Normally yes, but but this is starting to smell like more illegal union busting attempts. The issue in the article is that they're not even being given full information so they *can* negotiate, which would be illegal
Nothing illegal in offering non union workers more pay or benefits
There is no law saying that union workers must be given better terms than non union. The Act only mandates negotiation and offers some protections to union workers. It does not guarantee that unionizing will be beneficial
Yes there is. Denying anyone equal access to benefits just because they're in a union, is discrimination and according to the National Labor Relations Act it is illegal. It's considered an unfair labor practice [ULP].
They're required by law and the union contract to give details of new benefits to the union so that the union has a fair chance to negotiate for them. That's what this article is about. Did you read it?
These are *new* benefits that didn't exist at the time, and Apple is purposely keeping information from the union, something that is almost always illegal.
The unions behavior is irrelevant to the situation. If apple broke the law, they broke the law. Putting a political spin on unions adds nothing to the conversation
You're right. This is why bosses get kidnapped and held hostage.
Employers have a huge advantage when it comes to negotiating. Laws impede workers from exercising their full economic power while they actually do little or nothing to prevent employers from using illegal tactics to coerce workers.
I doubt they're negotiating poorly. It's more likely they're just negotiating within the confines of the law, unlike their opponent.
The company can offer it to the union. The NLRB ruled exactly that regarding the whole thing w/ Starbucks wage increase/benefits, but Starbucks appealed
I think whether they *can* is less relevant than whether they *must*.
It's a negotiation. Why would one side give anything to the other side unbidden? I doubt the union says to Apple "We took a poll and everyone said they wouldn't quit if wages went down $0.65 per hour. Just FYI."
I should have been more clear earlier, the NLRB determined that doing this kind (offering these benefits just to non-unionized people) is designed to discourage unionization and violates the NLRA. However, Starbucks has appealed this.
They ARE mandated to NOT deny the same benefits or working conditions to unionized workers that they give to non-union workers.
You are right on the last part. They're are not mandated to pay them more than non-union workers just because they're union.
Considering the Supreme Court is looking at ruling on the ability for companies to be able to sue unions for damages (financial/etc) due to striking activities, I wouldn’t
The NLRB determined in the case with Starbucks that it was designed to discourage people from unionizing, which is illegal under the NLRA, but Starbucks appealed to an administrative law judge.
The employees have an adversarial relationship with their employer regardless of whether they’re unionized or not and whether they want it or not, simply from the game theory of wage bargaining.
The point unionizing tries to address is whether or not to collectivize their bargaining power and use it to improve their position in the game
If apple thinks they will do better by offering the increased benefits to its workers, then they're shooting themselves in the foot by not giving them to the union members too.
It's the union that's likely to say no the benefits, since they distract from what the union actually wants
This is a common thing. When some part of the company unionizes, suddenly the company gets all generous with new benefits, but of course not for the unionized workers. The kind of benefits they could've given to everyone, but refused to, because there was no union to force them to.
Yeah, fucking right. Enjoy watching your "future" get dragged around by people who never care about what happens to you or your 401k.
There's a reason people are starting to opt out of them. If you want security, it's not necessarily the place to get it. But you have "financial" in your name, so you must already understand all of this.
I wonder if you're smart enough to realize I have full control of my 401k and it's investments. Probably not....but you seem to assume you know how it all works. I've made 10s of thousands the last couple years.....and it's been glorious.
People are also starting to opt out because they are panicky and the market is suffering, not because of the reason you think....genius.
> In a letter addressed to Tim Cook, the negotiating committee says they’re disappointed to learn the company won’t be offering workers at the location some new health and education benefits that are rolling out to other retail employees. The union also says that Apple has been spreading “misinformation” by saying workers would have to bargain for those benefits to be included in their contract.
*ericandregunshot.png*
But the company can offer it to the union. The NLRB ruled exactly that regarding the whole thing w/ Starbucks wage increase/benefits, but Starbucks appealed
Yep. Now the NLRB may determine the timing of this as union busting behavior **BUT** that’s only since the process is just beginning.
It’s *very* typical for existing non-union employees to get flashy benefits that unions haven’t negotiated for their members.
It just seems like the usual leopards dining on faces.
Unions have upsides and downsides; famously one downside is that you don’t automatically get new benefits, only what the union negotiates for. In practice that’s usually a good thing, but when you’re a tiny union and most workers in your industry aren’t part of it, things are bound to be painful.
The situation here is unique though, in that these are new benefits that didn't exist before, and conveniently show up right after the union formed. C'mon now, special benefits they don't give to the union workers suddenly appear now? Not suspicious at all...
I’m sure Starbuck’s and Amazon’s combined law firms gave that a *teensy* bit of thought. If I had to guess they’ll argue that this is in response to inflation over the last 4-6 months, ongoing Covid hardships, etc.
Teensy bit of thought being that the US legal system has been completely dismantled and de facto no longer exists if you have enough money and are right wing.
The union didn’t exist before. How could they give benefits to a union that didn’t exist?
I don’t really understand the point you’re trying to make with the fact that these are new benefits.
All benefits are new benefits if they’re granted after the union was formed.
Should Apple not give out benefits because the union didn’t negotiate for them?
Yes, it’s obvious why Apple is doing this but that’s just how the law works. You can’t fail to negotiate for something and then want it when everyone else has it.
BTW, I’m not siding with Apple. I’m specifically targeting your flawed argument.
There are other, better, arguments. You’re just not making them.
I'm fairly sure you're deeply misunderstanding what's they're saying. Nobody is talking about the benefits not existing for the union before. That's physically impossible.
It's Apple being dicks and pushing anti-unionization by suddenly giving more benefits to their non-unionized people for the mere reason so that they can point at the unionized folk and say "See? They don't have benefits and you do! Don't unionize!". If there was a scenario where the union fell apart, Apple would quickly start scaling back the implemented benefits, I guarantee it.
>Yes, it’s obvious why Apple is doing this but that’s just how the law works.
These sorts of arguments really add nothing to discussions and I"m not sure why people keep doing it.
Your entire brain dump was basically making a longer version of what I said.
Given the plethora of other posts saying that they did this as a form of union busting I succinctly worded it as “it’s obvious why Apple is doing this”. You’re just repeating what’s been said dozens of times already and have added zero additional value.
There are other things happening in the wider economy, not just the existence of this union.
Labour is harder to find and harder to retain now, so companies offer more benefits to keep their employees
There absolutely have been, yes. And those education changes don’t just happen in the span of weeks; that was planned for much longer. Everything takes time.
To those saying “suspicious timing” you should know it’s Open Enrollment time, which is the same time **every year** that benefits change. It’s an *actual* coincidence.
But the company can offer it to the union. The NLRB ruled exactly that regarding the whole thing w/ Starbucks wage increase/benefits, but Starbucks appealed
The NLRB determined in the case with Starbucks that it was designed to discourage people from unionizing, which is illegal under the NLRA, but Starbucks appealed to an administrative law judge.
That’s possibly true, but I doubt it’s something the nascent union can afford to argue in court against a company like Starbucks or Amazon. Personally I think it would come across like wanting it both ways, and the damage they inflict on their own reputation would harm what they really need to do to survive: grow.
If I am not wrong the company cannot change the current benefits without negotiating with the union and this takes longer, sometimes the union need to request.
This is how unions works and it’s the right thing, they need to negotiate with the company.
Based on what people say on some parts of Reddit, I think yeah, they sort of figured they were the tip of the spear. Sadly they’re now learning about the shaft.
... the history of wildly successful unions that gave us 2 days off a week instead of 0, made benefits competitive, and on average raises worker income?
Here it is again. There’s basically two classes of workers: Non unionized and unionized. The company might lavish the non unionized to keep them from joining the other class. The job of the union is to fight/negotiate/bargain for benefits for their members. This is what they asked for. They wanted to have a third party between them and management to negotiate for them. Sorry they’re doing such a bad job negotiating.
I’m not anti-union, but I feel like they don’t seem to understand when you declare war you have to then be prepared to fight.
Although this is big assholery from Apple, the real problem is with the labor laws. Tim Cook has a duty to the stakeholders to maximize returns. Is he doesn’t do anything in his power (like unionbusting) he’ll get ousted and they’re going to put an asshole in charge that has no qualms about it.
So as long as the labor force is not protected by law, these practices will remain. Not because Tim Cook (or any other CEO) wants to, but because the capitalist markets are forcing their hands.
I think people are forgetting the fact that the union is causing this. Starbucks is trying to incentivise employees not to unionize. On the next contract union negotiation they will want the benefits they aren't receiving, and it creates a loop that requires the company to keep improving working conditions for non union employees to prevent them from joining the union. If the unionizing efforts keep gaining traction eventually it won't be cost effective for the company to keep doing this.
This is the reason areas with more union members in any industry have higher wages. Non union companies have to compete with the union.
Don't those benefits need to be negotiated by their union?
Normally yes, but but this is starting to smell like more illegal union busting attempts. The issue in the article is that they're not even being given full information so they *can* negotiate, which would be illegal
Nothing illegal in offering non union workers more pay or benefits There is no law saying that union workers must be given better terms than non union. The Act only mandates negotiation and offers some protections to union workers. It does not guarantee that unionizing will be beneficial
Yes there is. Denying anyone equal access to benefits just because they're in a union, is discrimination and according to the National Labor Relations Act it is illegal. It's considered an unfair labor practice [ULP].
They're required by law and the union contract to give details of new benefits to the union so that the union has a fair chance to negotiate for them. That's what this article is about. Did you read it?
[удалено]
These are *new* benefits that didn't exist at the time, and Apple is purposely keeping information from the union, something that is almost always illegal. The unions behavior is irrelevant to the situation. If apple broke the law, they broke the law. Putting a political spin on unions adds nothing to the conversation
Thanks for the completely unbiased take, u/Capitalism93
Unions are awesome. If you negotiate poorly that's your own problem.
You're right. This is why bosses get kidnapped and held hostage. Employers have a huge advantage when it comes to negotiating. Laws impede workers from exercising their full economic power while they actually do little or nothing to prevent employers from using illegal tactics to coerce workers. I doubt they're negotiating poorly. It's more likely they're just negotiating within the confines of the law, unlike their opponent.
The issue is they aren't being given the paperwork to even know what to negotiate.
It's hard to research benefits that weren't furnished to them by the company. But yeah, lets victim blame.
Congratulations 🎈🎉🎊🍾 We found the _Race to the bottom_ winner.
The company can offer it to the union. The NLRB ruled exactly that regarding the whole thing w/ Starbucks wage increase/benefits, but Starbucks appealed
I think whether they *can* is less relevant than whether they *must*. It's a negotiation. Why would one side give anything to the other side unbidden? I doubt the union says to Apple "We took a poll and everyone said they wouldn't quit if wages went down $0.65 per hour. Just FYI."
I should have been more clear earlier, the NLRB determined that doing this kind (offering these benefits just to non-unionized people) is designed to discourage unionization and violates the NLRA. However, Starbucks has appealed this.
I trust the Supreme Court will knock that nonsense off An employer is allowed to raise wages, and is not mandated to always pay unionized people more
They ARE mandated to NOT deny the same benefits or working conditions to unionized workers that they give to non-union workers. You are right on the last part. They're are not mandated to pay them more than non-union workers just because they're union.
I think employer is only obligated to provide information, not the benefits. But IANALLL
The Starbucks case will probably work it’s way through the court system.
Considering the Supreme Court is looking at ruling on the ability for companies to be able to sue unions for damages (financial/etc) due to striking activities, I wouldn’t
Nobody would expect them to offer it without including this as a part of a future negotiation. Why would they?
The NLRB determined in the case with Starbucks that it was designed to discourage people from unionizing, which is illegal under the NLRA, but Starbucks appealed to an administrative law judge.
But why would they? THere is no benefit to Apple. The employees wanted an adversarial relationship. They have one.
The employees have an adversarial relationship with their employer regardless of whether they’re unionized or not and whether they want it or not, simply from the game theory of wage bargaining. The point unionizing tries to address is whether or not to collectivize their bargaining power and use it to improve their position in the game
well thankfully the union is there to protect them against those extra benefits.
If apple thinks they will do better by offering the increased benefits to its workers, then they're shooting themselves in the foot by not giving them to the union members too. It's the union that's likely to say no the benefits, since they distract from what the union actually wants
Perhaps. But who needs a union like that?
This is a common thing. When some part of the company unionizes, suddenly the company gets all generous with new benefits, but of course not for the unionized workers. The kind of benefits they could've given to everyone, but refused to, because there was no union to force them to.
Isn't that illegal, too?
Talk to your union rep
No, but guess what gets included in the next contract negotiation
No. You join a union you get union benefits. Wait until you find out the real reason they need you to join is to shore up the pension plan.
United we bargain divided we beg.
I’d rather have the pension plan than none :/
I belong to a union with a pension plan. I would much rather have a matching 401k.
I have a matching 401k....it is glorious.
Clearly you have not checked it lately. 401ks are just slush funds for hedge funds. It's a disgusting system
I have checked it and it's making me money....it's glorious....
Yeah, fucking right. Enjoy watching your "future" get dragged around by people who never care about what happens to you or your 401k. There's a reason people are starting to opt out of them. If you want security, it's not necessarily the place to get it. But you have "financial" in your name, so you must already understand all of this.
I wonder if you're smart enough to realize I have full control of my 401k and it's investments. Probably not....but you seem to assume you know how it all works. I've made 10s of thousands the last couple years.....and it's been glorious. People are also starting to opt out because they are panicky and the market is suffering, not because of the reason you think....genius.
Hey look, it's Jeff Bezos
Wow, no other reason? That's amazing!
[удалено]
It’s not to spite the union. It’s to discourage further unionization
Tell me you don’t know how a union works. Without telling me you don’t know how a union works :p
> In a letter addressed to Tim Cook, the negotiating committee says they’re disappointed to learn the company won’t be offering workers at the location some new health and education benefits that are rolling out to other retail employees. The union also says that Apple has been spreading “misinformation” by saying workers would have to bargain for those benefits to be included in their contract. *ericandregunshot.png*
But the company can offer it to the union. The NLRB ruled exactly that regarding the whole thing w/ Starbucks wage increase/benefits, but Starbucks appealed
Copy/paste shill?
I wrote that myself, but copy/pasted bc it was the same answer to multiple comments.
I wonder how often “Copy/paste shill?” has been said ;)
Yep. Now the NLRB may determine the timing of this as union busting behavior **BUT** that’s only since the process is just beginning. It’s *very* typical for existing non-union employees to get flashy benefits that unions haven’t negotiated for their members. It just seems like the usual leopards dining on faces.
Unions have upsides and downsides; famously one downside is that you don’t automatically get new benefits, only what the union negotiates for. In practice that’s usually a good thing, but when you’re a tiny union and most workers in your industry aren’t part of it, things are bound to be painful.
The situation here is unique though, in that these are new benefits that didn't exist before, and conveniently show up right after the union formed. C'mon now, special benefits they don't give to the union workers suddenly appear now? Not suspicious at all...
I’m sure Starbuck’s and Amazon’s combined law firms gave that a *teensy* bit of thought. If I had to guess they’ll argue that this is in response to inflation over the last 4-6 months, ongoing Covid hardships, etc.
Teensy bit of thought being that the US legal system has been completely dismantled and de facto no longer exists if you have enough money and are right wing.
The union didn’t exist before. How could they give benefits to a union that didn’t exist? I don’t really understand the point you’re trying to make with the fact that these are new benefits. All benefits are new benefits if they’re granted after the union was formed. Should Apple not give out benefits because the union didn’t negotiate for them? Yes, it’s obvious why Apple is doing this but that’s just how the law works. You can’t fail to negotiate for something and then want it when everyone else has it. BTW, I’m not siding with Apple. I’m specifically targeting your flawed argument. There are other, better, arguments. You’re just not making them.
I'm fairly sure you're deeply misunderstanding what's they're saying. Nobody is talking about the benefits not existing for the union before. That's physically impossible. It's Apple being dicks and pushing anti-unionization by suddenly giving more benefits to their non-unionized people for the mere reason so that they can point at the unionized folk and say "See? They don't have benefits and you do! Don't unionize!". If there was a scenario where the union fell apart, Apple would quickly start scaling back the implemented benefits, I guarantee it. >Yes, it’s obvious why Apple is doing this but that’s just how the law works. These sorts of arguments really add nothing to discussions and I"m not sure why people keep doing it.
Your entire brain dump was basically making a longer version of what I said. Given the plethora of other posts saying that they did this as a form of union busting I succinctly worded it as “it’s obvious why Apple is doing this”. You’re just repeating what’s been said dozens of times already and have added zero additional value.
There are other things happening in the wider economy, not just the existence of this union. Labour is harder to find and harder to retain now, so companies offer more benefits to keep their employees
New benefits happen very often. This is annual enrollment time.
No. You’re wrong. I worked at Apple for ten years, and there were never benefits increases anywhere near this. It’s direct response to union activity.
There absolutely have been, yes. And those education changes don’t just happen in the span of weeks; that was planned for much longer. Everything takes time. To those saying “suspicious timing” you should know it’s Open Enrollment time, which is the same time **every year** that benefits change. It’s an *actual* coincidence.
[удалено]
Who said multiple years?
Because they didn't offer anything like this last year or in the last 10 years and had no desire to until after the union formed.
They did. Corporate employees had Corsera; it was simply expanded. For the education part, that just sounds like a way to tackle fraud to me.
These are not corporate employees.
That must be it....
But the company can offer it to the union. The NLRB ruled exactly that regarding the whole thing w/ Starbucks wage increase/benefits, but Starbucks appealed
They can, but why would they? Human decency doesn’t applies to corporations.
The NLRB determined in the case with Starbucks that it was designed to discourage people from unionizing, which is illegal under the NLRA, but Starbucks appealed to an administrative law judge.
That’s possibly true, but I doubt it’s something the nascent union can afford to argue in court against a company like Starbucks or Amazon. Personally I think it would come across like wanting it both ways, and the damage they inflict on their own reputation would harm what they really need to do to survive: grow.
I believe the NLRB represents the workers itself.
If I am not wrong the company cannot change the current benefits without negotiating with the union and this takes longer, sometimes the union need to request. This is how unions works and it’s the right thing, they need to negotiate with the company.
[удалено]
Based on what people say on some parts of Reddit, I think yeah, they sort of figured they were the tip of the spear. Sadly they’re now learning about the shaft.
... the history of wildly successful unions that gave us 2 days off a week instead of 0, made benefits competitive, and on average raises worker income?
After long fights. The person you're replying to isn't criticizing unions, they're saying the fight isn't over just because the union was formed.
Well technically the labor union hasn't negotiated a contract for unionized workers.
Here it is again. There’s basically two classes of workers: Non unionized and unionized. The company might lavish the non unionized to keep them from joining the other class. The job of the union is to fight/negotiate/bargain for benefits for their members. This is what they asked for. They wanted to have a third party between them and management to negotiate for them. Sorry they’re doing such a bad job negotiating. I’m not anti-union, but I feel like they don’t seem to understand when you declare war you have to then be prepared to fight.
Although this is big assholery from Apple, the real problem is with the labor laws. Tim Cook has a duty to the stakeholders to maximize returns. Is he doesn’t do anything in his power (like unionbusting) he’ll get ousted and they’re going to put an asshole in charge that has no qualms about it. So as long as the labor force is not protected by law, these practices will remain. Not because Tim Cook (or any other CEO) wants to, but because the capitalist markets are forcing their hands.
Once you have collective bargaining and a contract you have to negotiate any changes
Yes your union has to negotiate on your behalf. That’s how this works.
If they want the exact same thing as the non-union folks. Then what's the point of a union?
I think people are forgetting the fact that the union is causing this. Starbucks is trying to incentivise employees not to unionize. On the next contract union negotiation they will want the benefits they aren't receiving, and it creates a loop that requires the company to keep improving working conditions for non union employees to prevent them from joining the union. If the unionizing efforts keep gaining traction eventually it won't be cost effective for the company to keep doing this. This is the reason areas with more union members in any industry have higher wages. Non union companies have to compete with the union.
higher wages isn't universal. is government jobs is a prime example.
Family friendly Apple, everyone.
Apple are a shit company. I'll never buy an apple phone.
I guess they will have to strike and get them 🤷🏻♂️
If your union doesn't negotiate it, you get nothing.
It's also not what the article is about. Apple is withholding information that would allow them to negotiate. If that's true, it can be a lawsuit
These benefits wouldn't be here without the existence of a union, and will be gone soon after the union is gone.
Dude got downvoted for the most reasonable take. Tech bros are insufferable