9 ms·

Same 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 ago
  The 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 ago
  The 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.
- worik 4y ago
  American management is adversarial to unions. American management is adversarial to workers.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > American management is adversarial to unions Yes, adversarial relationships have this symmetry. > American management is adversarial to workers Strongly disagree. Between tech and finance we have proven models for gains sharing that doesn't require workers and managers be at each others' throats. Many European models similarly have workers aligned with the company's long-term goals and vice versa without a militant union butting heads with sociopathic management. (They're symbiotic.) Meanwhile, American ports are embarrassingly inefficient because the port unions don't want to modernize. These models need refinement. But for many industries, they seem better than inserting a middleman whose existence is reliant on an adversarial relationship between employee and employer.
    - couchand 4y ago
      You raise a good point, not every industry has a history of capitalists intentionally harming and killing workers!
    - makeitdouble 4y ago
      > Many European models It might depend on the exact country you are thinking about, but I’d assume these models stand on top of solid labor laws and employer obligations that don’t need bargaining in the first place. You don’t need an union if you have a government willing to pass laws benefiting all workers. You’ll see unions where these laws grossly mismatch the extent protections and adjustments are needed (in particular in profession where the employer is the gov itself, teachers for instance…)
    - lmm 4y ago
      > Between tech and finance we have proven models for gains sharing that doesn't require workers and managers be at each others' throats. What models are those, and how are they less adversarial than union membership? Compensation negotiations are inherently adverserial, getting fair representation for workers doesn't make them any more so.
- CobrastanJorji 4y ago
  I don't know what you mean by "obligation," but I assure you employers have a legal duty to negotiate in good faith with their employees' representative. See 29 U.S. Code § 158 (a)(5) - It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer...to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees, subject to the provisions of section 159(a) of this title.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > employers have a legal duty to negotiate in good faith with their employees' representative Sure thing. But that typically takes place in scheduled sessions. Casting Starbucks as refusing to engage when they’re adding it to the next meeting’s agenda is what I’m pushing back against.
throwaway894345 4y ago
Welcome to collective bargaining.
wil421 4y ago
The company I work for has over 150k unionized employees and about 50k white collar workers. Including a massive amount of retail employees. The union negotiates on behalf of their employees this is nothing new. Not sure what Starbucks is doing but Apple is going to negotiate with them.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
exabrial 4y ago
No idea why this is getting downvoted; its simply true.... and it's totally within Apple's right to do so.
- anamexis 4y ago
  It isn't within Starbucks or Apple's rights to refuse to engage with the union. With the union having won an NLRB election, the employer is required by law to bargain with the union in good faith. https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/bargaining-in-good-faith-with-employees-union-representative https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/ba...
  - badwolf 4y ago
    is Apple refusing to bargain or engage with the union?
    - anamexis 4y ago
      Not to my knowledge, but that wasn't my point.
      - guywithahat 4y ago
        > while simultaneously refusing to engage with the union. It seems like that was your point
        anamexis 4y ago
        I was responding to these two statements: > Same tactic Starbuck's is using - insist that the store needs to negotiate via the union, while simultaneously refusing to engage with the union. > and it's totally within Apple's right to do so.

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 ago
The 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 ago
The 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.
worik 4y ago
American management is adversarial to unions. American management is adversarial to workers.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > American management is adversarial to unions Yes, adversarial relationships have this symmetry. > American management is adversarial to workers Strongly disagree. Between tech and finance we have proven models for gains sharing that doesn't require workers and managers be at each others' throats. Many European models similarly have workers aligned with the company's long-term goals and vice versa without a militant union butting heads with sociopathic management. (They're symbiotic.) Meanwhile, American ports are embarrassingly inefficient because the port unions don't want to modernize. These models need refinement. But for many industries, they seem better than inserting a middleman whose existence is reliant on an adversarial relationship between employee and employer.
  - couchand 4y ago
    You raise a good point, not every industry has a history of capitalists intentionally harming and killing workers!
  - makeitdouble 4y ago
    > Many European models It might depend on the exact country you are thinking about, but I’d assume these models stand on top of solid labor laws and employer obligations that don’t need bargaining in the first place. You don’t need an union if you have a government willing to pass laws benefiting all workers. You’ll see unions where these laws grossly mismatch the extent protections and adjustments are needed (in particular in profession where the employer is the gov itself, teachers for instance…)
  - lmm 4y ago
    > Between tech and finance we have proven models for gains sharing that doesn't require workers and managers be at each others' throats. What models are those, and how are they less adversarial than union membership? Compensation negotiations are inherently adverserial, getting fair representation for workers doesn't make them any more so.
CobrastanJorji 4y ago
I don't know what you mean by "obligation," but I assure you employers have a legal duty to negotiate in good faith with their employees' representative. See 29 U.S. Code § 158 (a)(5) - It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer...to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees, subject to the provisions of section 159(a) of this title.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > employers have a legal duty to negotiate in good faith with their employees' representative Sure thing. But that typically takes place in scheduled sessions. Casting Starbucks as refusing to engage when they’re adding it to the next meeting’s agenda is what I’m pushing back against.

throwaway894345 4y ago

Welcome to collective bargaining.

wil421 4y ago

The company I work for has over 150k unionized employees and about 50k white collar workers. Including a massive amount of retail employees. The union negotiates on behalf of their employees this is nothing new. Not sure what Starbucks is doing but Apple is going to negotiate with them.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

exabrial 4y ago

No idea why this is getting downvoted; its simply true.... and it's totally within Apple's right to do so.

anamexis 4y ago
It isn't within Starbucks or Apple's rights to refuse to engage with the union. With the union having won an NLRB election, the employer is required by law to bargain with the union in good faith. https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/bargaining-in-good-faith-with-employees-union-representative https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/ba...
- badwolf 4y ago
  is Apple refusing to bargain or engage with the union?
  - anamexis 4y ago
    Not to my knowledge, but that wasn't my point.
    - guywithahat 4y ago
      > while simultaneously refusing to engage with the union. It seems like that was your point
      - anamexis 4y ago
        I was responding to these two statements: > Same tactic Starbuck's is using - insist that the store needs to negotiate via the union, while simultaneously refusing to engage with the union. > and it's totally within Apple's right to do so.