24 ms·
Apple to withhold its latest employee perks from unionized store
- diebeforei485 4y agoUnions need to be honest that - like any negotiation - they might "win" something but lose other things.
- aaomidi 4y agoWhat Apple is doing is literally illegal. Our department of labor is absolutely useless. If the DoL continues this way, people are going to unionize without doing the "recognition" process. e.g. IWW
- itake 4y agoCan you cite a source for why this is illegal?
- aaomidi 4y agoSure! This is considered retaliation by announcing/offering "benefits" that are only available for non-unionized employees: https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/interfering-with-employee-rights-section-7-8a1 https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/in...
- otterley 4y agoAnd you don't think Apple has labor lawyers advising them differently? Are you a labor lawyer yourself, or are you just making your conclusion based solely on a summary of the law (which might not even apply to this particular situation) on a website, without access to case law?
- itake 4y agoEverything I see in that document says employers can NOT withhold benefits for employees in the process of organizing a union. I don't see anything about withholding benefits for employees already in a union. My understanding is that Apple has many stores starting the process of unionizing, but only the store that already has been unionized are the benefits been withheld. Apple seems to be compliant to the law you shared. Do you mind quoting which sentence?
- anamexis 4y agoI suspect they are getting confused with the NLRA Section 8(a)(1), which among other things prohibits employers from: > Withhold changes in wages or benefits during a union organizing campaign that would have been made had the union not been on the scene, unless you make clear to employees that the change will occur whether or not they select the union, and that your sole purpose in postponing the change is to avoid any appearance of trying to influence the outcome of the election. However, this is only relevant during the organizing campaign. Not after, as is the case here.
- aaomidi 4y ago> However, this is only relevant during the organizing campaign. Not after, as is the case here. Except there are unionizing efforts going on in a lot of their stores. So this is illegal for any of the stores that are currently in the progress of it, but have not yet committed to it.
- anamexis 4y agoIt would be illegal for them to withhold those benefits in those stores that have an active union campaign, but that's not what they are doing. I'm fairly confident in this (I was a union organizer who has gone through an NLRB election), but do you have any precedent suggesting otherwise?
- itake 4y ago> So this is illegal for any of the stores that are currently in the progress of it, but have not yet committed to it. The article says only the store that is unionized isn't getting the benefit. What am I missing here?
- aaomidi 4y agoIt’s the threat that if you unionize you won’t get these benefits.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- hacym 4y agoNo offense, but your “view” on labor law sounds untrained at best and dangerous at worse. Please stick to what you know.
- rat9988 4y agoWhy is he wrong?
- hacym 4y agoLabor laws are complex. No trained lawyer would make a comment saying something is “literally illegal” based on some article posted on an online forum. This should be a red flag on this opinion. That being said, companies do this all the time, at least in my experience. I’ve worked at multiple companies that employee union and non-union employees. Unionized workers have a contract, which is one of the things you’re accepting when you unionize. Companies can offer new benefits, but I think most assessments aren’t going to see this as “literally illegal”. Some of the benefit differences I’ve seen firsthand is the amount of PTO, sick leave, and education benefits. I’m not a lawyer in the least, and Apple may be breaking the law in some other way, but this seems like a normal practice based solely on the number of companies that employ it.
- aaomidi 4y ago
- kristopolous 4y agoThey also do wage theft all the time, unpaid overtime, ignore breaks required by law, withhold tips... Employer offenses against employees is rampant. As far as why this might be illegal, here's some background https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/starbucks-nonunion-worker-pay-bumps-raise-labor-law-red-flags https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/starbucks-n...
- hacym 4y agoI think the first two paragraphs of that article sums it up pretty well.
- paulryanrogers 4y agoIt's also possible Apple never would have offered any new perks if they didn't feel pressure of a union
- diebeforei485 4y agoAs far as I can tell, none of the unions were asking for more educational benefits.
- Someone1234 4y agoBecause cash is king. Apple just found a benefit that costs them less and offered that instead.
- kennywinker 4y agoThat doesn't matter. With the recent wave of unionization, companies are going to be playing hardball with union busting tactics. The play of "figure out some small perk that sounds good and is news-worthy, then give it to all the non-unionized stores" is a solid one.
- jonas21 4y agoIt's not "union busting" to negotiate with the union on new benefits that you'd otherwise give to employees. That's how the process works.
- kristopolous 4y agoLook up the Wright Line test. A withholding to unionized workers was seen as disciplinary against unions unless the employer could demonstrate otherwise
- kennywinker 4y agoI literally described how strategically offering a new benefit could be used to discourage unionization. I don't know how much more clear it could be that if the motivation behind the new benefit was manipulating perception of the union, that's union busting.
- jlarocco 4y agoWe don’t know if they’ve lost anything, though. The union may ask for the extra perks next time they negotiate. until then they get what they previously agreed to.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ericmay 4y ago> The reason given was that the Towson store needs to negotiate benefits with Apple via the collective bargaining arrangement that comes with a union. The approach isn’t unique to Apple.
- bwestergard 4y agoIn other words, they are withholding improvements to the job from the first workers who unionized. This gives them something to trade in bargaining, but perhaps just as importantly signals to other workers that they will play hardball with anyone who demands a seat at the table.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 4y agoDoes the unionized store have a contract with apple already? If so, it would seem like until the contract is up, apple should continue operating under the terms of that contract with respect to the unionized store.
- bwestergard 4y agoThey are currently bargaining a first contract.
- collegeburner 4y agoso it makes sense they are keeping it for negotiations then.
- bwestergard 4y agoI suppose you could say it "makes sense" if you confine your field of view to one round of bargaining at one employer who is interested in minimizing short-term labor costs. But does it even make sense for Apple managers/investors on a longer time horizon? Is it part of an approach that's good for the wider world?
- rideontime 4y agoSame tactic Starbuck's is using - insist that the store needs to negotiate via the union, while simultaneously refusing to engage with the union.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> insist that the store needs to negotiate via the union, while simultaneously refusing to engage with the union American unions are adversarial to management. I don’t see why one has an obligation to negotiate with an adversary.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- beardyw 4y ago> I don’t see why one has an obligation to negotiate with an adversary. But that the situation when negotiation is most needed. I agree that the unions are under no obligation to negotiate with management, its just a good idea.
- VictorPath 4y agoThe heirs who own the majority of Apple stock - the idle class which generation to generation does not work, but which expropriates surplus labor time from workers - they already know they are in an adversarial relationship with the workers. The new thing is the workers who do all the work and create all the wealth have woken up to the fact that they are dealing with an "adversary" as you call it.
- VictorPath 4y agoThe heirs who own the majority of Apple stock - the idle class which generation to generation does not work, but which expropriates surplus labor time from workers - they already know they are in an adversarial relationship with the workers. The new thing is the workers who do all the work and create all the wealth have woken up to the fact that they are dealing with an "adversary" as you correctly call it.
- 4y ago
- bluedino 4y agoEvery company I know of with unionized, and non-unionized employees, have different perks etc for each group.
- renewiltord 4y agoSeems reasonable. Either Apple controls the employee relationship or you negotiate the terms under a contract.
- unknownaccount 4y agoUnions are good for lazy employees because it makes them harder to fire. Theyre bad for the hard workers because they have to work even harder to make up for the lazy workers that arent fired. As someone who works hard I definitely would never want a union.
- yohannparis 4y agoThis is an interesting opinion. The fact that an employees as to make up for another colleagues is weird. If your manager is unloading on you, you have a bad manager, nothing to do with your "lazy" colleague.
- unknownaccount 4y agoIts just the reality of how many jobs are. It makes sense for managers to structure the work in this way, using an informal system of what amounts to group punishment if the team as a whole performs poorly. That way the team manages itself, lazy employees will be peer pressured into getting improving or quitting. Is it unfair? yes. Is it highly prevalent in jobs? Also yes.
- jfghi 4y ago
- knappe 4y agoLook, I don't agree with the parent's viewpoint either but this comment is entirely unhelpful and borderline a person attack. Can we not?
- lovich 4y agoIt is a personal attack but I don’t know what one would expect when the OP opened up with characterizing everyone wanting a union as lazy
- deleted 4y ago
- kepler1 4y agoSometimes union expectations are as ridiculous as what corporations try to get away with. In some ways of course, they're the same motivation -- trying to remove yourself from the normal rules of economics and what you can bargain for with customers and suppliers. In what magical world do unions expect that they can achieve all of 1) high wages, 2) great benefits, 3) long, protected employment contracts, 4) reducing anyone's work obligation to the minimum? I too would love if by legislation against reality, I could be paid a lot, forever, to do a job I could phone in via Zoom. Life comes with tradeoffs, unless you're very lucky.
- worik 4y ago1) high incomes 2) great benefits, 3) long, protected employment contracts, 4) Minimum risk Those benefits belong to the owners of capital. The suppliers of labour must endure low wages, poor benefits, at whim employment and uncertainty.
- coredog64 4y agoMy capital portfolio is down by tens of thousands of dollars this year. Labor might have to forego future pay, but it’s pretty uncommon for an employer to claw back 1/3rd of your cash salary after they’ve paid it.
- kennywinker 4y agoNope, but it is pretty normal for employees to be laid off when the stock price plunges
- hamandcheese 4y agoYour speculative stock investments may be worth 1/3 less, but Apple doesn't have 1/3 fewer factories now compared to last year. They still control the means of production just as before.
- g_sch 4y agoExactly. Unions fundamentally exist in order to prevent owners and investors from harvesting all the profits (and from pushing off the consequences of losses to the workers alone). If companies were equally owned and operated by their workers, unions wouldn't have a purpose for existing.
- GartzenDeHaes 4y agoThis is also my experience dealing with unions. Management is legally required to make concessions during collective bargaining, so anything that can be considered an improvement to mandatory bargaining topics (pay, benefits, or working conditions) gets held back for the contract negotiation. In one case, management wanted to purchase sit/stand workstations for employees, but HR pointed out that this was a change to working conditions and should be included in the collective bargaining negotiation. However management had already started taking measurements for the tables, so the union knew what management was intending. During the negotiations, the union decided to try and call HR's bluff and refused to ask for the workstations as a concession. So in the end, the whole plan was scrapped so that HR would have concessions available for future negotiations.
- Retric 4y agoThat sounds like a win for the union and it’s members. Union members would presumably much rather pocket the money than have it go to standing desks. Sacrificing stuff they don’t want in a negotiation is negotiation 101.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- saiya-jin 4y agoAbout the same reasons I never joined ones, when I had the option (which lets be honest in IT is not that often). Great ideas on paper, properly poor execution that ends up in entrenched folks, power games and politics
- lovich 4y agoAs opposed to the entrenched folks, power games, and politics that exist currently? Those don’t appear because a union is formed, you just have less of a say at the bargaining table without one Edit:removed an extra “don’t”
- 4y ago
- InTheArena 4y agoThis is standard contract law. With a contract in place, companies are required to adhere to the language of the contract, any any change needs to be negotiated (or the contract needs to expire). Adding a benefit or removing it without going through a contract causes all kinds of legal liabilities (employees may assume it as a permanent perk). Union leadership also don't typically want perks granted that they didn't negotiate for (why would people "choose" to pay for a union otherwise).
- couchand 4y agoExcept there's no contract in place yet, and there's absolutely nothing preventing them from being good people. Except, of course, the vicious demands of capitalism.
- InTheArena 4y agoThis is the problem with the adversarial union system. You can call it a failure of the vicious demands of capitalism, but after decades of watching independent adversary unions destroy whole industries that my family was involved in (aerospace, airlines and steel) - with zero-sum negotiations where one side must loose for the other to win - I've come to the conclusion that the only way to deal with it is to give in and deal with unions and only unions and only in the context of the law. The unions know that - of course - which is why the Union in Australia is threatening to extend their strike if Apple asks it's local workers there to vote on a proposal, when only 1/4th of the workers are represented by the union.
- ok_dad 4y ago> adversarial union system Alternatively, you could frame the system as the "adversarial employer system" because Apple also chose to be adversarial. Apple could, in good faith, extend the additional benefits to the unionized employees or add their dollar-value worth to their paychecks, contingent on re-negotiating them the next cycle, but instead they choose to hold themselves directly to the minimums they negotiated this cycle and do nothing additional for those employees. I think this is a pure anti-union move that Apple is marketing via "look, if you just trusted us, and not the evil unions, we could be giving you more!" Where, in reality, the important thing for a union to protect from is the cutting of benefits and lowering of working conditions in those times where it's normal to do so (downturns), because time has proven that those "austerity measures" are rarely reversed by a company when profits rise.
- tomohawk 4y agoIf the employees wanted Apple to deal directly with them, they would not have unionized. They unionized. Now there is an intermediary between them and the company. This works both ways. They are now bound to work with their union to address any grievances, and the company is likewise bound. So they are getting exactly what they wanted by unionizing, but likely few if any of them have had any direct experience with what having a union means.
- puffoflogic 4y agoIt only takes a vocal minority and meddling by NLRB to set up a union, then all employees are bound by it whether they wanted it or not.
- kennywinker 4y agoExplain? My understanding is it takes a majority of employees voting to form a union. Is there some process by which a minority can force a union on the majority?
- tomohawk 4y agoWhen employees "vote" it may not be by secret ballot. It may be by a method such as card check whereby people know who's voting which way. There is a long history of humans using intimidation to get their way, and without a secret ballot, that becomes a thing. Beyond that, people have a tendency to vote "yes" on things when they don't know about those things. There's always a fight on referendums on the language to be on the side of the "yes", because "yes" wins most of the time.
- kennywinker 4y agoThose both sound like situations where the majority has chosen something. Bias towards "yes" sure, but people also have a pretty strong bias towards NO CHANGE - unless things are bad. I believe the general dislike of secret ballots among pro-union people has to do with the voting process being controlled by the companies. The accusation being that when the company controls the process, they are interfering in the result. Given the choice between coworker interference or employer interference... I'll pick coworker any day, they've got a lot less on me than my employer. If the vote could be truly independent and secret, sure... but burden of proof is high
- gigatexal 4y agoI don't understand Apple's take here. Embrace the unions so that you can shape them. Happy workers are more productive workers. Hippie Steve would be pro-union me thinks.
- rubyist5eva 4y agoYou know nothing about Steve Jobs lol
- anamexis 4y agoHe most certainly wouldn't: https://www.wired.com/2007/02/steve-jobs-proud-to-be-nonunion/ https://www.wired.com/2007/02/steve-jobs-proud-to-be-nonunio...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kennend3 4y ago> Hippie Steve would be pro-union me thinks. It is always weird when someone who has no connection to an individual responds and attempts to state how that person things/feels on an issue. Question for you: If Steve Jobs ran the company, and in your view he was "pro-union" why isn't it already unionized? Steve often got what he wanted (he was DRIVEN).. So if unionization was something he wanted, one would think he would have done it?
- hoistbypetard 4y ago> Hippie Steve would be pro-union me thinks. Can you cite a reason for that? His words would seem to run counter to your thoughts: https://www.wired.com/2007/02/steve-jobs-proud-to-be-nonunion/ https://www.wired.com/2007/02/steve-jobs-proud-to-be-nonunio...
- somenewaccount1 4y agoHippie Steve died once he became rich.
- spoonjim 4y agoLOL, the most ruthlessly effective capitalist of the last 100 years would be pro-union? What gives you the confidence to make such a wildly implausible claim?
- diebeforei485 4y agoThe main benefit of being in a union - IMO - seems that you can't be fired or "cancelled" for expressing your political opinion on Twitter. The next best seems to be severance (more if you've been with the company longer). I think any company can implement these unilaterally.
- vkou 4y agoThe third benefit is that you have a lot more bargaining power behind you. One employee is fungible, the entire workforce is not.
- kennend3 4y ago> One employee is fungible, the entire workforce is not. Not sure what it is, but man i dislike this term being used like this. To be "fungible" is a contract for a physical good without a specific "sample" of that good being specified. So you can put a contract on for "100oz" of gold, and the counter-party can complete their obligation by supplying one 100oz bar, or 10 10oz bars, etc. Legally, they met their obligation as these are "fungible". People are rarely "fungible" and it is a pet-peeve seeing this being used all the time like this.
- kennywinker 4y agoOne of the major aims of industrialization has been to make people as fungible as possible. People are not fungible, you're right, but a whole lot of effort + technology + process exists to try to make people fungible. e.g. the assembly line, or customer support scripts.
- kennend3 4y agoAgreed.. except the point of industrialization was to make people replaceable. Fungibility is a legal construct tying into contract law. It is a misuse of business "terms" by technology people.
- shadowgovt 4y agoIf only that store had some kind of, I don't know, process for labor making collective bargaining demands to establish some perks and benefits they could use.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- raunak 4y agohttps://archive.ph/rfISq https://archive.ph/rfISq
- paxys 4y ago- Why did my store not get this new benefit that other non-unionized stores are getting? - Why was my store not affected by layoffs but other stores in the area were? - Why was my raise X% but employees at other stores got Y%? The answer to all of these is the same – you will get exactly what is in your collective bargaining agreement, not a penny more or less. If you want more perks, ask your union reps to bring it up in the next contract negotiation.
- britch 4y agoFor me the question is Would Apple have introduced these perks without the union? It's not the union that's preventing these things from going to the unionized workers. It's the company. My guess is that Apple would prefer there not to be a union, so they take the carrot&stuck approach in response. Carrot new perks if you don't unionize. Stick we close the union stores. But you have to ask what the state of things would be without the union at play. Does Apple decide to give everyone more perks just 'cause?
- s1artibartfast 4y ago>Does Apple decide to give everyone more perks just 'cause? No, in the absence of unions and regulations, companies provide more perks and compensation when they need to in order to higher or maintain workers. Classic supply and demand. If you can't hire a worker for X dollars, you raise the salary to x + 1. Companies do it all the time when they can't find the workers that they need
- paxys 4y agoApple has 370+ stores across the country and 65,000 retail workers. Exactly one store is unionized. It’s safe to say that broad benefits decisions across the company aren’t being driven by this union.
- snackwalrus 4y agoThe implication is that additional perks will make other stores less likely to unionize. One store successfully unionizing is certainly enough to cause Apple to take such measures, they're likely trying to prevent a domino effect.
- chadlavi 4y agoIt's really surprising that that is legal to do. It should most definitely not be. (and I say this as a typical apple fanboy)
- dkonofalski 4y agoWhy? The store literally fought to have the ability to negotiate these kinds of changes. This is working exactly the way they intended. Now they have the option of accepting these benefits or exchanging them out for other benefits or pay raises, if that's what they want instead.
- mrxd 4y agoThe goal of the union is to improve wages, benefits and working conditions. If Apple addresses those concerns to the extent that union membership is a worse deal, then the union has won.
- imwillofficial 4y ago
- somenewaccount1 4y agoThe main benefit mentioned in the article is a $400 annual credit to Coursera. Everything else is "some education" or "some doctors", which usually translates to practically nothing useful. They should have found out what the average pay is for union vs non-union, and then compared if the new benefits actually translated to something meaningful. My guess is that the union members earn more than $400/yr in cash, and then they can spend it on whatever they want - education, doctors, whatever.
- fundad 4y agoBenefits were not withheld from the union, they get to negotiate separately. They earned the right to negotiate. Most of the company is under at-will employment. Non-union Apple employees didn't get to choose those "additional" benefits and didn't have a choice of taking the cash value or bargaining for something else.
- itsdrewmiller 4y agoApple has a choice here - they can offer the benefits freely or withhold them to try to extract something else from a negotiation. If offered freely the union could still reject them, and try to extract something else instead at the next negotiation. If the union did that it would at least raise the question of whether the money spent on those benefits might have more utility providing something else for the workforce.
- droopyEyelids 4y agoA union will almost always eschew a contingent, quirky perk like 'Coursera credit' in favor of a smaller increase in take home pay, anyway.
- spaetzleesser 4y agoRightfully so. My company provides a whole list of “benefits” nobody ever uses. I much prefer cash.
- braingenious 4y agoThe topic of unions on here is one of the funniest I’ve seen. So many posters will breathlessly run into the comments to loudly declare that “Unions are bad!!” instantly upon seeing the word. It’s as if too many pro or neutral opinions about unions get posted in row, a pesky Union will be summoned and materialize like Beetlejuice.
- drstewart 4y agoIronically, I don't see any of those takes, but lots of people like yourself immediately running around claiming there are people posting in bad faith about unions.
- braingenious 4y agoThat’s interesting, I don’t see another instance of “bad faith” on this page. Maybe it’s because I’m on mobile and my browser sucks. I have seen comments like “Welcome to collective bargaining”, a few (now-downvoted) posts like “They’re no longer Apple employees”, “Unions are good for lazy employees”, and quite a few posters offering their legal perspectives that essentially boil down to “Apple is right to make this choice”. The latter is more mundane than “Unions are bad”, but “Actions against union members are okay” is an opinion, not a neutral statement of fact.
- goatcode 4y agoIt's unfortunate that those who are against unions don't realize that they may, in some cases, be against the current state of a given union, and that they, if they belong to a given union, can change the state of it. I was once in a union local of several thousand people that was directed by the fewer than 20 who showed up to the meetings. I pushed for a campaign of greater publication of upcoming meetings and in a few short months, the meetings filled a decent portion of a 500-person room. The changes that came about prove that the democracy under which many of these unions operate can lead to changes that cause them to better represent their collective body of workers. You can change your union, if you want to, and that's a beautiful thing. Your union shouldn't have a predictable political slant (which is what a lot of anti-union normal people dislike). It should represent the collective views of its whole body -- which was the whole point of unions to begin with: to represent its whole body.
- rubyist5eva 4y agoDon't expect anything beyond a single letter of a collective bargaining agreement. It's pretty simple.
- evanwolf 4y agoI think that this tradeoff is empowering to unionized workers Kinda. It forces them to design their own preferred workplace conditions and perks. Some perks, like a free company jacket, are chosen by the employer to make you feel loyal to the company. Perhaps you'd like the value of that jacket in cash or paid time off or better funding for retirement? Or maybe you want to extend company cafeteria access to your family? The problem is that collective bargaining happens every X years but changes to regular employee perks and HR benefits can happen as inspiration strikes (management). They can also be withdrawn, as when a division underperforms despite the workers all doing their jobs well.
- manv1 4y agoThat's how collective bargaining works: you only get what your union bargains for. Anything else? Too bad. Did you not get the memo as to what unionization means and how it works?
- hexis 4y agoThis is what happens with a union. They voted for a floor and it came with a ceiling. Nobody experienced with unions should be at all surprised, but often folks who vote to unionize are not actually experienced with being in a union. This is not at all to say that this is worse, it may be better at least for some people. But this is completely standard with unionization, there's nothing especially sinister here. nb, I do not like Apple and don't consider this a defense of their business.
- jiveturkey 4y agoTrue. Many of us work in a similar unionized workforce called Agile. It makes sure people are working at a certain level, bringing otherwise would-be poor performers up to a certain average, but also stunting high performers.
- throwawaysleep 4y agoWell yeah, as the.workers at that store are now an adversarial party.
- TheGigaChad 4y ago
- SilverBirch 4y agoI find it so funny hearing HN people on here trotting out all the old tired anti-union BS. I think we all know the meta-game that's going on here. Unions provide an opportunity for employees to use their collective leverage to get better overall conditions (and especially to get real working condition improvements, not a meaningless $400 coursera gift card that practically no one will use). However, Apple can't let that happen, because if the unions provide real benefit to the employees, then more people will join unions driving up the costs for Apple, and improving the leverage of the union. So it's much better for Apple's bottom line to run a continual PR campaign against unions - putting out articles in the press about "Everyone EXCEPT union workers get X benefit". Especially since it's so easy - people are tripping over themselves on here to shout about how this was always the obvious result and the union workers should know they're going to get screwed. The important thing is for union workers to keep their eye on the prize - Apple is fighting unions for a reason, and that reason isn't because they're looking out for workers best interests, they're looking out for the shareholders. Don't be distracted by a bullshit $400 coursera subscription.