3 ms·

I mean, yeah? It is not in a company's interest to be unionized. This shouldn't exactly be news. Even in this article, the organizers acknowledge that what Ap

I mean, yeah? It is not in a company's interest to be unionized. This shouldn't exactly be news. Even in this article, the organizers acknowledge that what Apple is doing isn't illegal, but argue that it should be. I get it. Organizing labor is tough. They're looking for some legal reprieve. But at the end of the day unions are fundamentally bad for employers. We can push for laws requiring them to roll out a welcome mat but we shouldn't expect them to like it.

moate 4y ago
You can't break laws in doing so. That's the news. "Apple is doing illegal things" is not the same as "It's not in Apple's interest to be unionized". We can and should expect the 4th estate to hold people accountable when they break laws in their pursuit of more profits for the investor/management classes. The fact that people are reading "Apple is doing illegal things in order to prevent unionization" and shrugging is indicative of the larger issue which is that anti-union sentiment has become so pervasive in the country it's essentially the default at this point. I feel that people should be mad that Apple opposes unions so much they're willing to commit crimes to prevent it, just like I feel that people should be mad if they found out that Apple was using iPhones to create a Batman like spy network. People should be mad when companies break laws and exploit them, not shrug and go "whelp, that's just them doing a Capitalism, hayuck!"
JaimeThompson 4y ago
>It is not in a company's interest to be unionized. Why not?
- tomelders 4y ago
  I think they mean it's not in the best interest of the people who "own" the company. Those people want to minimise costs as much as possible and Unions get in the way of them doing whatever the hell they want.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  Unions increase labor costs.
  - JaimeThompson 4y ago
    Treating people like people reduces labor acquisition and training costs.
  - daniel-cussen 4y ago
    Labor costs bring food home to the table for people to eat.
    - moate 4y ago
      For labor, yes. For ownership/management, literally the opposite. OP was just pointing out why management is typically opposed to unions, since raising labor costs hurts the share of the profit to be given to ownership/management, they didn't seem to be weighing in on whether that increase in cost was a net good or bad.
      - daniel-cussen 4y ago
        So the word "hurts" generally refers to someONE, a creature of GOD, or as some people put it a "person" which I consider offensive. But in any case not to a number in a bank account. Bad means harm basically. For ownership and management...not literally the opposite. I highly doubt a manager has had that difficulty putting food on the table (in the 70's, I divine yes, occasionally it did happen sometimes and it disgusted the manager who went through that. I recognize they were underpaid then, but it's been a golden age for that class of worker ever since). Not stealing food from them. Worst case, they can always ask for demotion and put food on the table that way, as the employee. And a lot of people did that between the 40s and the 70s, choosing a diagonal-downward move to a job with a different demand balance, becoming schoolteachers for instance. Wozniak did that, a lot of Great Men did that.
dublin 4y ago
I've worked in two aerospace companies that were unionized - the first a very well-run company in California, the second a passably well-run company in Texas. The Unions were a constant impediment to improving product quality and production rate (and for aircraft, quality is exactly equal to safety!), even when there was no automation involved. The first company invested in a robot to process parts by blowing hot air through them so adhesive didn't bridge over the perforated holes in the part. The union objected, and a $100K robot was reduced to being a heat gun holder for the union worker that now manually processed the part just as before, with a huge scrap rate, since touching the part with the heat gun ruined it. Despite the company working hard to foster good relations with the union, the union decided to strike not for any work demands, but simply because they had money built up in their strike fund. A couple of weeks of violent protests (burned cop cars, etc.), shots fired at engineers (including me) stationed as lookouts on roofs to prevent arson, etc. convinced me that unions are never, ever better than thuggish extortionists. Since those two (my first jobs) I have refused to work for any company with a union. And I'm back in Texas, a right-to-work state where union membership cannot be compelled even if a company is unionized. I have NOTHING good to say about any experience I've ever had with labor unions. They are bad through and through.
- fzeroracer 4y ago
  Weird how I can't seem to find any reference to a union strike that turned as violent as you mentioned. A strike that resulted in weeks of violent protests, burned cop cars and shots being fired at people would've definitely shown up in the news somewhere. Since it seemed to have been a rather public event can you share proof?

moate 4y ago

You can't break laws in doing so. That's the news. "Apple is doing illegal things" is not the same as "It's not in Apple's interest to be unionized". We can and should expect the 4th estate to hold people accountable when they break laws in their pursuit of more profits for the investor/management classes. The fact that people are reading "Apple is doing illegal things in order to prevent unionization" and shrugging is indicative of the larger issue which is that anti-union sentiment has become so pervasive in the country it's essentially the default at this point. I feel that people should be mad that Apple opposes unions so much they're willing to commit crimes to prevent it, just like I feel that people should be mad if they found out that Apple was using iPhones to create a Batman like spy network. People should be mad when companies break laws and exploit them, not shrug and go "whelp, that's just them doing a Capitalism, hayuck!"

JaimeThompson 4y ago

>It is not in a company's interest to be unionized. Why not?

tomelders 4y ago
I think they mean it's not in the best interest of the people who "own" the company. Those people want to minimise costs as much as possible and Unions get in the way of them doing whatever the hell they want.
colinmhayes 4y ago
Unions increase labor costs.
- JaimeThompson 4y ago
  Treating people like people reduces labor acquisition and training costs.
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
  Labor costs bring food home to the table for people to eat.
  - moate 4y ago
    For labor, yes. For ownership/management, literally the opposite. OP was just pointing out why management is typically opposed to unions, since raising labor costs hurts the share of the profit to be given to ownership/management, they didn't seem to be weighing in on whether that increase in cost was a net good or bad.
    - daniel-cussen 4y ago
      So the word "hurts" generally refers to someONE, a creature of GOD, or as some people put it a "person" which I consider offensive. But in any case not to a number in a bank account. Bad means harm basically. For ownership and management...not literally the opposite. I highly doubt a manager has had that difficulty putting food on the table (in the 70's, I divine yes, occasionally it did happen sometimes and it disgusted the manager who went through that. I recognize they were underpaid then, but it's been a golden age for that class of worker ever since). Not stealing food from them. Worst case, they can always ask for demotion and put food on the table that way, as the employee. And a lot of people did that between the 40s and the 70s, choosing a diagonal-downward move to a job with a different demand balance, becoming schoolteachers for instance. Wozniak did that, a lot of Great Men did that.

dublin 4y ago

I've worked in two aerospace companies that were unionized - the first a very well-run company in California, the second a passably well-run company in Texas. The Unions were a constant impediment to improving product quality and production rate (and for aircraft, quality is exactly equal to safety!), even when there was no automation involved. The first company invested in a robot to process parts by blowing hot air through them so adhesive didn't bridge over the perforated holes in the part. The union objected, and a $100K robot was reduced to being a heat gun holder for the union worker that now manually processed the part just as before, with a huge scrap rate, since touching the part with the heat gun ruined it. Despite the company working hard to foster good relations with the union, the union decided to strike not for any work demands, but simply because they had money built up in their strike fund. A couple of weeks of violent protests (burned cop cars, etc.), shots fired at engineers (including me) stationed as lookouts on roofs to prevent arson, etc. convinced me that unions are never, ever better than thuggish extortionists. Since those two (my first jobs) I have refused to work for any company with a union. And I'm back in Texas, a right-to-work state where union membership cannot be compelled even if a company is unionized. I have NOTHING good to say about any experience I've ever had with labor unions. They are bad through and through.

fzeroracer 4y ago
Weird how I can't seem to find any reference to a union strike that turned as violent as you mentioned. A strike that resulted in weeks of violent protests, burned cop cars and shots being fired at people would've definitely shown up in the news somewhere. Since it seemed to have been a rather public event can you share proof?