections and benefits
| than before, and you're punishing us."
|
| Apple: "Yes."
|
| "...by offering better benefits to other stores employees?"
|
| Apple: "Yes. We're giving them nicer stuff than we gave you.
| This is why you shouldn't unionize."
|
| "Hmm. By unionizing just our one store, we improved benefits
| for us, but also for ALL the non-union employees in the
| company?!"
|
| Apple: "er....no"
|
| "Well, if we hadn't unionized, we wouldn't have gotten better
| benefits, and you only improved their benefits to 'punish'
| us..."
|
| Apple: "no, wait..."
|
| "uuuunnnHHH! If we unionize another store, will you punish us
| _harder_ , daddy!?"
|
| Apple: >:(
| [deleted]
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| No, the point is they don't give the union store benefits. So
| by unionizing they make stuff better for everyone but
| themselves.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Suppose they'll u ionise all stores in the country, then
| what is your move?
| nebula8804 wrote:
| Raise the cost of goods to make up for the loss in profit
| margin. Yeah people can go to PC/Android but there is
| enough value add(eg. iMessage, app store, continuity)
| that many will swallow their pride and stay in the
| ecosystem.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| That's not something that would worry me as a negative if
| I was a union member on $15 an hour.
|
| Also they've been raising cost of goods for the last five
| years without any pressure from the unions. While wages
| of Apple store staff have been falling in relative terms.
| So I do not believe anything would change.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-08 23:02 UTC)