8 ms·
Unions need to be honest that - like any negotiation - they might "win" something but lose other things.
by diebeforei485 4y ago
Unions 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.