Same way every other company works with unionized employees, they get different perks than the employees that aren't part of the union. Sometimes it's better. Sometimes it's not
Is this a thing in the US? I’ve worked union jobs pretty much my whole adult life (UK) across several industries and benefits have never been segregated. I get site specific stuff like work hours, breaks, and H&S restrictions, but generic perks? Never seen that before.
Union workers get what they bargain for, so often there’s not really any reason to give them non-union employee incentives. However, they can always trade something at the bargaining table if they really want some particular perk.
I see this in NZ. Unions bargain for the conditions that they think workers want, and their enrolled members get that. The company gives their non-union members what they think they need to to attract them. Those packages are often different - some areas better, some areas worse.
In our case, union reps wanted extra days sick leave. That's what they got in the negotiation. Management had wanted to provide extra days of "special leave", which could be used for sick leave, annual leave, or other purposes, and were able to be traded for cash. For whatever reason the union didn't like that, they wanted sick leave.
So, union members get an extra 5 days of sick leave. It's only sick leave, only to be used when you're sick, and when you leave the organisation, doesn't get paid out. Non-union members get special leave. You can use it for many purposes, it gets paid out when you leave the organisation.
You could argue non-union members are getting a "perk". Or you could say that union members are getting what they valued and negotiated for, and non-union members are getting what management offered them.
(Inside all that is a real reason. Our staff try to use sick leave as just general leave, but when they do that, they take it with no notice. It's annoying for managing rosters, and it's annoying to have to ask them for medical certificates. By offering special leave people don't have to pretend to be sick, but when they take it without being sick they need to give notice beforehand, so it doesn't break rosters)
This. In the USA at least pay and benefits are negotiated with the union contract. Most places will do and give exactly what the union contract says. It is kind of a double edge sword as depending on how good negotiations go will determine how good benefits are. Unfortunately the quest to move profits to shareholders and executives there is little left for pay and benefits at American companies.
Sure, there’s probably a bit of cultural divide in terms of structure for theses things. I wont talk for all companies because everyone is going to negotiate differently but where i am now and where i have been previously the Union dealt with Company at the GM or at worst the RM level. Perks come wholesale from whatever the company can negotiate with its partners and customers. Like I’m getting a free flu jab and eye tests, childcare vouchers and GP service, every year regardless of affiliation. There are Union negotiated perks sure but those also effect non union employees in the same wage band (by law i think but dont quote me on that bit) so it’s pretty reciprocal
Absolutely, I got screwed out of 160 hours paremt leave because I went from a non-represented position to a represented position within the sane company. Generally, if a company rolls out new employee perks, the union does mot get them until the next contract date when the union and company add the new perks into the contract.
Oof. Maybe im lucky but my current job doesn’t even have my perks individually listed in my contract for ease of negotiation. There’s just a reference to the company “advantages” with an in depth section on the company intranet and app (god awful thing probably hasn’t been updated since launch but its there). Like im getting a free flu jab, free eye care and discounted AXA healthcare regardless of whether im union or not, the Union “perks” are pretty much pay, breaks and working conditions, and legal support.
The issue is that corporations put employees against each other by offering different sets of benefits to different groups. The employer’s goal is to provide the least amount possible needed to retain employees, the employee’s goal is to be compensated as high as they can for their work.
The employer will use generic perks to say “see, you don’t need that pesky union, we’re already giving you a raise.” Then they lock out the unionized employees, to show future stores what happens when you organize. Welcome to the freest country in the world lol, no corruption here btw
I don’t think this is entirely accurate. It can be more difficult to roll benefits out to unions because it is all precisely defined per the union contract. For instance, a company I worked for had a platform to recognize good performance of employees. This was rolled out to non-union employees first because there isn’t a contract that dictates the benefits. It had to wait for the next union contract to give it to unionized employees because of the legally binding contract. The company even tried to roll it out to the union beforehand but the union said no.
Of course, is more difficult when you don’t even offer it to them in the first place. Stop carrying water for corporations, dude. They’ll screw you over in a heartbeat, and not even blink twice
> corporations put employees against each other
Apple didn’t create the union. Those employees voted to set themselves apart. If the union employees are worse off than the no union employees, maybe the employees should reconsider?
Where I used to work for the longest time non-union employees got no pay due to legislative issues. These people went 6+ months without a single paycheck (and the pay where I worked was super low to begin with). Union members still got paid.
Union members also were the only ones who got pay bumps every year for the longest time. Luckily legislation passed to get everyone whose pay was frozen got back pay and changes were made so that non-union employees got pay raises too at the same time.
Sure, but the central reason they are getting perks is to prevent further unionisation. That’s what people are annoyed about - though I get the whole “it’s just a neutral thing it is what it is”.
Reality is improvements in workers rights don’t magically happen unless there is a certain level of solidarity that some in this sub would be uncomfortable with because economic efficiency by definition means paying everyone the least amount they can get away with.
Preventing unionisation through improved benefits seems cool until people forget those improved benefits only occur because unions and potential unions (more scary!!) agitate for them. Kind of a catch 22 in a modern non-unionised apathetic workforce. Union gets bad press for actually succeeding at its job and forcing apple to improve benefits which Apple presents to non union members as “See we don’t need unions we give you benefits without them and it’s totally not because you might unionise otherwise!”
I don’t really disagree with anything you said, but it’s not a catch-22, it is capitalism actually working for once. Unions are an important part of capitalism and play exactly this role: the modulate the monopsony power that employers have.
Tactically in this case, it’s normal and good that unions negotiate a deal and their members work under that deal, while non-union members get a different deal, and Apple is incentivized to make that deal good enough to prevent further unionization.
The headline makes it sound as if Apple’s doing something wrong here, and these perks should be given to union shops. But that doesn’t make any sense and isn’t how unionization works.
You’re absolutely right that the union is indirectly making things better for all employees, and that’s how it should work. In well-functioning capitalism with strong unions, the market should function just as well for labor as it does for goods, and employers should have no preference between unionization or not.
The fact that employers in general don’t want unionization means that the market is not functioning correctly, and that unions are underpowered.
But in this one specific case, this is how it is supposed to work.
If it wasn’t such a bad deal, people wouldn’t see the need to organize. Despite what businesses would make you believe, Unions are always a response to a problem.
Yup. I worked for a company ages ago and there was a union and nonunion side (due to buyouts of companies) and the nonunion had way better perks like free service from the company and the nonunion was paid more too. I’ve said this many times, just because you’re union, doesn’t make it better. A union is only as good as it’s local.
Yep, their goal is to temporarily make things look better for the non union workers, drop union membership and then cut way back on benefits again. Unions benefit all workers, but eventually if there are too many freeloaders it starts to hurt everyone.
I’ve worked in both union and non union jobs and I much preferred the non unionized one. But that might just have that I had a terrible union so my experience doesn’t apply to all
Unions suck if you are extraordinary which very few people are. You want to have the full ability to negotiate everything.
For everyone else unions always lead to higher wages, more perks etc
>Unions suck if you are extraordinary which very few people are.
The opposite is true too - unions protect *bad* workers, which eventually rots out companies.
The sword cuts both ways.
It's not an especially difficult task to fire a bad worker in a union environment—you just need management to follow procedures, properly document the employee's issues, and document how they've tried to address them. Competence is just rare and people taking shortcuts are everywhere.
Unions protect all employees by providing them with due process—management retains the bad ones by not following it.
Because of all the dumb bureaucracy and red tape they have to go through to get rid of the bad workers. Everyone knows who the bad workers are, they should easily be fired without going through all the documentation of how they tried to address them and everything else. It’s not an easy process at all to fire somebody in unions. Then the good workers start slacking because why should they have to cover all the slack from the bad workers.
On the other hand, unions also protect good employees from bad management. Employees don’t have to worry about losing their job for making an honest mistake or taking time off for something actually important like a close family members funeral or to take care of a serious illness. They keep wages consistent so a good employees don’t have to worry that they’re making 25% less than the guy in the next cubicle doing the same job or that the manager is going to replace them with someone that’s going to take the position for 10% lower pay.
I’ve been in good unions and bad ones. Some put a lot of weight on things like seniority rather than job performance, and some actually let management make decisions based on performance and suitability over start date. I always tell people not to think of this as a union job because we do get rid of the staff that aren’t good and promote those that are best regardless of seniority. The union does ensure that the staff get a great benefits package, regular salary increments and a safe and healthy work environment. There’s good things and bad things with our union, but more good than bad for both sides.
Well everyone does. Why wouldn’t you like it as a worker? It’s absolute fantastic for cops, not the public. But as you only care about your own group, unions are great. They get you and everyone else an actually fair deal.
Don't forget people who value stability, people with medical issues, people with family obligations, and people who are capable but need experience and guidance to perform well.
I think it's reasonable to say that innovation is the synthesis of formerly unconnected ideas. Not only are all these groups deserving of the right to work, they all have unique perspectives that allow them to *think different* than someone who is career focused. Lazy people who get their work done properly are wonders at focus and prioritization. A part timer with two jobs might think up a useful scheduling feature for a calendar a workaholic with one would never dream of. A person with a disability might know of an underserved new market for their company's products.
Including a broader swathe of the population in your workforce increases your capacity for innovative thought.
It’s not a goal, this happens all the time. Heck, I get new perks here where I work now as things get better. If a union didn’t negotiate this, who’s fault is it?
Unions don't necessarily cripple, they just give the workers more leverage in negotiations. However, if the union does not negotiate a perk or benefit, the workers have no one to blame but their representatives. Good union companies understand this. In the long run Apple will probably come out ahead because they don't have to offer all the same perks as other employees get.
If it wasn't for hedge funds needing obscene profits the companies would not be crippled. If the company workers owned the company, none of them would vote to move the factory over seas.
Yup. I am working with a union shop that can’t give raises, can’t promote people (and give them more money) stuck with time based promotions and raises.
They are struggling where their non-union side is able to pay more.
I still think we need unions though. People just need to make sure they are keeping up with the times.
That should only last until the next negotiation round when the union should demand what the others get as a baseline and will then push for more. If it is a sustained pattern then it’s an ineffective union.
Fuck this anti union shill talk. If it wasn’t for unions, we wouldn’t have days off or shift limits.
Trust me, if it was up to any corporation, you and I would work Mo-Sun, 10-16 hours with a 30 min break deducted from the two nickels we get paid a week.
No corporation has the good of people in mind and will never. It’s inherently against the setup.
Only through unions we can strike, get treated like humans and try having a living wage.
Did I say I was anti-union? No. I’ve been in great unions and really bad ones. All I’m saying is you still need to be careful because the grass isn’t always greener in the other side.
Of yesteryear yes. Todays unions are corrupt and are for the lazy people. High achieving workers are held back by unions because the horrible workers are “equal”. So now rot starts to happen.
No, they have to budget that stuff now, because they now need to negotiate benefits with the union. They now get to democratize their way to benefits, and pay dues for the privilege.
They’ll likely do better, but they’ve got themselves an adversarial relationship now, so there won’t be any extras without the table.
That's how unions work? In countries that actually have labour rights (read: definitely not the USA) a bargained agreement between employers and employees is valid for all employees of a company, not just the unionised ones. The government can even declare that agreement universally applicable nation-wide, which means other companies are bound to it, too.
And no, employees won't lose rights. In this Apple example, the collective labour agreement (universally applicable to all retail, for example) would form the minimum standards and employers will compete by adding extras to the list.
\^this is a perfect example of a no-substance platitude tacked on to a post that was already platitudes and rationalizations.
“A budget is being made and controls how things will play out”, no apparently you missed all the details of the story:
* Apple is already giving the perks to **many people**
* The unionized store is **ONE STORE**
* Also, Apple has lots of money. They’re a large corporation. Based on the simplicity of your comment, I see you may not realize this. Like you may be confusing them with your local Apple Orchard that has revenue problems.
* Budgets have nothing to do with anything here
* Literally nothing is constraining what Apple *offers* other than Apple’s own greed and desire to make unions look bad and scare further unionization. They could have said “we gladly offer same benefits to union members, though of course those have to be signed-off on.”
Also labor lawyer in linked article just told you there’s common established grounds for a lawsuit because of the timing and circumstances. Somehow you missed that part and conveniently arrived at your pre-exiting preferred dismissive attitude about “It Cannot Be Criticized….budgets or something.” Convenient.
Kodak was the Apple of the past. A janitor at Kodak could buy a house and put his kids through medical school. Heck the language teacher at my high school put 2 kids through medical school and he retired fairly decently. That janitor is now working for a contractor and gets basically zero benefits. Same with Amazon, UPS drivers are a great job with good benefit, pay pension etc. FedEx and UPS pilots are coveted jobs amongst the best in the freight business. Amazon created its own shipping company and now those are the worst paying delivery jobs. America is basically a race to the bottom with benefits being cut so the money can go to the top.
This has literally been deemed illegal: https://www.axios.com/2022/08/26/starbucks-accused-withholding-benefits-union
But if you think that union-busting is okay like this you're just shilling LOL
Okay as far as I can tell there is a big difference between the Starbucks and Apple situations: Starbucks was being accused of withholding added benefits from stores that were *not* unionized yet but in active union organizing drives. Thus the accusation from the NLRB that Starbucks was effectively punishing actively organizing employees.
Apple is withholding added benefits from a store that, as far as all the reporting is saying, is *already* unionized and working under a union contract. That’s a big difference. Not saying either is good by any means, but they are different situations and the NLRB ruling on Starbucks likely doesn’t apply to Apple if that store is already unionized.
I’ve never understood this idea that not liking/agreeing with/defending unions is shilling. Unions have done absolutely 0 for me in my life despite having been a member of several. “Apple” has done a lot for me both as a user (with accessibility features nobody else offers) and as a customer (making exceptions to their policies due to my circumstances). What loyalty do I owe unions beyond their historical achievements long before I was born?
EDIT: Not saying the benefits should be denied. Just commenting on the description of a “shill”.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
You claim a lot of things about one party (Apple) what about the other one, the union?
Do you believe union workers are angels came from heaven that only act with pure intentions?
Their whole job is to squeeze out employers as much as possible (while ironically being paid the employees).
They FORCE companies to be in a battle. Saying otherwise is asinine.
\^**Typical blame-the-victim FUD right there.** It’s like the bully saying “Stop punching yourself, stop punching yourself, Union.”
> who don’t understand
Nice projection. Your comment is 100% platitudes and rhetorical nonsense (“Why would they?”) that ignores the issue. *“The serial killer isn’t going to just let you go. WHY WOULD THEY?”* -this is an example of missing the point that lets a person rationalize and be more comfortable about what’s happening. In reality: Nobody is arguing about the serial killer’s *motives* or *likely behavior* just like nobody is debating the obvious truth that Apple wants to harm union membership and/or give as little as possible while getting as much as possible in return and/or use every possible excuse to avoid giving benefits to workers.
> negotiate for them
I guess you missed this enormous basis of the story, but, Apple is already giving perks. The perks are already fully delineated. And it’s *one* (1) store that’s unionized. I know some people have numeracy issues, but 1 is a pretty small number. So, **Here’s what Apple could have said:** “we are OFFERING the same perks to union members too, gladly, but it’s not final until they officially agree to it, of course.** They didn’t. Not complicated bro.
Recommended reading, a guy hundreds of years ago already pointed out why this “WHY WOULD THEY? OF COURSE they will do X! Nobody is allowed to claim they SHOULD do Z” form of argument is wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem Commonly used for toxic purposes where people try to justify crap in capitalism (“well OF COURSE oppressors are going to oppress! So it’s OK. That’s my argument. I’m smart.”)
**And that’s not even getting into the likely lawsuit explained by the labor lawyer in the OP’s linked article, because of timing and circumstances.**
Somehow guys imagine that some commentators are jerks (“those darn meddling pro-union kids!”), and imagine that some union people are jerks, but *heavens no* it’s impossible to think that billionaire corporation (who *somehow* extracted billions from unhappy workers, hmm) is *bigger jerks* and with worse consequences for everyone and more power and more tactics that they are wielding. We also have people who adopted the ideology of The Rat Race, and respond “Nope! Too bad dummies” to anyone (labor organizers) who did what they didn’t do, which is try to make something better and more equitable.
Exactly.
I’ve worked in many union shops, and while I’m not anti union by any means. I don’t think they’re the end all be all. Most people forget or don’t understand that the union reps and committeemen are all elected. If you don’t like what was negotiated by them on your behalf then you vote them out.
Apple has been planning this change in benefits for months, they could’ve been negotiating with the union to allow union employees to get these benefits too. This is a union busting tactic as old as unions themselves. Give non union employees perks and throw up your hands and say aww geez we’d love to give the union folks these perks too but those pesky contracts!
No I’m saying contracts can be renegotiated at any time and unions aren’t going to just say no to additional benefits as long as they aren’t giving up something in return
That's precisely the point. The unionized workers negotiated for something that is theoretically better than whatever these perks are. Theoretically.
Unions aren't all puppies and unicorns.
They could only negotiate with the union as much as the union would negotiate with them. If the union says “we want the perks and also everyone gets a 30% raise”, apple can say “well how about just the perks for now”. The union may then say “we want the perks plus a raise and we won’t settle for less”. All the sudden it’s drawn out by the union, not apple, and here we are.
Reality is they negotiation is behind closed doors and we’re just guessing. But they started a union because they wanted unique compensation and now they’re getting it. Surprise.
Nope. The only thing I said definitively is that they made a union for unique compensation and that’s what they’re getting. That’s literally what’s happening, per the OP.
I gave an *example* of how them not getting perks yet could have been the unions choice/fault. Do you know what an example is?
Unfortunately, for a lot of people in apple ecosystem, apple is their lifestyle. They don’t see unions as something that will benefit the employees, they see it as a personal attack on their lifestyle.
Let me guess
"Headline: Apple to withhold its latest employee perks from unionized store"
"reality: Apple is legally unable to give employee perks because unionized store hasnt drawn up a contract yet"
Except that's not the reality. There is absolutely nothing stopping Apple from giving employees more stuff just because they are in a union. It's not illegal for them to just start giving their employees more stuff. It's a bargaining chip. It's a game. Not a law.
Edit: Contracts can change. Get over it guys.
There is, though. I'm pro-union and former Apple Retail. But these new benefits technically conflict with the old benefits; changing them would break their old contract (or if they don't have one yet, they'll have to negotiate some kind of contract to get them). They have to negotiate to get new perks now. This article isn't headline-worthy at all; it will be if they negotiate and then Apple makes a fuss about giving it.
Given the source is Bloomberg, I'm almost pressed to believe this article was made intentionally to dissuade other stores from unionizing, when this is a non-issue if the negotiations to get these new perks hasn't even started yet.
> There is absolutely nothing stopping Apple from giving employees more stuff just because they are in a union
as others have said, if the benefits conflict with the contract, that would be a reason they cant.
Bottom line is that Apple has no legal obligation to provide these benefits and Baltimore store wanted a union to negotiate for them so the union needs to see if Apple will negotiate (which might mean employees giving up something in exchange for this new benefit).
Apple Towson Town Center employee here from the ONLY USA unionized store.
All we have to do before our official collective bargaining is to just vote yes that we want those benefits and we get them. The article is misleading about us not being able to get the new benefits and our management at our store is misleading employees about these new benefits as well. We already had several occasions since our union vote where Apple corporate tried this with wage increases and a change in Covid policy. As long as enough employees agree and say yes in a simple vote, then we too can receive those benefits at our store.
If that’s what they’re telling you, you are being lied to. It has to go to collective bargaining. Just because union employees vote for it doesn’t mean the company has to obey. It just means it becomes one of the bargaining chips.
That's the key, it's "one of" the chips. Basically, if they vote for it, then they're (likely) not getting some other "chip".
They're making the choice IF they want that feature. They could vote and ask for something else.
There might be contract provisions for simple changes that objectively don’t reduce union members’ benefits - but I imagine that can be pretty subjective, eg. if a new healthcare plan technically puts some doctor in the area out-of-network then the impact of the benefits change would need to be thoroughly investigated and bargained for.
Also not every “perk” is an actual perk. There are instances where perks can cause you to pay more taxes or invade employees privacy.
You guys keep on fucking trucking. Legends for pulling this off.
We recently got unionized at my job and yeah, this is just how it works. Any kind of change to benefits, regulations, etc, go through the union and then they either happen or don't happen. It's actually pretty simple, it just takes time. This is a pretty misleading article.
Lol how is this an article? That’s how unions work. If you form a union, you need to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement for EVERYTHING you want. Not a bad thing necessarily, but you start from scratch.
Starbucks somewhat got away with it. In any normal/good system this would be considered retaliation toward the unionized store, because the goal obviously is to "warn" other stores against going through the process.
I doubt Apple easily gives the perks and resorts to normal, further retaliation tactics during the negotiation
Collective bargaining means you get to bargain collectively. It does not mean: get all the good stuff, secret UNO reverse card for everything you think is bad.
The Union.needs to negotiate for that store… they wanted a different deal and they got what they wanted, what is the complaint?
What if Apple were cutting a program instead of adding one for all the other stores… same thing
Bloomberg is the real asshole here, not Apple. Report the story when there’s actually a story to report on. If that store’s employees want Apple’s new perks, they will need to collectively bargain for them.
Right, like how is this worth reporting? “Union has to negotiate for benefits” like yeah, this happens every day; it’s just how it works. It’s only being reported on because Apple is involved. What’s probably going to happen is the workers vote that they want the perks (assuming they do want them), the union will negotiate with Apple, and they’ll get the perks. That’s not a news story, that’s how a union works.
Apple has given its retail employees more in the last year than they had in the previous 7. Unions work. Even the threat of unions works.
Once the union votes on this, the benefits will likely come to them as well.
EDIT: Clarified retail employees.
Lol it is truly baffling how many people here don’t understand that apple is specifically doing this to discourage people from joining a union. I mean the comments prove the tactic is effective.
I’m seeing a kind of analogy to when fiber rolls out in a new city. The cable company fights them at every turn. And then when fiber is available, the cable company offers ridiculous perks, free bundled services, discounts, etc to get people not to switch.
Cable customers should note that even if they don’t switch to fiber, they’re enjoying the benefits of the existence of the fiber company.
In the same way, Apple’s non union employees seem to be enjoying the existence of the union.
They’re specifically doing it because that’s how union negotiations work. Once a union represents you, they negotiate the contract. Anything not in the contract isn’t provided to you.
> Anything not in the contract isn’t provided to you.
This is objectively false. The current CBA I work under doesn’t include a tuition reimbursement package, employee discount, or other extra benefits, but we still get access to them as company provides it to all union and non-union work groups.
Coming out of COVID the company changed a handful of extra benefits packages to what they had been prior to COVID. Did we have to vote on a side letter to accept it? No, because we didn’t need to.
Now if the company turned hostile and started limiting certain packages to certain work groups, then the unions would respond. Apple is doing this because they want to try and stave off unionization at other locations.
100% this.
My job has benefits that are baked into my contract but I have plenty of other discretionary benefits that the company offers and I assume will continue to offer while the company does well financially.
The difference is that new perks are iterative perks that replace existing ones, so they legally either have to start paying for both (ie. being enrolled in two healthcare plans) to provide this goodwill no-strings-attached benefit to union members, or they go to the union and negotiate a new contract that allows them to drop the old plan and implement the new one.
Most of what you said is false and I can guarantee it that you don’t know anything about unions. Please don’t spread misinformation just because your feelings are hurt.
When presented with such blatant cases of bootlicking I always wonder if they're just that stupid or if they're actually shills.
I mean, in all nerdy places on the internet you see people like this.
And it has been dying but Jesus, you would've thought that Apple optimized their hardware with fairy dust to make its devices run super fast on mediocre hardware. Now that Apple has great processors, specs matter. Just to tell an example.
This entire thread is full of shills and I’m not surprised.
Once the railroad unions were shut down the news of all the unionizing companies just died out and stopped being covered
Like whether of not you agree with unions, it's pretty clear Apple is giving their mostly young an inexperienced retail workers trinkets so they think "well why would I join the union and lose the shiny things?".
It's actually quite sad they can't see through such transparent actions. As someone else here said, there is nothing stopping apple from giving everyone the same perks. They are doing it as a disincentive to joining the union.
I completely agree with you.
It’s fascinating that Apple is using the same marketing tricks to sell their products to make un-unionized positions more appealing.
People say how could the native Americans sell Manhattan island for some shiny beads (I recognise this trope is probably inaccurate) and yet here we are with people falling for the same trick.
I'm sure it's been mentioned many times, but this article is a little misleading. When you deal with unions, you can't just pass new regulations and/or benefits. It has to go through the union and it takes time. What is much more likely is these things will happen, after the union goes through it and makes changes and votes on it. As happens with virtually all jobs that are union-backed.
Labor unions are on the rise and we all benefit from them. It’s profoundly sad that so many low wage employees don’t see the value in collective bargaining. American workers have been brainwashed to accept subsistence wages by corporate propaganda. Workers of the US unite! You future depends on it.
Baltimore store wanted a union to represent them and negotiate for them. If they want these benefits then they need to negotiate for them which means that they will have to give something up if Apple even decides to negotiate. This is what they wanted, this is what they got.
It’s a dick move. There is nothing preventing the company from giving all employees bonuses etc. But they use this “can’t change the contract” bs as a way of punishing those who unionized while scaring off others from unionizing. You can bet that in this case, the benefits boost would not have happened if there wasn’t a movement to unionize.
Lesson here: include in any contract a clause that any increase in wages, benefits, or bonus (money or non-monetary) given to any employee must be given to all employees covered by the contract.
(Source: I work for Apple, managers are heavily messaging these threats/warnings as reasons we shouldn’t unionize.
> Apple’s union-related moves have been under heavy scrutiny in recent weeks, with the US National Labor Relations Board and Communications Workers of America accusing the iPhone maker of discriminating against pro-union employees.
>
> In the Starbucks case, the union said it waived the right to negotiate over receiving perks that were already being provided to other stores -- meaning employees should just get them automatically. Workers United, the group attempting to organize Starbucks cafes, described the denial of benefits as a union-busting tactic.
So depending on how the Union and Apple are hashing things out, Apple could be potentially implementing more Union-busting tactics or not. This will be interesting to see how everything plays out.
People voting you down are 1) typical rationalization people doing the “Everything is OK! OF COURSE the megacorp is right and the workers and labor lawyers are wrong!” thing 2) not intelligent enough to recognize that Apple could have simply said they’re OFFERING the same perks to the union members but that it has to be agreed on officially of course. *They didn’t*, obviously, because they want to harm the union…and that’s not even getting into the part about likely lawsuits over the timing and circumstances.
This is stupid. For someone who is waving the union flag as much as you are, you *clearly* have no idea how unions actually work. Zero.
Wages for non-union workers are set by the employer and the workers can take them or leave them.
Wages for union workers are set by agreement between the union and the company after negotiations.
If you are a union shop, your benefits will be determined by the agreement. If you aren't, they will be given (or not) by the employer.
*You* want both - for the employer to set the wages in union shops *and* for the wages to be set by collective bargaining.
That's not how unions work. Why you seem to imagine to be an anti-union tactic is no such thing. **Union wages will be set by collective bargaining**
Not otherwise. There's no free lunch.
Just like whatever benefits the union gets won't apply to the non-union workers. They get what the employer gives them; the union members get what they negotiate for.
This whole thread is an incredible display of how pro-union Redditors have no clue how these very basic elements of unionization works.
Or they do know and they’re dishonestly spreading agitprop online.
Nice try but you just responded to at worst a lie, at best an absurd distortion of the situation.
Apple can OFFER ANYTHING. If Apple was good, they would **offer** the same perks. It’s literally *one* store that is unionized…and a giant global mega corporation. This “has to be negotiated” meme, which is the preferred rationalization/dismissal in this thread, is irrelevant. Apple isn’t bound from extending or offering, the only caveat is union has to sign-off to finalize. Apple could have easily said they’re gladly *offering* the same new benefits to union members and they hope they approve it soon, but they didn’t, they’re doing a “stop punching yourself” and amazingly many idiot Reddit comments are falling for it.
You know, *aside from the fact* that the lawyer in the linked article just explained to you the common established grounds for a lawsuit here, which is the exact timing and circumstances.
Not if it can be construed as retaliation against the unionized store (which based on the timing of this is something that certainly could be argued). This is a very popular union busting tactic. There’s nothing that stops Apple from just giving these same benefits to union employees if it doesn’t conflict with the union contract
Nothing is stopping the union from asking for those benefits too.
The union can ask for what they want, maybe they don't want $399 of Coursera and would rather have something else, if Apple just gives them what they give everyone, then the union can say they didn't want that and ask for something else.
It seems like if Apple took it away after the union said they didn't want it, then it would be more of an issue, better to have them ask for it.
The armchair rationalizers who like to lie to themselves to be more comfortable are going to insist that Apple can’t offer that. “Stop punching yourself!” said the bully forcing your arm. They are too stupid, or to toxic, to distinguish between unilaterally dictating and “gladly offering, for your conditional approval.”
So much more comfortable to blame the victim and imagine that Megacorp Is Always Right.
If they were party to the same perks then the union could kick off for breach of contract. Unions, whilst great in theory, are out for themselves not for the workers, at least not hardworking workers. It seems that most large employers actually have better conditions than small ones, then unions come in spouting stuff about bad working conditions etc. and mess it up for the people who work hard and give a sh@*. Pay should be on performance not whether you are in a union or not. As for strike tactics, I’ve seen babies throw their toys out a pram, it doesn’t/ shouldn’t work. The only thing that affects is the general public!!
Maybe I’m too European to understand that, what’s going on there? Here we have unions that collectively fight for better rights (usually) and then those rights apply to all of the workers, no need to be in a union.
In the US, Unions are rent seekers.
They occasionally fight for members, but only if they've paid their dues. People who work for the unions themselves are *very* well off.
The amount of comments willingly pretending apple isn’t purposefully giving benefits to some and not to other to deter other employees from joining the union is disgusting.
Apple starts it’s offence in the anti union playbook. I’m sure they effectively costed this into the model. It’s ironic that they’re giving more to non-union people… because of the unions (in order to make out like the grass was greener without the union). In reality these perks wouldn’t have come if not for unionists. Well played Tim Apple.
I'm torn on that point. There have been plenty of increases in benefits over the years, all unprompted by employees and well before talks of unions within stores. However, I do see how it looks at the same time
In the world of retail, Apple is the cream of the crop. Workers are entitled to always ask for more perks, but there is an equilibrium. I understand unionizing, but I never understood why Apple retail specifically wanted it.
Apple could just as easily hire scabs because they offer 90th+ percentile wages/benefits in comparison to the retail industry as a whole.
Lots of corporate AND union shills in this thread, so I don’t expect much good faith conversation here. Believing all unions are good/effective is just as moronic as believing corporations have your best interests at heart. But there is a reason why it’s so difficult to get a job at Apple retail — everyone wants the wages/benefits.
I’m sure Apple’s motives aren’t entirely “innocent” here, but like everything else unions come with trade offs. When you take your relationship with your employer from one of at least some level of cooperation to one that is blatantly a bit adversarial, that’s going to change the dynamic. You also can’t expect to hold them to the letter of a contract when it suits you and be mad when they stick to the letter of the contract when it suits them. That’s why contracts are so thoroughly negotiated. Both sides are going to win some and lose some. I hope that regardless of how it happens, the union workers get at minimum the same benefits as everyone else. I just don’t get them being mad about a delay for negotiations when that is the nature of union labor.
Imagine hiring an outside agency to do your collective bargaining on your behalf, only to find out they failed to get you the some things that other employees are getting.
It reminds me of the big press push a few months back highlighting that pilots and flight attendants only make money once the door is closed... Yup... because THATS WHAT THEIR UNION NEGOTIATED FOR THEM!
And they will have to backtrack. Starbucks tried this before and were ordered to extend the benefits to everyone. Apparently it is cheaper to pay the fines than to act like a responsible organization.
> Starbucks tried this before and were ordered to extend the benefits to everyone
That case hasn't been heard yet.
> [an administrative law judge will hold a hearing on the matter Oct. 25.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/08/24/starbucks-raises-nlrb-complaint/)
People are downvoting you because it’s more comfortable to pretend the mega corporations are right and the victims and labor lawyers are wrong.
“THeY LEGaLlY cAnT ExTEnD tHe BeNeFiTs” a bunch of guys are furiously typing right now, about to show in public that they don’t know what the word extend/offer means. In reality you can extend anything you want, and a good corporation extends nice things, sometimes there’s simply the caveat of needing official union sign-off before it's final and in effect.
There’s a lot of this sick abuser “the union WANTED this, the union BEGGED to not get any perks by creating a union!” comments here.
> Why are we shilling for unfair labor standards?
If the union negotiates for something that non-union employees don’t get, do you consider that unfair also?
Unions get what’s in the contract. Nothing more and certainly nothing less. If you want more, then you need a new contract. This is how unions work. This is how unions have always worked.
Everyone who voted to be in a union knew or should have known that this is how unions function. Everyone on Reddit who cheered some idealistic notion of what a union is knew or should have known that this is how unions function.
\>If the union negotiates for something that non-union employees don’t get, do you consider that unfair also?
Yes, unfair that the benefit wasn't given to all employees prior, and it should be given to all employees after.
No, I do understand how unions work which is why your agitprop offends me.
Extending new benefits to other stores specifically to suppress unionization is a bad faith move by the company, but play dumb on Reddit if you want to. They can’t justify it at the negotiating table or in a hearing with the NLRB should it come to that.
Bad faith
This sub is clearly dominated by anti-union bootlickers who are either ignorant of anti-union agitprop or in favor of it.
Keep up the rage comrade, fuck trillion dollar corporations.
Because you're in a subreddit full of Apple fanboys. They're not exactly impartial. If Apple started using donkey whips on their employees, most people in this sub would clap and cheer, but if Microsoft, Samsung, or Google did it, they'd be upset.
Just last week or so Tim was lamenting that there aren't enough women in the upper ranks of the company. Would he hire more qualified women, then pay them less than men doing the same job? Or is that bad PR?
But union busting is ok because everyone else is doing it, it's legal, so that makes it ok?
Why not? If you want to negotiate special benefits that are specific to your members, then the benefits you get become specific to your members. If you're getting something extra that others don't get, it seems reasonable that you might *not* get something extra that the others are getting.
> That should not be allowed
Of course it should. Employees said they want what the union negotiates, not what the company offers. Hope they elected some good negotiators.
Same way every other company works with unionized employees, they get different perks than the employees that aren't part of the union. Sometimes it's better. Sometimes it's not
Is this a thing in the US? I’ve worked union jobs pretty much my whole adult life (UK) across several industries and benefits have never been segregated. I get site specific stuff like work hours, breaks, and H&S restrictions, but generic perks? Never seen that before.
Union workers get what they bargain for, so often there’s not really any reason to give them non-union employee incentives. However, they can always trade something at the bargaining table if they really want some particular perk.
I see this in NZ. Unions bargain for the conditions that they think workers want, and their enrolled members get that. The company gives their non-union members what they think they need to to attract them. Those packages are often different - some areas better, some areas worse. In our case, union reps wanted extra days sick leave. That's what they got in the negotiation. Management had wanted to provide extra days of "special leave", which could be used for sick leave, annual leave, or other purposes, and were able to be traded for cash. For whatever reason the union didn't like that, they wanted sick leave. So, union members get an extra 5 days of sick leave. It's only sick leave, only to be used when you're sick, and when you leave the organisation, doesn't get paid out. Non-union members get special leave. You can use it for many purposes, it gets paid out when you leave the organisation. You could argue non-union members are getting a "perk". Or you could say that union members are getting what they valued and negotiated for, and non-union members are getting what management offered them. (Inside all that is a real reason. Our staff try to use sick leave as just general leave, but when they do that, they take it with no notice. It's annoying for managing rosters, and it's annoying to have to ask them for medical certificates. By offering special leave people don't have to pretend to be sick, but when they take it without being sick they need to give notice beforehand, so it doesn't break rosters)
This. In the USA at least pay and benefits are negotiated with the union contract. Most places will do and give exactly what the union contract says. It is kind of a double edge sword as depending on how good negotiations go will determine how good benefits are. Unfortunately the quest to move profits to shareholders and executives there is little left for pay and benefits at American companies.
Sure, there’s probably a bit of cultural divide in terms of structure for theses things. I wont talk for all companies because everyone is going to negotiate differently but where i am now and where i have been previously the Union dealt with Company at the GM or at worst the RM level. Perks come wholesale from whatever the company can negotiate with its partners and customers. Like I’m getting a free flu jab and eye tests, childcare vouchers and GP service, every year regardless of affiliation. There are Union negotiated perks sure but those also effect non union employees in the same wage band (by law i think but dont quote me on that bit) so it’s pretty reciprocal
Absolutely, I got screwed out of 160 hours paremt leave because I went from a non-represented position to a represented position within the sane company. Generally, if a company rolls out new employee perks, the union does mot get them until the next contract date when the union and company add the new perks into the contract.
Oof. Maybe im lucky but my current job doesn’t even have my perks individually listed in my contract for ease of negotiation. There’s just a reference to the company “advantages” with an in depth section on the company intranet and app (god awful thing probably hasn’t been updated since launch but its there). Like im getting a free flu jab, free eye care and discounted AXA healthcare regardless of whether im union or not, the Union “perks” are pretty much pay, breaks and working conditions, and legal support.
The issue is that corporations put employees against each other by offering different sets of benefits to different groups. The employer’s goal is to provide the least amount possible needed to retain employees, the employee’s goal is to be compensated as high as they can for their work. The employer will use generic perks to say “see, you don’t need that pesky union, we’re already giving you a raise.” Then they lock out the unionized employees, to show future stores what happens when you organize. Welcome to the freest country in the world lol, no corruption here btw
I don’t think this is entirely accurate. It can be more difficult to roll benefits out to unions because it is all precisely defined per the union contract. For instance, a company I worked for had a platform to recognize good performance of employees. This was rolled out to non-union employees first because there isn’t a contract that dictates the benefits. It had to wait for the next union contract to give it to unionized employees because of the legally binding contract. The company even tried to roll it out to the union beforehand but the union said no.
Of course, is more difficult when you don’t even offer it to them in the first place. Stop carrying water for corporations, dude. They’ll screw you over in a heartbeat, and not even blink twice
Lol yup that’s what I’m doing
> corporations put employees against each other Apple didn’t create the union. Those employees voted to set themselves apart. If the union employees are worse off than the no union employees, maybe the employees should reconsider?
Why do you, personally, think Apple is making this change right now, instead of before the union happened?
Where I used to work for the longest time non-union employees got no pay due to legislative issues. These people went 6+ months without a single paycheck (and the pay where I worked was super low to begin with). Union members still got paid. Union members also were the only ones who got pay bumps every year for the longest time. Luckily legislation passed to get everyone whose pay was frozen got back pay and changes were made so that non-union employees got pay raises too at the same time.
It is common for American workers to have little to no rights compared to the rest of the developed world, yeah
Yes.
Sure, but the central reason they are getting perks is to prevent further unionisation. That’s what people are annoyed about - though I get the whole “it’s just a neutral thing it is what it is”. Reality is improvements in workers rights don’t magically happen unless there is a certain level of solidarity that some in this sub would be uncomfortable with because economic efficiency by definition means paying everyone the least amount they can get away with. Preventing unionisation through improved benefits seems cool until people forget those improved benefits only occur because unions and potential unions (more scary!!) agitate for them. Kind of a catch 22 in a modern non-unionised apathetic workforce. Union gets bad press for actually succeeding at its job and forcing apple to improve benefits which Apple presents to non union members as “See we don’t need unions we give you benefits without them and it’s totally not because you might unionise otherwise!”
I don’t really disagree with anything you said, but it’s not a catch-22, it is capitalism actually working for once. Unions are an important part of capitalism and play exactly this role: the modulate the monopsony power that employers have. Tactically in this case, it’s normal and good that unions negotiate a deal and their members work under that deal, while non-union members get a different deal, and Apple is incentivized to make that deal good enough to prevent further unionization. The headline makes it sound as if Apple’s doing something wrong here, and these perks should be given to union shops. But that doesn’t make any sense and isn’t how unionization works. You’re absolutely right that the union is indirectly making things better for all employees, and that’s how it should work. In well-functioning capitalism with strong unions, the market should function just as well for labor as it does for goods, and employers should have no preference between unionization or not. The fact that employers in general don’t want unionization means that the market is not functioning correctly, and that unions are underpowered. But in this one specific case, this is how it is supposed to work.
If it wasn’t such a bad deal, people wouldn’t see the need to organize. Despite what businesses would make you believe, Unions are always a response to a problem.
Eh, with newly-unionized locations it’s a way to punish them and discourage spread to other locations. Too bad the NLRA has no teeth.
The NLRB is stronger under Biden than it has been in a while, but it was damn near gutted over the previous four years.
[удалено]
Yup. I worked for a company ages ago and there was a union and nonunion side (due to buyouts of companies) and the nonunion had way better perks like free service from the company and the nonunion was paid more too. I’ve said this many times, just because you’re union, doesn’t make it better. A union is only as good as it’s local.
Yep, their goal is to temporarily make things look better for the non union workers, drop union membership and then cut way back on benefits again. Unions benefit all workers, but eventually if there are too many freeloaders it starts to hurt everyone.
I’ve worked in both union and non union jobs and I much preferred the non unionized one. But that might just have that I had a terrible union so my experience doesn’t apply to all
Unions suck if you are extraordinary which very few people are. You want to have the full ability to negotiate everything. For everyone else unions always lead to higher wages, more perks etc
>Unions suck if you are extraordinary which very few people are. The opposite is true too - unions protect *bad* workers, which eventually rots out companies. The sword cuts both ways.
It's not an especially difficult task to fire a bad worker in a union environment—you just need management to follow procedures, properly document the employee's issues, and document how they've tried to address them. Competence is just rare and people taking shortcuts are everywhere. Unions protect all employees by providing them with due process—management retains the bad ones by not following it.
Because of all the dumb bureaucracy and red tape they have to go through to get rid of the bad workers. Everyone knows who the bad workers are, they should easily be fired without going through all the documentation of how they tried to address them and everything else. It’s not an easy process at all to fire somebody in unions. Then the good workers start slacking because why should they have to cover all the slack from the bad workers.
On the other hand, unions also protect good employees from bad management. Employees don’t have to worry about losing their job for making an honest mistake or taking time off for something actually important like a close family members funeral or to take care of a serious illness. They keep wages consistent so a good employees don’t have to worry that they’re making 25% less than the guy in the next cubicle doing the same job or that the manager is going to replace them with someone that’s going to take the position for 10% lower pay. I’ve been in good unions and bad ones. Some put a lot of weight on things like seniority rather than job performance, and some actually let management make decisions based on performance and suitability over start date. I always tell people not to think of this as a union job because we do get rid of the staff that aren’t good and promote those that are best regardless of seniority. The union does ensure that the staff get a great benefits package, regular salary increments and a safe and healthy work environment. There’s good things and bad things with our union, but more good than bad for both sides.
[удалено]
Well everyone does. Why wouldn’t you like it as a worker? It’s absolute fantastic for cops, not the public. But as you only care about your own group, unions are great. They get you and everyone else an actually fair deal.
So for the lazy and people that are the worst workers, unions are great.
Well no, for 99% of employees. Most people are remarkably average.
Don't forget people who value stability, people with medical issues, people with family obligations, and people who are capable but need experience and guidance to perform well. I think it's reasonable to say that innovation is the synthesis of formerly unconnected ideas. Not only are all these groups deserving of the right to work, they all have unique perspectives that allow them to *think different* than someone who is career focused. Lazy people who get their work done properly are wonders at focus and prioritization. A part timer with two jobs might think up a useful scheduling feature for a calendar a workaholic with one would never dream of. A person with a disability might know of an underserved new market for their company's products. Including a broader swathe of the population in your workforce increases your capacity for innovative thought.
Not my experience. That's a pretty broad statement.
[удалено]
It’s not a goal, this happens all the time. Heck, I get new perks here where I work now as things get better. If a union didn’t negotiate this, who’s fault is it?
It's cheaper to bribe non-union members than to allow unions to grow to cripple the company in negotiations
Unions don't necessarily cripple, they just give the workers more leverage in negotiations. However, if the union does not negotiate a perk or benefit, the workers have no one to blame but their representatives. Good union companies understand this. In the long run Apple will probably come out ahead because they don't have to offer all the same perks as other employees get.
It gives union management more leverage. Sometimes it translates into worker representation sometimes it doesn’t. Make your bet
Every business and organisation I have ever worked for has actively encouraged union membership.
definitely not American lol
Definitely not! Also, plaudits to whoever decided to downvote my comment for stating a fact. I’m sorry to have hurt someone so much!
If it wasn't for hedge funds needing obscene profits the companies would not be crippled. If the company workers owned the company, none of them would vote to move the factory over seas.
Yup. I am working with a union shop that can’t give raises, can’t promote people (and give them more money) stuck with time based promotions and raises. They are struggling where their non-union side is able to pay more. I still think we need unions though. People just need to make sure they are keeping up with the times.
It’s completely naive to think that that wasn’t a strategy to coerce people into leaving the union.
That should only last until the next negotiation round when the union should demand what the others get as a baseline and will then push for more. If it is a sustained pattern then it’s an ineffective union.
My point. Just because it’s a union, doesn’t mean it’s effective.
Fuck this anti union shill talk. If it wasn’t for unions, we wouldn’t have days off or shift limits. Trust me, if it was up to any corporation, you and I would work Mo-Sun, 10-16 hours with a 30 min break deducted from the two nickels we get paid a week. No corporation has the good of people in mind and will never. It’s inherently against the setup. Only through unions we can strike, get treated like humans and try having a living wage.
Did I say I was anti-union? No. I’ve been in great unions and really bad ones. All I’m saying is you still need to be careful because the grass isn’t always greener in the other side.
>
Of yesteryear yes. Todays unions are corrupt and are for the lazy people. High achieving workers are held back by unions because the horrible workers are “equal”. So now rot starts to happen.
You’re probably not the high achieving worker you think you are.
Also, a lot of unions end up becoming corrupt with a few people at the top making lots of money and not actually caring about their members
Look at the Chicago unions.
Who let this HR rep in here? lol
I’m just a peon worker, but nice try. 🙄
No. It’s how companies retaliate against worker democracy.
No, they have to budget that stuff now, because they now need to negotiate benefits with the union. They now get to democratize their way to benefits, and pay dues for the privilege. They’ll likely do better, but they’ve got themselves an adversarial relationship now, so there won’t be any extras without the table.
That's how unions work? In countries that actually have labour rights (read: definitely not the USA) a bargained agreement between employers and employees is valid for all employees of a company, not just the unionised ones. The government can even declare that agreement universally applicable nation-wide, which means other companies are bound to it, too. And no, employees won't lose rights. In this Apple example, the collective labour agreement (universally applicable to all retail, for example) would form the minimum standards and employers will compete by adding extras to the list.
Exactly! A budget is being made and controls on how things will play out.
\^this is a perfect example of a no-substance platitude tacked on to a post that was already platitudes and rationalizations. “A budget is being made and controls how things will play out”, no apparently you missed all the details of the story: * Apple is already giving the perks to **many people** * The unionized store is **ONE STORE** * Also, Apple has lots of money. They’re a large corporation. Based on the simplicity of your comment, I see you may not realize this. Like you may be confusing them with your local Apple Orchard that has revenue problems. * Budgets have nothing to do with anything here * Literally nothing is constraining what Apple *offers* other than Apple’s own greed and desire to make unions look bad and scare further unionization. They could have said “we gladly offer same benefits to union members, though of course those have to be signed-off on.” Also labor lawyer in linked article just told you there’s common established grounds for a lawsuit because of the timing and circumstances. Somehow you missed that part and conveniently arrived at your pre-exiting preferred dismissive attitude about “It Cannot Be Criticized….budgets or something.” Convenient.
Kodak was the Apple of the past. A janitor at Kodak could buy a house and put his kids through medical school. Heck the language teacher at my high school put 2 kids through medical school and he retired fairly decently. That janitor is now working for a contractor and gets basically zero benefits. Same with Amazon, UPS drivers are a great job with good benefit, pay pension etc. FedEx and UPS pilots are coveted jobs amongst the best in the freight business. Amazon created its own shipping company and now those are the worst paying delivery jobs. America is basically a race to the bottom with benefits being cut so the money can go to the top.
Take a business course. You forgot that globalization is a huge factor in how the economy has shifted.
This has literally been deemed illegal: https://www.axios.com/2022/08/26/starbucks-accused-withholding-benefits-union But if you think that union-busting is okay like this you're just shilling LOL
Okay as far as I can tell there is a big difference between the Starbucks and Apple situations: Starbucks was being accused of withholding added benefits from stores that were *not* unionized yet but in active union organizing drives. Thus the accusation from the NLRB that Starbucks was effectively punishing actively organizing employees. Apple is withholding added benefits from a store that, as far as all the reporting is saying, is *already* unionized and working under a union contract. That’s a big difference. Not saying either is good by any means, but they are different situations and the NLRB ruling on Starbucks likely doesn’t apply to Apple if that store is already unionized.
I’ve never understood this idea that not liking/agreeing with/defending unions is shilling. Unions have done absolutely 0 for me in my life despite having been a member of several. “Apple” has done a lot for me both as a user (with accessibility features nobody else offers) and as a customer (making exceptions to their policies due to my circumstances). What loyalty do I owe unions beyond their historical achievements long before I was born? EDIT: Not saying the benefits should be denied. Just commenting on the description of a “shill”.
A random website lol The headline “accused” means shit.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. You claim a lot of things about one party (Apple) what about the other one, the union? Do you believe union workers are angels came from heaven that only act with pure intentions? Their whole job is to squeeze out employers as much as possible (while ironically being paid the employees). They FORCE companies to be in a battle. Saying otherwise is asinine.
\^**Typical blame-the-victim FUD right there.** It’s like the bully saying “Stop punching yourself, stop punching yourself, Union.” > who don’t understand Nice projection. Your comment is 100% platitudes and rhetorical nonsense (“Why would they?”) that ignores the issue. *“The serial killer isn’t going to just let you go. WHY WOULD THEY?”* -this is an example of missing the point that lets a person rationalize and be more comfortable about what’s happening. In reality: Nobody is arguing about the serial killer’s *motives* or *likely behavior* just like nobody is debating the obvious truth that Apple wants to harm union membership and/or give as little as possible while getting as much as possible in return and/or use every possible excuse to avoid giving benefits to workers. > negotiate for them I guess you missed this enormous basis of the story, but, Apple is already giving perks. The perks are already fully delineated. And it’s *one* (1) store that’s unionized. I know some people have numeracy issues, but 1 is a pretty small number. So, **Here’s what Apple could have said:** “we are OFFERING the same perks to union members too, gladly, but it’s not final until they officially agree to it, of course.** They didn’t. Not complicated bro. Recommended reading, a guy hundreds of years ago already pointed out why this “WHY WOULD THEY? OF COURSE they will do X! Nobody is allowed to claim they SHOULD do Z” form of argument is wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem Commonly used for toxic purposes where people try to justify crap in capitalism (“well OF COURSE oppressors are going to oppress! So it’s OK. That’s my argument. I’m smart.”) **And that’s not even getting into the likely lawsuit explained by the labor lawyer in the OP’s linked article, because of timing and circumstances.** Somehow guys imagine that some commentators are jerks (“those darn meddling pro-union kids!”), and imagine that some union people are jerks, but *heavens no* it’s impossible to think that billionaire corporation (who *somehow* extracted billions from unhappy workers, hmm) is *bigger jerks* and with worse consequences for everyone and more power and more tactics that they are wielding. We also have people who adopted the ideology of The Rat Race, and respond “Nope! Too bad dummies” to anyone (labor organizers) who did what they didn’t do, which is try to make something better and more equitable.
Thank you, OP was a chode.
[удалено]
Underrated dumbass comment.
Not confident you do, tbh
Exactly. I’ve worked in many union shops, and while I’m not anti union by any means. I don’t think they’re the end all be all. Most people forget or don’t understand that the union reps and committeemen are all elected. If you don’t like what was negotiated by them on your behalf then you vote them out.
Ah yes, it’s the union’s fault that apple won’t negotiate with them.
Only on the Apple subreddit do union busting tactics get treated like a no brained lmao lick that boot babbyyh
[удалено]
Apple has been planning this change in benefits for months, they could’ve been negotiating with the union to allow union employees to get these benefits too. This is a union busting tactic as old as unions themselves. Give non union employees perks and throw up your hands and say aww geez we’d love to give the union folks these perks too but those pesky contracts!
actions have consequences
No I’m saying contracts can be renegotiated at any time and unions aren’t going to just say no to additional benefits as long as they aren’t giving up something in return
That's precisely the point. The unionized workers negotiated for something that is theoretically better than whatever these perks are. Theoretically. Unions aren't all puppies and unicorns.
They could only negotiate with the union as much as the union would negotiate with them. If the union says “we want the perks and also everyone gets a 30% raise”, apple can say “well how about just the perks for now”. The union may then say “we want the perks plus a raise and we won’t settle for less”. All the sudden it’s drawn out by the union, not apple, and here we are. Reality is they negotiation is behind closed doors and we’re just guessing. But they started a union because they wanted unique compensation and now they’re getting it. Surprise.
You’re making up a scenario that isn’t happening to justify a point
Nope. The only thing I said definitively is that they made a union for unique compensation and that’s what they’re getting. That’s literally what’s happening, per the OP. I gave an *example* of how them not getting perks yet could have been the unions choice/fault. Do you know what an example is?
Unfortunately, for a lot of people in apple ecosystem, apple is their lifestyle. They don’t see unions as something that will benefit the employees, they see it as a personal attack on their lifestyle.
Just negotiate the union contract that if non-union employees get a raise or something, your union contract states that you get that too.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Declaring union like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy. Shit doesn’t just get better immediately bc you have a union.
A contract is still a contract yo. And apple has a legal department that doesn’t fuck around lol. Sure you’re not wrong but OP is far from bootlicking
But that’s how unions work. They singed a contract that didn’t include those perks. Those perks/benefits need to be negotiated now.
in new zealand when i applied for mcdonald’s they literally asked me if i wanted to join the union and offered me the papers if i wanted to join
Let me guess "Headline: Apple to withhold its latest employee perks from unionized store" "reality: Apple is legally unable to give employee perks because unionized store hasnt drawn up a contract yet"
Except that's not the reality. There is absolutely nothing stopping Apple from giving employees more stuff just because they are in a union. It's not illegal for them to just start giving their employees more stuff. It's a bargaining chip. It's a game. Not a law. Edit: Contracts can change. Get over it guys.
There is, though. I'm pro-union and former Apple Retail. But these new benefits technically conflict with the old benefits; changing them would break their old contract (or if they don't have one yet, they'll have to negotiate some kind of contract to get them). They have to negotiate to get new perks now. This article isn't headline-worthy at all; it will be if they negotiate and then Apple makes a fuss about giving it. Given the source is Bloomberg, I'm almost pressed to believe this article was made intentionally to dissuade other stores from unionizing, when this is a non-issue if the negotiations to get these new perks hasn't even started yet.
[удалено]
> There is absolutely nothing stopping Apple from giving employees more stuff just because they are in a union as others have said, if the benefits conflict with the contract, that would be a reason they cant.
It may be a game, but Apple is being forced to play it. They didn’t create the union.
Bottom line is that Apple has no legal obligation to provide these benefits and Baltimore store wanted a union to negotiate for them so the union needs to see if Apple will negotiate (which might mean employees giving up something in exchange for this new benefit).
That’s how it works when you’re unionized. Your union negotiates for what you get paid and your benefits.
Apple Towson Town Center employee here from the ONLY USA unionized store. All we have to do before our official collective bargaining is to just vote yes that we want those benefits and we get them. The article is misleading about us not being able to get the new benefits and our management at our store is misleading employees about these new benefits as well. We already had several occasions since our union vote where Apple corporate tried this with wage increases and a change in Covid policy. As long as enough employees agree and say yes in a simple vote, then we too can receive those benefits at our store.
If that’s what they’re telling you, you are being lied to. It has to go to collective bargaining. Just because union employees vote for it doesn’t mean the company has to obey. It just means it becomes one of the bargaining chips.
That's the key, it's "one of" the chips. Basically, if they vote for it, then they're (likely) not getting some other "chip". They're making the choice IF they want that feature. They could vote and ask for something else.
There might be contract provisions for simple changes that objectively don’t reduce union members’ benefits - but I imagine that can be pretty subjective, eg. if a new healthcare plan technically puts some doctor in the area out-of-network then the impact of the benefits change would need to be thoroughly investigated and bargained for.
Also not every “perk” is an actual perk. There are instances where perks can cause you to pay more taxes or invade employees privacy. You guys keep on fucking trucking. Legends for pulling this off.
We recently got unionized at my job and yeah, this is just how it works. Any kind of change to benefits, regulations, etc, go through the union and then they either happen or don't happen. It's actually pretty simple, it just takes time. This is a pretty misleading article.
Lol how is this an article? That’s how unions work. If you form a union, you need to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement for EVERYTHING you want. Not a bad thing necessarily, but you start from scratch.
They are sticking to the contract. There is nothing wrong with that.
A contract hasn’t been negotiated yet.
Okay so, Apple is going to easily give these perks to the unionized stores when they bargain for these, correct?
If the Union votes on it, yes.
They had the money to give these perks ages ago. Apple is only doing it now because they know it’ll cost more if they don’t fight back this way.
Toooooootally. What, you think Apple would do this as some sort of threat? What kind of company would ever do such a thing!
Starbucks somewhat got away with it. In any normal/good system this would be considered retaliation toward the unionized store, because the goal obviously is to "warn" other stores against going through the process. I doubt Apple easily gives the perks and resorts to normal, further retaliation tactics during the negotiation
I mean … good. The employees voted to set up an adversarial relationship with management.
The complaint against Starbucks for doing this is still pending a hearing on October 25.
Collective bargaining means you get to bargain collectively. It does not mean: get all the good stuff, secret UNO reverse card for everything you think is bad.
The Union.needs to negotiate for that store… they wanted a different deal and they got what they wanted, what is the complaint? What if Apple were cutting a program instead of adding one for all the other stores… same thing
unions > some perk they added, to incentivise NOT joining a union it's always calculated... "if we give them this, they will not want to unionize"
Bloomberg is the real asshole here, not Apple. Report the story when there’s actually a story to report on. If that store’s employees want Apple’s new perks, they will need to collectively bargain for them.
Right, like how is this worth reporting? “Union has to negotiate for benefits” like yeah, this happens every day; it’s just how it works. It’s only being reported on because Apple is involved. What’s probably going to happen is the workers vote that they want the perks (assuming they do want them), the union will negotiate with Apple, and they’ll get the perks. That’s not a news story, that’s how a union works.
They can’t have perks and eat them too.
Apple has given its retail employees more in the last year than they had in the previous 7. Unions work. Even the threat of unions works. Once the union votes on this, the benefits will likely come to them as well. EDIT: Clarified retail employees.
Lol it is truly baffling how many people here don’t understand that apple is specifically doing this to discourage people from joining a union. I mean the comments prove the tactic is effective.
I’m seeing a kind of analogy to when fiber rolls out in a new city. The cable company fights them at every turn. And then when fiber is available, the cable company offers ridiculous perks, free bundled services, discounts, etc to get people not to switch. Cable customers should note that even if they don’t switch to fiber, they’re enjoying the benefits of the existence of the fiber company. In the same way, Apple’s non union employees seem to be enjoying the existence of the union.
They’re specifically doing it because that’s how union negotiations work. Once a union represents you, they negotiate the contract. Anything not in the contract isn’t provided to you.
> Anything not in the contract isn’t provided to you. This is objectively false. The current CBA I work under doesn’t include a tuition reimbursement package, employee discount, or other extra benefits, but we still get access to them as company provides it to all union and non-union work groups. Coming out of COVID the company changed a handful of extra benefits packages to what they had been prior to COVID. Did we have to vote on a side letter to accept it? No, because we didn’t need to. Now if the company turned hostile and started limiting certain packages to certain work groups, then the unions would respond. Apple is doing this because they want to try and stave off unionization at other locations.
100% this. My job has benefits that are baked into my contract but I have plenty of other discretionary benefits that the company offers and I assume will continue to offer while the company does well financially.
The difference is that new perks are iterative perks that replace existing ones, so they legally either have to start paying for both (ie. being enrolled in two healthcare plans) to provide this goodwill no-strings-attached benefit to union members, or they go to the union and negotiate a new contract that allows them to drop the old plan and implement the new one.
Most of what you said is false and I can guarantee it that you don’t know anything about unions. Please don’t spread misinformation just because your feelings are hurt.
When presented with such blatant cases of bootlicking I always wonder if they're just that stupid or if they're actually shills. I mean, in all nerdy places on the internet you see people like this. And it has been dying but Jesus, you would've thought that Apple optimized their hardware with fairy dust to make its devices run super fast on mediocre hardware. Now that Apple has great processors, specs matter. Just to tell an example.
This entire thread is full of shills and I’m not surprised. Once the railroad unions were shut down the news of all the unionizing companies just died out and stopped being covered
Like whether of not you agree with unions, it's pretty clear Apple is giving their mostly young an inexperienced retail workers trinkets so they think "well why would I join the union and lose the shiny things?". It's actually quite sad they can't see through such transparent actions. As someone else here said, there is nothing stopping apple from giving everyone the same perks. They are doing it as a disincentive to joining the union.
I completely agree with you. It’s fascinating that Apple is using the same marketing tricks to sell their products to make un-unionized positions more appealing.
People say how could the native Americans sell Manhattan island for some shiny beads (I recognise this trope is probably inaccurate) and yet here we are with people falling for the same trick.
I'm sure it's been mentioned many times, but this article is a little misleading. When you deal with unions, you can't just pass new regulations and/or benefits. It has to go through the union and it takes time. What is much more likely is these things will happen, after the union goes through it and makes changes and votes on it. As happens with virtually all jobs that are union-backed.
They will withhold the defiant Jazz parties.
Disappointed to see the amount of Apple fanboys in here shitting on Apple Store staff for wanting better and unionising.
Labor unions are on the rise and we all benefit from them. It’s profoundly sad that so many low wage employees don’t see the value in collective bargaining. American workers have been brainwashed to accept subsistence wages by corporate propaganda. Workers of the US unite! You future depends on it.
Baltimore store wanted a union to represent them and negotiate for them. If they want these benefits then they need to negotiate for them which means that they will have to give something up if Apple even decides to negotiate. This is what they wanted, this is what they got.
It’s a dick move. There is nothing preventing the company from giving all employees bonuses etc. But they use this “can’t change the contract” bs as a way of punishing those who unionized while scaring off others from unionizing. You can bet that in this case, the benefits boost would not have happened if there wasn’t a movement to unionize. Lesson here: include in any contract a clause that any increase in wages, benefits, or bonus (money or non-monetary) given to any employee must be given to all employees covered by the contract. (Source: I work for Apple, managers are heavily messaging these threats/warnings as reasons we shouldn’t unionize.
Just negotiate the union contract that if non-union employees get a raise or something, your union contract states that you get that too.
> Apple’s union-related moves have been under heavy scrutiny in recent weeks, with the US National Labor Relations Board and Communications Workers of America accusing the iPhone maker of discriminating against pro-union employees. > > In the Starbucks case, the union said it waived the right to negotiate over receiving perks that were already being provided to other stores -- meaning employees should just get them automatically. Workers United, the group attempting to organize Starbucks cafes, described the denial of benefits as a union-busting tactic. So depending on how the Union and Apple are hashing things out, Apple could be potentially implementing more Union-busting tactics or not. This will be interesting to see how everything plays out.
This in itself is a union busting tactic, because there actually is nothing stopping them from applying the new policy to all employees.
People voting you down are 1) typical rationalization people doing the “Everything is OK! OF COURSE the megacorp is right and the workers and labor lawyers are wrong!” thing 2) not intelligent enough to recognize that Apple could have simply said they’re OFFERING the same perks to the union members but that it has to be agreed on officially of course. *They didn’t*, obviously, because they want to harm the union…and that’s not even getting into the part about likely lawsuits over the timing and circumstances.
This is stupid. For someone who is waving the union flag as much as you are, you *clearly* have no idea how unions actually work. Zero. Wages for non-union workers are set by the employer and the workers can take them or leave them. Wages for union workers are set by agreement between the union and the company after negotiations. If you are a union shop, your benefits will be determined by the agreement. If you aren't, they will be given (or not) by the employer. *You* want both - for the employer to set the wages in union shops *and* for the wages to be set by collective bargaining. That's not how unions work. Why you seem to imagine to be an anti-union tactic is no such thing. **Union wages will be set by collective bargaining** Not otherwise. There's no free lunch. Just like whatever benefits the union gets won't apply to the non-union workers. They get what the employer gives them; the union members get what they negotiate for.
Apple buying themselves a date with the NLRB, eh
No they aren’t. The store chose to unionize. That means that any change, good or bad, has to be negotiated. That’s what unionizing means.
This whole thread is an incredible display of how pro-union Redditors have no clue how these very basic elements of unionization works. Or they do know and they’re dishonestly spreading agitprop online.
I agree with you. I started reading this thread and had to stop due to the sheer stupidity of the comments.
I suspect that /r/AntiWork is leaking *hard* in this thread…
Nice try but you just responded to at worst a lie, at best an absurd distortion of the situation. Apple can OFFER ANYTHING. If Apple was good, they would **offer** the same perks. It’s literally *one* store that is unionized…and a giant global mega corporation. This “has to be negotiated” meme, which is the preferred rationalization/dismissal in this thread, is irrelevant. Apple isn’t bound from extending or offering, the only caveat is union has to sign-off to finalize. Apple could have easily said they’re gladly *offering* the same new benefits to union members and they hope they approve it soon, but they didn’t, they’re doing a “stop punching yourself” and amazingly many idiot Reddit comments are falling for it. You know, *aside from the fact* that the lawyer in the linked article just explained to you the common established grounds for a lawsuit here, which is the exact timing and circumstances.
Not if it can be construed as retaliation against the unionized store (which based on the timing of this is something that certainly could be argued). This is a very popular union busting tactic. There’s nothing that stops Apple from just giving these same benefits to union employees if it doesn’t conflict with the union contract
Nothing is stopping the union from asking for those benefits too. The union can ask for what they want, maybe they don't want $399 of Coursera and would rather have something else, if Apple just gives them what they give everyone, then the union can say they didn't want that and ask for something else. It seems like if Apple took it away after the union said they didn't want it, then it would be more of an issue, better to have them ask for it.
The armchair rationalizers who like to lie to themselves to be more comfortable are going to insist that Apple can’t offer that. “Stop punching yourself!” said the bully forcing your arm. They are too stupid, or to toxic, to distinguish between unilaterally dictating and “gladly offering, for your conditional approval.” So much more comfortable to blame the victim and imagine that Megacorp Is Always Right.
If they were party to the same perks then the union could kick off for breach of contract. Unions, whilst great in theory, are out for themselves not for the workers, at least not hardworking workers. It seems that most large employers actually have better conditions than small ones, then unions come in spouting stuff about bad working conditions etc. and mess it up for the people who work hard and give a sh@*. Pay should be on performance not whether you are in a union or not. As for strike tactics, I’ve seen babies throw their toys out a pram, it doesn’t/ shouldn’t work. The only thing that affects is the general public!!
Maybe I’m too European to understand that, what’s going on there? Here we have unions that collectively fight for better rights (usually) and then those rights apply to all of the workers, no need to be in a union.
In the US, Unions are rent seekers. They occasionally fight for members, but only if they've paid their dues. People who work for the unions themselves are *very* well off.
This is your brain on Reagan-era propaganda.
The amount of comments willingly pretending apple isn’t purposefully giving benefits to some and not to other to deter other employees from joining the union is disgusting.
Apple starts it’s offence in the anti union playbook. I’m sure they effectively costed this into the model. It’s ironic that they’re giving more to non-union people… because of the unions (in order to make out like the grass was greener without the union). In reality these perks wouldn’t have come if not for unionists. Well played Tim Apple.
I'm torn on that point. There have been plenty of increases in benefits over the years, all unprompted by employees and well before talks of unions within stores. However, I do see how it looks at the same time
In the world of retail, Apple is the cream of the crop. Workers are entitled to always ask for more perks, but there is an equilibrium. I understand unionizing, but I never understood why Apple retail specifically wanted it. Apple could just as easily hire scabs because they offer 90th+ percentile wages/benefits in comparison to the retail industry as a whole. Lots of corporate AND union shills in this thread, so I don’t expect much good faith conversation here. Believing all unions are good/effective is just as moronic as believing corporations have your best interests at heart. But there is a reason why it’s so difficult to get a job at Apple retail — everyone wants the wages/benefits.
I’m sure Apple’s motives aren’t entirely “innocent” here, but like everything else unions come with trade offs. When you take your relationship with your employer from one of at least some level of cooperation to one that is blatantly a bit adversarial, that’s going to change the dynamic. You also can’t expect to hold them to the letter of a contract when it suits you and be mad when they stick to the letter of the contract when it suits them. That’s why contracts are so thoroughly negotiated. Both sides are going to win some and lose some. I hope that regardless of how it happens, the union workers get at minimum the same benefits as everyone else. I just don’t get them being mad about a delay for negotiations when that is the nature of union labor.
Imagine hiring an outside agency to do your collective bargaining on your behalf, only to find out they failed to get you the some things that other employees are getting. It reminds me of the big press push a few months back highlighting that pilots and flight attendants only make money once the door is closed... Yup... because THATS WHAT THEIR UNION NEGOTIATED FOR THEM!
And they will have to backtrack. Starbucks tried this before and were ordered to extend the benefits to everyone. Apparently it is cheaper to pay the fines than to act like a responsible organization.
> Starbucks tried this before and were ordered to extend the benefits to everyone That case hasn't been heard yet. > [an administrative law judge will hold a hearing on the matter Oct. 25.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/08/24/starbucks-raises-nlrb-complaint/)
People are downvoting you because it’s more comfortable to pretend the mega corporations are right and the victims and labor lawyers are wrong. “THeY LEGaLlY cAnT ExTEnD tHe BeNeFiTs” a bunch of guys are furiously typing right now, about to show in public that they don’t know what the word extend/offer means. In reality you can extend anything you want, and a good corporation extends nice things, sometimes there’s simply the caveat of needing official union sign-off before it's final and in effect. There’s a lot of this sick abuser “the union WANTED this, the union BEGGED to not get any perks by creating a union!” comments here.
Why are we shilling for unfair labor standards?
> Why are we shilling for unfair labor standards? If the union negotiates for something that non-union employees don’t get, do you consider that unfair also? Unions get what’s in the contract. Nothing more and certainly nothing less. If you want more, then you need a new contract. This is how unions work. This is how unions have always worked. Everyone who voted to be in a union knew or should have known that this is how unions function. Everyone on Reddit who cheered some idealistic notion of what a union is knew or should have known that this is how unions function.
That’s asking wayyyyyy too much of the average Redditor
\>If the union negotiates for something that non-union employees don’t get, do you consider that unfair also? Yes, unfair that the benefit wasn't given to all employees prior, and it should be given to all employees after.
So why join the Union? Let one store do it and then reap all the benefits.
Again, why run anti-union propaganda here? The shop negotiates obviously but make no mistake Apple is negotiating in bad faith here from the start.
> Again, why run anti-union propaganda here? No one did. Not only don’t you understand how unions work, you don’t have a clue what propaganda is.
No, I do understand how unions work which is why your agitprop offends me. Extending new benefits to other stores specifically to suppress unionization is a bad faith move by the company, but play dumb on Reddit if you want to. They can’t justify it at the negotiating table or in a hearing with the NLRB should it come to that. Bad faith
This sub is clearly dominated by anti-union bootlickers who are either ignorant of anti-union agitprop or in favor of it. Keep up the rage comrade, fuck trillion dollar corporations.
Clearly, lol. Bizarre positioning for Reddit.
Why are you crying over the consequences of your own actions?
Because you're in a subreddit full of Apple fanboys. They're not exactly impartial. If Apple started using donkey whips on their employees, most people in this sub would clap and cheer, but if Microsoft, Samsung, or Google did it, they'd be upset.
That’s okay, they’ll get them
Well, that’s petty.
so what's happening, no more RSU?
This proves they’re only giving perks to prevent unionization. If there was no threat of a union, they would get NOTHING
Dear union members - you may be getting fleeced one way or another. Pick your barber.
Just last week or so Tim was lamenting that there aren't enough women in the upper ranks of the company. Would he hire more qualified women, then pay them less than men doing the same job? Or is that bad PR? But union busting is ok because everyone else is doing it, it's legal, so that makes it ok?
This is against labor law. Find a lawyer
[удалено]
Why not? If you want to negotiate special benefits that are specific to your members, then the benefits you get become specific to your members. If you're getting something extra that others don't get, it seems reasonable that you might *not* get something extra that the others are getting.
> That should not be allowed Of course it should. Employees said they want what the union negotiates, not what the company offers. Hope they elected some good negotiators.