[HN Gopher] Apple Continues Efforts to Keep Retail Stores from U...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple Continues Efforts to Keep Retail Stores from Unionizing
Author : mfiguiere
Score : 223 points
Date : 2023-04-09 14:47 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| [deleted]
| frob wrote:
| [flagged]
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Why?
| totetsu wrote:
| Apple Continues Efforts to Keep Retail Stores From Unionizing
| catiopatio wrote:
| "The iPhone maker rejected proposals on having weekly instead of
| biweekly pay, a third-party arbitrator for resolving grievances
| to replace existing procedures, a respect and dignity clause,
| basing promotions and layoffs on tenure, and scheduling
| policies."
|
| I can't blame them -- _especially_ for tenure-based promotion
| /layoffs, which cripple an organization's ability to promote the
| best qualified and remove under-performers.
| mnd999 wrote:
| It hardly seems worth the effort. If they want to unionise, let
| them. It's not like retail stores employees are a huge part of
| the business.
| lostlogin wrote:
| Apple stores are some of, if not the most profitable retail
| stores per square metre in the world - Apple cares about its
| stores and you can see that when you go to them.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| How did you find that statistic?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Presumably a report from Costar. Technically, it is sales
| per square foot, but I cannot imagine any other retailer is
| beating Apple's profit margins.
|
| https://9to5mac.com/2017/07/29/apple-top-retailer-per-
| square...
| lostlogin wrote:
| Yeah, and it's been re-reported a load of times. I've
| seen more recent reports in a similar vein but can't seem
| to locate them now.
| alberth wrote:
| Off-topic: Is there a correlation between Gen-Z and Pro-Unions?
|
| It's just an obversarion I have, but it seems like the younger
| generation is pro-union and was wondering if it's just my
| imagination.
| uni_rule wrote:
| Anecdotally yes. It underlies the broader sense of hopelessness
| and pessimism a lot of people in this generation feel in terms
| of never being able to afford things like housing. Going from
| "why can't I afford to live anywhere?" to "maybe I should try
| to organize" is not a particularly hard jump to make if you
| already feel so hopeless in your ability to move up by other
| means. Especially in modern retail / restaurant jobs, they're
| fucking brutal for the pittance they try to pay out. Really no
| wonder organizing feels like the only outlet to improve those
| jobs in particular considering how those companies like to
| treat their "peons".
|
| For hard numbers, a Gallup Poll made in the last year shows 71
| percent of all Americans approve of labor unions more
| generally, the highest it's been since the twilight of the New
| Deal Coalition in the mid 1960s. Source:
| https://news.gallup.com/poll/398303/approval-labor-unions-hi...
| capableweb wrote:
| As everything, it goes in waves. The first people who were pro-
| union, were the ones who had 6-day work weeks, probably started
| working when they were ~13 years old (at least in the country
| where I was born) and had basically no work safety at all.
| Generation after generation got better and better working
| conditions, until modern times where many don't see what a
| union would even do for you. Probably lots of unions are riding
| their history as well, and have become complacent.
|
| But the more workplaces start abusing their employees, the more
| pro-union workers become. So that's what we're seeing today,
| people don't start to become pro-union just because.
| alberth wrote:
| > But the more workplaces start abusing their employees
|
| It's hard to characterize these white collar jobs with great
| benefits, as being abusive.
|
| It's not like these workers are in coil mines 15-hours/day
| making below minimum wage.
|
| They are working in an ultra luxury retail store selling
| premium devices.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| Retail is never cushy, no matter what you're selling.
| You're always viewed as a low value employee and very
| replaceable which justifies offering really low pay and low
| benefits, if any.
|
| Not to mention many customers of retail stores behave
| outrageously badly, and as the front line staff you're
| going to bear the brunt of it.
| fatneckbeard wrote:
| working retail during the pandemic meant risking death. a
| lot of retail workers died.
|
| the fact they weren't coal miners doesn't mean they didn't
| die from their work.
| brightlancer wrote:
| > working retail during the pandemic meant risking death.
| a lot of retail workers died.
|
| I've not read about such a correlation; age and obesity
| had high correlations but I hadn't seen such for retail
| workers.
|
| Do you have a source?
| vuln wrote:
| > It's not like these workers are in coil mines
| 15-hours/day making below minimum wage.
|
| No but with the advent of communication devices beepers,
| mobile phones, mobile computers, etc the typical office
| worker can be reach and in some situations is expected to
| be reached and respond _27/4_ in a salary type position
| (I'm not saying this is the 100% norm, no is it abused by
| every employer).
|
| Coal miners don't have the luxury of a _connected_ job.
| rvnx wrote:
| > No but with the advent of communication devices
| beepers, mobile phones, mobile computers, etc the typical
| office worker can be reach and in some situations is
| expected to be reached and respond _27/4_
|
| Sounds very unlikely that Apple store employees get paged
| at night :/
| lostlogin wrote:
| Many professions have unions, eg doctors.
|
| Whether or not your job is dangerous and physical,
| collective bargaining is a powerful tool thats challenges
| the inherent power of the employer.
| 35208654 wrote:
| Here's the problem I have with this discourse:
|
| > Apple also withheld new benefits from unionized locations,
| drawing outcry from labor advocates.
|
| I am pro-union. Fight for your rights! But understand what you're
| getting into: once you engage with a third party (union) to
| negotiate for you, you will _only get what you bargain for_. The
| animus around unequal benefits ought to be directed to their
| union leaders, who need to do their fucking jobs and bargain for
| the benefits. That's what you pay them for!
|
| It's up to the individual and the collective to figure out how
| and whether unionizing benefits them in the context of their
| employer-employee relationship. Eyes open: the company has
| interests too. Mischaracterizing those interests is a disservice
| when you're at the negotiating table.
| shrike wrote:
| Starbucks did the same thing, arguing that -
|
| _"Wages and benefits are mandatory subjects of the collective
| bargaining process," the company said. It rejects the union's
| argument that it could offer the wage and benefit enhancements
| to unionized stores at any time._
|
| The NLRB countered -
|
| _"...the NLRB said Starbucks violated labor law by offering
| raises and benefits -- including increased training, career
| development opportunities, expanded tipping and even looser
| dress code policies -- only to nonunion stores. "*
|
| Source: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/starbucks-
| shortchanged..., @ https://archive.ph/CrZTh_
| 35208654 wrote:
| Is there an update to this story? The story doesn't cite what
| law the NLRB claimed was violated, only that doing what
| starbucks did interfered with their ability to organize. The
| final paragraph mentions that the case is yet to be heard:
|
| >The regional complaint will be heard by an administrative
| law judge at the NLRB. Once a decision is reached, either
| side can appeal to the full National Labor Relations Board in
| Washington.
|
| Full disclosure: I'm operating on logic, not an expertise on
| labor law. I am genuinely interested in expanding my
| understanding of labor laws and process.
| yardie wrote:
| https://www.seattletimes.com/business/starbucks/starbucks-
| il...
|
| Unfortunately, by reading the first article I'm paywalled
| from reading the second. But the NLRB judge found them
| guilty is in the first paragraph.
| firstlink wrote:
| The NLRB process is to first find the company guilty no
| matter what, and then look for convenient soundbite-ready
| justifications later.
| 35208654 wrote:
| From reading the article you linked, it appears they
| violated the law by refusing to negotiate, not by giving
| non-union workers benefits that they didn't give to union
| workers.
| guelo wrote:
| The timing of the new non-union perks points to it being
| illegal anti-union vote tampering. They announced them days
| before the Oklahoma store's union vote. Apple is also spreading
| misinformation about the perks, messaging that it's impossible
| for union employees to receive them, and using them as a scare
| tactic ahead of other store votes. Also, Apple suspiciously
| announced these new benefits via news media instead of internal
| communication.
|
| You can read the union making these points here
| https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/23209996-core-lett...
| bittercynic wrote:
| I think the discourse makes a lot of sense if part of the
| purpose is to show the extent of the imbalance of power between
| Apple and its retail employees - even if they are able to
| unionize.
|
| Apple is so enormous, and so powerful, that it's going to take
| more than some locations unionizing to start to level things
| out.
| DubiousPusher wrote:
| Agreed. Virtue capitalism is the sociological illness that
| defines our times. A widespread belief in corporate paternalism
| is the spoonful of sugar that helped the pill of de-
| unionization go down in the first place.
|
| We fight for unions on the basis that absent better labor laws
| the corporation requires an adversary to keep it from
| exploiting workers. It's hypocritical to insist upon a union
| and then get mad about a lack of corporate generosity.
|
| I think the ultimate solution is a economic system which
| fundamentally recognizes that workers are involved with
| enterprise and deserve an ownership and some power stake in it.
| That might create the opportunity for this relationship to
| become one that is more cooperative.
|
| At least that way the struggle might get a little less
| existential as every corporation would be on an even footing. I
| think a good portion of corporate resistance to unionization is
| about fearing they will have to compete with an un-unionized
| company.
| 35208654 wrote:
| > I think the ultimate solution is an economic system which
| fundamentally recognizes that workers are involved with
| enterprise and deserve an ownership and controlling stake in
| it. That might create the opportunity for this relationship
| to become one that is more cooperative.
|
| I believe this is how Germany does it. I may be getting the
| details a bit off, but I believe corporate boards have to
| have a worker's/union representative as a member. This makes
| total sense to me.
| brightlancer wrote:
| > I think the ultimate solution is a economic system which
| fundamentally recognizes that workers are involved with
| enterprise and deserve an ownership and some power stake in
| it.
|
| Our economic system _permits_ that; is there something you
| think is specifically handicapping employee-owned businesses?
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Limited ability to raise capital
| uni_rule wrote:
| Perhaps we should follow the German model where large
| stakes in public companies are actually mandatory to be
| owned by the employees so they have a more direct say in
| workplace democracy by default.
| brightlancer wrote:
| While there are times where government needs to step in
| and force things, I'm cautious about presuming it.
|
| Workers in the US are free to get together and argue
| (without a union) for a group or general pay increase.
| Workers can as a group walk off the job. Workers are free
| to quit at any time.
|
| Voting with your feet is the most democratic thing we
| have.
|
| And employers can ignore workers or fire them. If the
| company ignores too much or fires too many, then the
| company will suffer.
|
| IME, that works much better than using the law to
| privilege either side.
| [deleted]
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| Very nice comment.
|
| > I think a good portion of corporate resistance to
| unionization is about fearing they will have to compete with
| an un-unionized company.
|
| Who is Apple actually in competition with?
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| There is nothing stopping companies from offering the same
| benefits to union employees that non-union employees are
| getting.
|
| It is not 100% automatically on the union to chase the company
| for literally everything. That only winds up being the case
| when the company is actively trying to weaken the union.
|
| Any union that automatically rejects offered benefits from the
| company unless they are part of yearly negotiations or
| something is just a bad union.
|
| Maybe many such bad unions exist. I think it's much more likely
| that companies are very aware that they can make your unions
| look bad by offering benefits to non-union employees and when
| asked they pretend to be helpless. Obviously it's the big mean
| union that is not working.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| _union leaders, who need to do their fucking jobs and bargain
| for the benefits_
|
| You're assuming good faith bargaining, which is frequently
| absent. It's strategic for the company to reward non-union
| employees to hurt the union, even if it's economically
| inefficient to do so. The reality is that the only leverage the
| union has is litigation, moral conflict (complaining about it
| publicly), or going on strike. The union's resources are a
| function of its members' resources. Apple is rich, the union
| members are relatively poor, and Apple intends to keep it that
| way.
|
| A lot of modern labor strategic dilemmas stem from Samuel
| Gompers, a 19th century trade unionist who was deeply anti-
| socialist. He fought against affiliations of unions across
| industries (as promoted by more socialist groups like the IWW),
| arguing that laborers within each industry had more interests
| in common with their employers than workers in other industry.
| He argued instead for a federalized model of labor, which gave
| rise to the modern AFL.
|
| The reason this matters today is that the fragmentation of
| trade unions makes coordinated industrial action virtually
| impossible even where unions exist, because few companies are
| vertically integrated. Trade unions thus have only one site
| (their own workplace) to exert leverage because they're unable
| to coordinate with workers in other areas (ie farther back on
| the supply chain), and sympathy strikes are now generally
| illegal. In theory the AFL was supposed to fill this
| coordination function. In practice it served as an
| administrative brake on the ambitions of more assertive
| organizers, and kept workers at their posts during World War 1
| to ensure the successful participation of the USA in that war
| (which was opposed by more socialist minded organizations).
|
| Intentionally or not, Gompers institutionalized the
| fragmentation of the labor movement in the US, and
| practitioners of corporate divide-and-conquer tactics have been
| quietly thanking him ever since.
| hiddencost wrote:
| Part of the negotiation process between unions and their
| employers happens in the public sphere.
|
| Apple plays hardball, by blaming the union for Apple's failure
| to extend benefits. The union blames apple for union busting in
| the public sphere.
|
| The hope is that Apple's attempt to kill the nascent union will
| be so unpalatable to people like us, that apple will suffer
| more harm than benefit and agree to work with the union on an
| honest basis.
|
| There's no requirement that the relationship between a union
| and management has to be hostile; unions are just democratic
| self governance structures for workers. Having a worker-led say
| in how the business is run can be good for the business, as
| unions can push back again short term business incentives.
|
| (E.g., protecting against the cost cutting measures that led to
| the catastrophic train derailment in Palestine, Ohio.)
| catiopatio wrote:
| > There's no requirement that the relationship between a
| union and management has to be hostile
|
| How could it not be? It's inherent to the adversarial nature
| of the relationship between management and a union.
| uni_rule wrote:
| Workers don't exactly decide to collectivize in situations
| where the status quo is comfortable and they already feel
| like their voices are heard. It's almost a sense of "if
| there isn't a workplace democracy we'll make it one".
|
| If anything an adversarial relationship with upper
| management precludes attempts to organize as it implies
| they failed their boots on the ground in some way and the
| problems got so fad they felt there was absolutely zero
| "internal" channels available to get the changes they want
| heard, let alone enacted.
| kadoban wrote:
| > once you engage with a third party (union) to negotiate for
| you, you will only get what you bargain for. The animus around
| unequal benefits ought to be directed to their union leaders,
| who need to do their fucking jobs and bargain for the benefits.
| That's what you pay them for!
|
| It could be this, or it could be Apple playing tricks. If Apple
| just waits for the union to negotiate something and then
| immediately gives a better version to the non-union workers and
| refuses to negotiate afterwards, then that's not the union's
| fault.
| prepend wrote:
| Yeah, but it's good for workers. The union members sacrifice
| for the greater good and are still benefiting the worker
| (just jot them). So they are resulting in better worker
| benefits.
|
| Or maybe Apple is just doing what they were going to do
| anyway to attract and retain workers and they are restricted
| from changing the benefits agreed to by the union bargaining
| agreement.
| kadoban wrote:
| > Yeah, but it's good for workers. The union members
| sacrifice for the greater good and are still benefiting the
| worker (just jot them). So they are resulting in better
| worker benefits.
|
| In the short term it's good for the workers. After it kills
| off the union, it'll go back to being bad.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| But anyone can still unionize at any time, so it isn't
| much lost.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| LOL, LMAO
|
| It's hard to form a union in the US. Companies do things
| like retaliating against organizers, messing with the
| election process, forcing workers to sit through
| mandatory HR briefings etc. Most unionization attempts
| are fought by companies who refuse to give countenance to
| the idea that employees should be able to delegate the
| business of negotiation. American business practice is to
| keep employees feeling as if they're in competition to
| each other for the affections of management. The moment
| workers try to avail themselves of the benefits of a
| corporate model (specialization, delegation, efficiency)
| it's treated as some sort of betrayal.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Fine then, forming a union for apple employees would be
| no harder than it was before.
| kadoban wrote:
| > Fine then, forming a union for apple employees would be
| no harder than it was before.
|
| Which was, very hard. It takes a long time and a lot of
| effort.
| catiopatio wrote:
| > American business practice is to keep employees feeling
| as if they're in competition to each other for the
| affections of management
|
| ... they literally are in competition with each other,
| though.
|
| If I provide more value to my employer than other
| employees, I'm worth more, and can negotiate for more.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| It depends on the job. If you're part of a team then
| cohesion and harmony matter as well.
| qwytw wrote:
| Aren't Apple's retail workers relatively well off in most
| ways? (compared to others in similar jobs obviously)
| 35208654 wrote:
| > refuses to negotiate afterwards
|
| Refusing to negotiate is illegal, the NLRB has ruled on that
| in the Starbucks case.
| luckylion wrote:
| Surely that just means "you have to talk to them", not that
| you have to give in to their demands, otherwise it wouldn't
| be much of a negotiation and unions could simply set raises
| and working conditions.
|
| And if it doesn't: read "refuses to negotiate" as "will
| dutifully sit at the table, listen to the demands and then
| explain that they had just a short while ago reached an
| agreement that is binding both sides, and they're happy to
| negotiate a new agreement once the current one has
| expired".
| ysavir wrote:
| They could negotiate in bad faith, sure, but that's
| exactly where the collective bargaining of the union
| kicks in, and the union has the option of taking action.
| It exists for just this situation.
| luckylion wrote:
| But this would be after the collective bargaining and
| signing a contract laying out the terms for union
| employees. If non-union employees can get better terms,
| the union can simply annul the contract and force a re-
| negotiation where they can't be denied because labor law?
| Or do you mean they could demand re-negotiations and
| strike otherwise?
|
| Germany is said to be a lot more pro-labor than the US,
| but as far as I'm aware, unions can't strike during the
| duration of their collective bargaining contracts.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| 'I'm offering you less than non-union workers because you
| union members have chosen to communicate with each other
| about your pay, benefits, and working conditions' isn't a
| reasonable argument. Owners and agents of capital are
| able to communicate freely with each other, participate
| in corporate elections and so on, why shouldn't those
| selling their time & labor be able to do the same?
| catiopatio wrote:
| [flagged]
| anigbrowl wrote:
| It doesn't have to be an adversarial relationship. It's
| simply that the workers are choosing to delegate
| negotiation with HR, much as the owners and managers of
| the firm delegate it to the HR department. Arguably, this
| is better off for the company insofar it cuts down on
| duplication and can bring clarity and consistency to
| employment agreements.
|
| _You don't think Apple plays hardball when negotiating a
| contract with a supplier?_
|
| It's far from a necessity. Many fruitful business
| relationships are constructed on a win-win basis rather
| than adversarial zero-sum thinking.
|
| _Whining that "it's not faaaair" is just that --
| whining._
|
| If you see someone doing that, let me know. I'll be sure
| to pass on your message.
| brightlancer wrote:
| IANAL but when I looked into this ~15 years ago, my
| understanding was non-union workers have a legal right
| "to communicate with each other about your pay, benefits,
| and working conditions". That doesn't come from union
| membership.
|
| Unions have the ability to _force_ collective bargaining,
| but worker protections aren't restricted to union
| members.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Certainly, but many employers discourage this practice.
| I'm characterizing the employer's basis for offering less
| than the default to union members.
| bwestergard wrote:
| The workers are the union, and workers elected by their peers
| will be bargaining.
|
| Source: I am a software engineer in the same union, currently
| serving on a bargaining committee.
| rvnx wrote:
| Then instead of being able to negotiate by yourself or freely
| pool together with other employees, you will _have_ to go
| through the union.
|
| Which means it becomes a political game where the union is
| going to help you only if you help them.
|
| Essentially adding a third-party that lives on the monster.
|
| And then the bosses get used to these unions and they know
| personally the people who represent the union, etc.
|
| And you end up with a negotiator that will negotiates his own
| best interests.
| nrook wrote:
| Er, what exactly do you think "freely pooling together with
| other employees" looks like? A group of employees that
| negotiates together is a union.
|
| You can negotiate alone, but you have much less bargaining
| power that way. There's a reason the big tech companies all
| work together on their side of this negotiation (colluding
| with other employers to lower salaries, all doing layoffs
| at the same time, etc.): it works.
| brightlancer wrote:
| > Er, what exactly do you think "freely pooling together
| with other employees" looks like? A group of employees
| that negotiates together is a union.
|
| In states without Right-to-work laws, once the union is
| in place, employees are NOT able to freely pool with
| other employees, they're restricted to pooling with ALL
| of the union members in that shop, or even multiple
| shops.
| [deleted]
| illiarian wrote:
| This is such a bleak and very American view.
|
| Especially ironic is that the (frankly quite few) benefits
| and rights that workers have in the States are thanks to
| unions.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >>Especially ironic is that the (frankly quite few)
| benefits and rights that workers have in the States are
| thanks to unions.
|
| This is very slanted view of how labor developed in the
| US to simply give unions 100% of the credit, it is very
| revisionist history and not completely factual.
|
| Unions can claim some credit, but to say they are solely
| responsible for "benefits and rights that workers have"
| is false.
|
| Hell most "benefits" today (health insurance, vacation
| time, etc) are more directly attributive to wage price
| controls during WWII than they are to unions. as
| employers had to get creative with compensation to
| attract workers as they could not simply raise raw wages
| illiarian wrote:
| > Hell most "benefits" today (health insurance, vacation
| time, etc) are more directly attributive to wage price
| controls during WWII than they are to unions.
|
| I'd say the system of vacations and health insurance in
| the US is so shitty precisely because unions were gutted
| after WWII.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| then you have no understanding of what most workers
| actually prefer. Not what they claim on surveys but what
| they actually vote for both in unions and via the market
| place of jobs.
|
| Workers routinely reveal their preference for higher
| wages over more time off. Given the option both in unions
| and in non-unions most workers will trade away increases
| in vacation time for high wage increases or starting
| wages.
|
| One of the most unpopular changes my employer ever did
| was taking away the ability to Cash out vacation time.
| Many workers preferred just to cash out that time instead
| of taking it off.
| illiarian wrote:
| > then you have no understanding of what most workers
| actually prefer.
|
| Have you asked those workers? Do those workers even know
| that anything other than the status quo exists (e.g. in
| other countries)?
|
| > Given the option both in unions and in non-unions most
| workers will trade away increases in vacation time for
| high wage increases or starting wages.
|
| Again, that is a very American thing, too. Of course
| you'd take increased wages instead of anything just
| because there are little to no saftey net anywhere to
| guarantee that your vacation time won't end up in a
| horrible unrecoverable disaster of some sort.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >>Have you asked those workers?
|
| you clearly did not understand my statement. I would
| specifically not get the accurate results by "asking the
| workers" as my claim is about revealed preferences, not
| stated preferences [1]. There are alots of things people
| claim to value when you ask them, but releval they really
| dont when to enter the marketplace. For example "Made in
| America".. people often claim they would happily pay
| considerable amounts more for a product if ti was "made
| in America" but then when presented with options they
| mostly choose the cheaper product regardless of where it
| is made revealing they do not place that much value in
| the nation of origin.
|
| Similarly people often claim they want more time off,
| however their reveled preference by looking at their
| actions tell a much different story.
|
| >Again, that is a very American thing, too
|
| yes, it is and given we are talking about an American
| Company, American Unions, and American Retail stores I
| think talking about American work culture is relevant.
| People from Europe have never, and likely will never
| understand it, and people from American have never and
| will never understand Europe work culture. Personally
| though I am tried of Europeans being arrogant enough to
| claim their way is the correct, proper and only way, and
| that Americans are all being taken advantage of, abused,
| etc because we do not get 150 days off a year and do not
| allow our government to control our health........
|
| >>Of course you'd take increased wages instead of
| anything just because there are little to no saftey net
| anywhere to guarantee that your vacation time won't end
| up in a horrible unrecoverable disaster of some sort.
|
| While that may be true for some people, allow me to give
| my privileged position as an example. I created my own
| Safety net. I am more or less debt free, I own my home, I
| have enough in liquid assets to cover my expenses for a
| year, I have enough in less than liquid assets to cover
| me for a few years... I still will take increases in pay
| over more time off, I am just not interested in time off.
| I probably will continue to work well past the time I am
| able to financially retire.. I am not unique in America
|
| As to more general safety nets... It is untrue that
| America lacks any safety nets for people. One of the most
| often cited negative about America by Europeans is
| actually one of those safety nets. Bankruptcy, which
| contrary to both international and domestic stigma is
| does not leave one destitute, homeless or anything of the
| sort and has LOTS of protections for people built into
| the system.
|
| Then there are TON of government programs for Poor
| people.
|
| In reality is the working lower middle class that have it
| the worst, people above the 25th percentile of income,
| and below the 75th percentile of income. Those are the
| struggling Americans.
|
| [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revealed-
| preference.asp
| illiarian wrote:
| > Personally though I am tried of Europeans being
| arrogant enough to claim their way is the correct, proper
| and only way, and that Americans are all being taken
| advantage of, abused, etc because we do not get 150 days
| off a year and do not allow our government to control our
| health........
|
| Ah. The American arrogance shines through. "Government
| controlling health" and "these lazy Europeans with their
| 150 days of vacation".
|
| > allow me to give my privileged position as an example.
| I created my own Safety net.
|
| So, double arrogance.
|
| > It is untrue that America lacks any safety nets for
| people. One of the most often cited negative about
| America by Europeans is actually one of those safety
| nets. Bankruptcy
|
| This is not a safety net. It's the last resort. And yes,
| Europe has laws around bankruptcy, too.
|
| > Then there are TON of government programs for Poor
| people.
|
| I don't want to become poor before safety nets kick in. I
| don't want to be beholden to my employer for my medical
| insurance. I don't want to have only 10-14 days on
| average to spend time with my family or with my kids.
| Etc.
|
| Oh, sorry, that's my European arrogance talking.
|
| > In reality is the working lower middle class that have
| it the worst, people above the 25th percentile of income,
| and below the 75th percentile of income.
|
| According to various models, it's anywhere from 30% to
| 45% of people, with actual numbers probably being worse:
| https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/legacy/files/downl
| oad...
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| > Which means it becomes a political game where the union
| is going to help you only if you help them.
|
| In the US unions are required to assist even non-members
| who are in jobs represented by the union. It's called the
| "free rider" problem.
|
| > And then the bosses get used to these unions and they
| know personally the people who represent the union, etc.
|
| This has historically been a problem in non-worker-run
| unions, and may still be. In worker-run unions workers
| directly elect their representatives from the membership.
| If you think your current leadership is too tight with
| management then you can run against them, or vote for
| someone who does.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >>If you think your current leadership is too tight with
| management then you can run against them, or vote for
| someone who does.
|
| Then you can get the opposite problem.. some with no
| understanding of the business, which never works out for
| anyone either the workers or the business.
|
| Workers could get screwed with out knowing it, or the
| demands are soo outside what the business can support the
| business would never agree.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| > Then you can get the opposite problem.. some with no
| understanding of the business, which never works out for
| anyone either the workers or the business.
|
| The elected person is still a worker at the business.
| Still talks with other workers at the business, as well
| as management. And still has access to the non-elected
| _employees_ of the union whose job it is to catalog and
| remember institutional knowledge.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| > the demands are soo outside what the business can
| support the business would never agree.
|
| Contract negotiations typically always start this way,
| from both sides of the bargaining table. That's why it's
| called contract bargaining. After a few rounds of back
| and forth you're supposed to hit something that's
| acceptable to both sides.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > Then you can get the opposite problem..
|
| Spunds like damned if you do, damned of you don't
|
| Is there any way for a worker to stand up for himself
| that sits right with you?
| anigbrowl wrote:
| _Then instead of being able to negotiate by yourself or
| freely pool together with other employees, you will have to
| go through the union._
|
| Freely pooling together...like a union? Your argument seems
| to hang on the notion that once people _do_ pool together,
| they lose all control and the union they created turns on
| its own members. That 's like saying corporations shouldn't
| have any management because the managers will just enrich
| themselves at the expense of the owners.
|
| It's particularly odd to read this since the person you
| replied told you that they're literally on the bargaining
| committee. So you're warning them about...themselves?
| rvnx wrote:
| If it's was so easy to form an union they would already
| have one.
|
| Yes I'm sure that OP already knows that sitting at the
| negotiating table is a good position for him but all the
| other members of the Union don't have that privilege.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| I can't speak for OP's situation obviously, but in most
| union contexts a person on the bargaining committee is
| answerable to other members, subject to removal, and
| reliant on re-election. Some organizations have practices
| of job rotation or term limits to ensure no single
| individual is irreplaceable.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| > The animus around unequal benefits ought to be directed to
| their union leaders, who need to do their fucking jobs and
| bargain for the benefits.
|
| If you don't actively support your union by signing petitions,
| being a member (US unions can no longer collect funds from non-
| members, so membership rates matter), and voting to take
| action, there's not much the leaders can do. There's still
| _some things_ the leadership can do, but it 's typically not
| action that will get the company to do anything.
|
| > you will only get what you bargain for
|
| Negotiating in bad faith does happen. At my job management
| quickly agreed to, and paid out early, our bargaining. And then
| a couple months after it was signed gave out out-of-cycle
| inflation raises to non-represented employees. The first time
| this has happened that I know of. And my union can't do
| anything about it for a few years because our contract is
| signed.
|
| Management said that all raises, even this special out-of-cycle
| one, was subject to negotiation. Even though our bargained
| contract stated that out-of-cycle raises could happen without
| negotiation. Heads they win, tails we lose.
|
| Edit: changed "month and a half" to "couple months" because it
| was shortly after, but I may be a bit wrong about the timing.
| peyton wrote:
| That's what you signed up for.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| No, I didn't sign up for disrespect and lies. Regardless,
| even this is better than the alternative I had before
| (years working as a permatemp, no yearly raise above 2%,
| even with outstanding ratings). At least now I can vent my
| ire at the boss without getting fired.
| catiopatio wrote:
| [flagged]
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| This reminds be of a mysogynistic argument I once heard:
|
| When wife gets a job she signs up for an adverserial
| relationship with her husband
| catiopatio wrote:
| How is that relevant to this discussion?
| uni_rule wrote:
| Do you feel the same way about police unions and the tax
| paying public?
| richwater wrote:
| Yes. Public unions are adversarial to the tax payer. They
| advocate for their personal benefit at the expense of
| other tax payers.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| Are municipal governments adversarial with the state?
| Some states think so, and go about banning municipalities
| from passing particular kinds of laws. And some
| municipalities also think so, and pass particular laws
| contrary to state law. But I think most people don't
| think this way about their municipal government and the
| state government.
|
| I signed up to have a level of representative government
| intermediate between me and the employer. I didn't sign
| up because this was an adversarial intermediation. In
| fact I'm happier when it isn't. I'm more than okay
| working toward the common good, I just want this common
| good decided between the parties through negotiation, not
| handed down from on high. And I want this common good
| negotiation equally available to all employees, not just
| those with the most personal clout.
| catiopatio wrote:
| Citizens and municipal and state governments are not in
| an employment relationship and are not remotely
| comparable to one.
|
| > I'm more than okay working toward the common good, I
| just want this common good decided between the parties
| through negotiation, not handed down from on high.
|
| What you've just described is an inherently adversarial
| relationship with an employer by virtue of your desire to
| co-opt ownership and authority over their business.
| nimbius wrote:
| I'm a Union diesel mechanic and I've seen this before. Its an
| undercut strategy used by companies who have lost a union
| battle but don't understand what that means, so they're told by
| consultants that if they just piss hard enough in the union
| cheerios people will see the difference and give up their
| membership. Sometimes they do it to undercut new membership but
| its been my experience unions often unintentionally make the
| membership bar pretty hard to begin with.
|
| Ultimately the union bargains for benefits above and beyond
| what companies already give their non union employees. The
| tactic winds up putting some companies over the barrel during
| union negotiations sometimes as it means whatever we win gets
| extended to an already well compensated non union workforce.
|
| Thank a union carpenter for your 40 hour work week ;)
| waboremo wrote:
| Yep, they aren't new tactics. Might be new to tech union
| figures, so it might be beneficial for them to take a great
| look at physical labor unions and the various strategies that
| will be deployed to potentially weaken numbers. There's
| decades and decades of these little tactics to learn from!
| colechristensen wrote:
| But also now any time Apple does anything positive for its
| nonunion employees it will be cast in the light of being an
| anti-union tactic.
|
| I'm happy about workers fighting for rights union or not...
| but what gets me irritated is rhetoric that focuses on the
| union itself and not the workers.
|
| In this case... The union agreed to its contract, people
| should stop whining about what they agreed to. You want now
| you have to wait until it's time to renegotiate. You wanted
| a deal that only gets updated periodically when the contact
| is up, that's the mechanics of what you agreed to.
| waboremo wrote:
| Well, it is an anti-union tactic. You're selecting which
| employees get [new positive thing] based on whether or
| not they're in a union. If they want to avoid such light
| they should only base the additions off department/team.
|
| I do agree that they should be focusing on
| renegotiations, what's currently happening is they're
| letting a lot of reporters get away with framing the
| situation as a "loss" for the union.
|
| I don't fully grasp your irritation regarding the focus
| on the union itself, it's supposed to be a representation
| of the workers as a baseline.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > Yep, they aren't new tactics.
|
| It also serves the union's employees well: they'll have to
| go negotiate and prove to their members that they are worth
| the union dues they pay to get these benefits. These people
| have no interests in Apple just raising salaries for
| everyone.
|
| > Might be new to tech union figures
|
| Apple Stores isn't tech, it's retail.
| noloblo wrote:
| archive unpaywall : https://archive.is/I15dd
| News-Dog wrote:
| [flagged]
| endisneigh wrote:
| Slightly off topic: Have there ever been any unions that simply
| started their own co-op?
| none_to_remain wrote:
| Not a co-op, but in NYC the UFT (teachers' union for the school
| districts) started its own charter school, which ended up
| performing horribly and getting shut.
| user3939382 wrote:
| It's always been obvious to me that for all these corporations
| with the loud progressive "values", it's all marketing, they have
| no values and it's all bullshit.
|
| So satisfying watching them be forced to take the mask off in
| public view for once.
| abirch wrote:
| There is a spectrum of progressive values. Like business
| leaders can be pro-marriage equality but not be pro-union, like
| there are union members who aren't pro-LGBTQ.
| smoldesu wrote:
| That's not a spectrum, they are separate and non-
| contradictory ideas. They might exist along a spectrum of
| progressiveness, but the point the parent made is that money
| triumphs over them all. It triumphed over privacy, it
| triumphed over freedom, and it's capable of a lot worse if we
| don't legally obligate these companies to act right.
| abirch wrote:
| The parent appeared to show hypocrisy because the
| businesses espoused certain separate non-contradictory
| ideas and not others. The businesses were never pro-union
| as far as I can see; so I'm missing the hypocrisy. Apple is
| definitely pro-LGBT, so trying to diminish their
| progressive values such as gay rights seems wrong.
| user3939382 wrote:
| It's not "hypocrisy" it's lying. They pretend to care
| about x, y, and z and they don't and never did. It's
| marketing, it's a lie. Usually they have plausible
| deniability. In the case of giving a shit about their
| workers, they don't because they have to publicly fight
| unionization to have any hope of slowing or stopping it.
| abirch wrote:
| When did Apple ever pretend to care about supporting
| unions?
| user3939382 wrote:
| They, like many companies, pretend to care about their
| workers. They, like many companies, don't. They care
| about profit, period.
|
| Neither do they care about the environment, gay rights,
| privacy, or whatever other issue they pretend to care
| about.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Apple cares about gay rights insofar as it sells iPhones.
| As evidenced by their business in China, they will bend
| any belief (even "privacy is a human right") if the money
| is there.
| uni_rule wrote:
| It's just further proof that they take those stances as a
| pure emotionless calculation made as soon as they
| calculated doing so would not negatively impact them
| financially. At such a scale these companoes rarely speak
| genuine activism, just money.
|
| Since unions are are always deemed a negative in the
| realm of pure bean counting it's just further proof their
| stances are hollow financial calculations made for public
| appeal rather than actual activism because the values
| between these two actions are politically inconsistent in
| terms of modern progressive but make perfect sense if you
| see the world as a bean counting contraption.
| lozenge wrote:
| Apple being pro-marriage equality doesn't affect anything.
| richwater wrote:
| I bet it matters to the employees who are not straight.
| lozenge wrote:
| Not if they and managers follow the law on discrimination
| in the workplace.
| kevingadd wrote:
| Apple has ended up having to go mask off in some other recent
| legal struggles as well - their decision to describe itch.io as
| a source for 'unspeakable games' in an attempt to win points
| against Epic is a good example of how they haven't changed
| their stripes since the old days when you were banned from
| including religious or sexual themes of any kind on the App
| Store, even stuff as mundane as 'my project gutenberg app
| allows you to read the Kama Sutra'.
|
| In general all of these big companies only hold progressive
| values if it's profitable to do so. You'll see rainbow-colored
| logos on big corporate campuses but when it's time to censor or
| surveil minority groups for the government they all line up.
| rqtwteye wrote:
| It's pretty simple. They embrace whatever makes more profit or
| supplies cheaper workers.
|
| A few weeks ago I listened to the CEO of my company. He went on
| and on about diversity. Then somebody asked about how the
| yearly merit increases would compensate for inflation. He
| rambled a little about the difficult competitive space and then
| started another monologue about diversity.
| javajosh wrote:
| This would be an actually interesting story if you removed the
| word "from". Otherwise, it's "dog bites man".
| spinningarrow wrote:
| > held meetings with staff members to discuss the risks of
| unionization and provide a planned update on bargaining between
| the company and the first unionized store
|
| Re: the risks of unionization especially in retail - are they
| ever greater than the risk of not unionizing? And are there
| examples of workers at companies that benefited from not
| unionizing?
| 35208654 wrote:
| It's not like we can run an A/B on the benefits for every
| employee and every company, but I can speak for one particular
| industry and one company during one particular point in time:
| automobile manufacturing and Toyota. During the 2008 financial
| crisis, the perception at Toyota by many employees was that,
| while their wages were nominally lower than their counterparts
| at unionized companies, it made them more robust to the
| economic downturn, resulting in fewer layoffs of permanent
| workers. This is not to say that unionization didn't have its
| place in the conversation. What I heard directly was that "the
| threat of unionization is enough for us to get the benefits and
| pay raises we ask for."
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-09 23:01 UTC)