[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)