33 ms·

Apple has the cash to deal with a union. The issue comes if the union gets greedy (by which I mean actually greedy, not asks-for-living-wage-and-benefits). At w

Apple has the cash to deal with a union. The issue comes if the union gets greedy (by which I mean actually greedy, not asks-for-living-wage-and-benefits). At what point is it worth it for Apple to keep retail stores open if they're losing (more) money on them? Private sector unions are generally self-regulating; the company can only afford so much, and a balance is struck. In Apple's case, the unionizers may see a lot of upside, given Apple's massive cash reserves, and treat this like a public sector union negotiation. Best-case: union is formed and negotiations go well, Apple retail employees are now well-paid people who like their jobs. Worst-case: no more Apple stores. Edit: to disclose my bias, I favor private sector unions, and despise public-sector unions. Collective bargaining should not control the taxpayer dime.

mistersquid 5y ago
> At what point is it worth it for Apple to keep retail stores open if they're losing (more) money on them? That sentence makes no sense, even with the parenthetical ”more”. As recently as 2017, “Apple [was] again found to be the world’s top retailer in sales per square foot” [0] [0] https://9to5mac.com/2017/07/29/apple-top-retailer-per-square-foot/ https://9to5mac.com/2017/07/29/apple-top-retailer-per-square...
arcticbull 5y ago
> Collective bargaining should not control the taxpayer dime. Why on earth not? An employer is an employer. Many public sector unions in other countries are very well regarded, such as CUPE in Canada (with 700,000 members, they represent 5% of Canadian workers).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- changoplatanero 5y ago
  at the very least i believe a public sector union in a democracy shouldn't have the right to strike and keep their jobs. You can't hold the rest of the country hostage like that. The government belongs to the people and the people's right to have a functioning government supersedes your right to strike.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    Ok, but who's going to look out for the employment rights of the individuals? Wouldn't you argue that's even more important the larger the employer gets? The way it tends to work in Canada is that if certain essential workers strike and it harms the public, they can be ordered back to work. Seems like a reasonable place to draw the line.
    - salawat 5y ago
      Not really. If you can just order someone back to work without sitting down at the negotiating table... You're kinda hosed from the Union/labor front. Like it or not, even the Government is liable to pay a fair wage. If the Public is so darn stingy they won't even vote in people to seriously fund the execution of crucial services, that's their problem.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        For sure, it's a balance, which is why back to work legislation is used sparingly. It also has been given a very high bar by recent Supreme Court rulings.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      Seems like a hollow threat because you can't actually force anyone to work. I think all collective bargaining should rely on the power of the workers to stop working and the cost to employers to hire replacements. Any laws that deviate from this and prevent parties from doing so are a morally bankrupt.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        You can certainly fine them until they do, which is generally how this works.
        s1artibartfast 5y ago
        I haven't seen that and to be honest, am a little skeptical. If someone quits their job, they can be fined? For how long?
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  With a private company, the owners can sell their stake or shut down. Citizens can not opt out of paying taxes.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    I don't think that changes anything other than making the need for collective bargaining even more important. Those providing the essential services deserve every bit as much representation as those providing non-essential service. Especially since their employer has even more power.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      But the taxpayer owners have less power. Seems like a bad system IMHO as a tax payer.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        Of course the group who stands to be pushed back on would view it as a "bad system." Just as most employers view unions as a "bad system" however, they have numerous real-world benefits.
        s1artibartfast 5y ago
        Yeah, and numerous real-world costs. Reasonable people can still disagree on the priority and balancing of these costs and benefits as there is rarely a factually correct answer.
datavirtue 5y ago
Define greedy. I always come at this from "getting my cut." When the family business did well our pay always went up.
- rpmisms 5y ago
  I mean demanding compensation well above the value they create. Being an Apple Genius is not worth the same salary as a typical lawyer, generally speaking. If a union were to demand that, it would be cheaper to remove the Apple stores. > I always come at this from "getting my cut." When the family business did well our pay always went up. Apple's too big for that to work directly. Stock compensation is the best mechanism for larger companies to implement "getting a cut".
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    That's interesting, why stock compensation over simple profit sharing bonuses? I can think of a number of reasons why the latter could be better for retail workers
    - rpmisms 5y ago
      Because profit on paper is very malleable. See: Hollywood Accounting. Stock compensation that vests over time both gives an incentive to stay, as well as a direct stake in the growth of the company, rather than a bonus program that can be removed at any time.
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        Incentive to stay may or may not be a good thing, especially in the context of a retail job. A stock plan can also be removed just as easily. Last, publicly traded companies have well defined definitions of profit, which negates most if not all of the Hollywood accounting issues, where a movie might have 20 legal definitions of profit.

mistersquid 5y ago

> At what point is it worth it for Apple to keep retail stores open if they're losing (more) money on them? That sentence makes no sense, even with the parenthetical ”more”. As recently as 2017, “Apple [was] again found to be the world’s top retailer in sales per square foot” [0] [0] https://9to5mac.com/2017/07/29/apple-top-retailer-per-square-foot/ https://9to5mac.com/2017/07/29/apple-top-retailer-per-square...

arcticbull 5y ago

> Collective bargaining should not control the taxpayer dime. Why on earth not? An employer is an employer. Many public sector unions in other countries are very well regarded, such as CUPE in Canada (with 700,000 members, they represent 5% of Canadian workers).

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
changoplatanero 5y ago
at the very least i believe a public sector union in a democracy shouldn't have the right to strike and keep their jobs. You can't hold the rest of the country hostage like that. The government belongs to the people and the people's right to have a functioning government supersedes your right to strike.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Ok, but who's going to look out for the employment rights of the individuals? Wouldn't you argue that's even more important the larger the employer gets? The way it tends to work in Canada is that if certain essential workers strike and it harms the public, they can be ordered back to work. Seems like a reasonable place to draw the line.
  - salawat 5y ago
    Not really. If you can just order someone back to work without sitting down at the negotiating table... You're kinda hosed from the Union/labor front. Like it or not, even the Government is liable to pay a fair wage. If the Public is so darn stingy they won't even vote in people to seriously fund the execution of crucial services, that's their problem.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      For sure, it's a balance, which is why back to work legislation is used sparingly. It also has been given a very high bar by recent Supreme Court rulings.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Seems like a hollow threat because you can't actually force anyone to work. I think all collective bargaining should rely on the power of the workers to stop working and the cost to employers to hire replacements. Any laws that deviate from this and prevent parties from doing so are a morally bankrupt.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      You can certainly fine them until they do, which is generally how this works.
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        I haven't seen that and to be honest, am a little skeptical. If someone quits their job, they can be fined? For how long?
s1artibartfast 5y ago
With a private company, the owners can sell their stake or shut down. Citizens can not opt out of paying taxes.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  I don't think that changes anything other than making the need for collective bargaining even more important. Those providing the essential services deserve every bit as much representation as those providing non-essential service. Especially since their employer has even more power.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    But the taxpayer owners have less power. Seems like a bad system IMHO as a tax payer.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      Of course the group who stands to be pushed back on would view it as a "bad system." Just as most employers view unions as a "bad system" however, they have numerous real-world benefits.
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        Yeah, and numerous real-world costs. Reasonable people can still disagree on the priority and balancing of these costs and benefits as there is rarely a factually correct answer.

datavirtue 5y ago

Define greedy. I always come at this from "getting my cut." When the family business did well our pay always went up.

rpmisms 5y ago
I mean demanding compensation well above the value they create. Being an Apple Genius is not worth the same salary as a typical lawyer, generally speaking. If a union were to demand that, it would be cheaper to remove the Apple stores. > I always come at this from "getting my cut." When the family business did well our pay always went up. Apple's too big for that to work directly. Stock compensation is the best mechanism for larger companies to implement "getting a cut".
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  That's interesting, why stock compensation over simple profit sharing bonuses? I can think of a number of reasons why the latter could be better for retail workers
  - rpmisms 5y ago
    Because profit on paper is very malleable. See: Hollywood Accounting. Stock compensation that vests over time both gives an incentive to stay, as well as a direct stake in the growth of the company, rather than a bonus program that can be removed at any time.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      Incentive to stay may or may not be a good thing, especially in the context of a retail job. A stock plan can also be removed just as easily. Last, publicly traded companies have well defined definitions of profit, which negates most if not all of the Hollywood accounting issues, where a movie might have 20 legal definitions of profit.