5 ms·
For 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 unionize
by britch 4y ago
For 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.
- paxys 4y agoA company of Apple’s size routinely adds and removes employee benefits. It’s not like they offered nothing before a single union consisting of a handful of employees showed up. To make this claim you need to look at a time span way longer than a couple of months to see if there’s an actual correlation.