17 ms·

Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

324 points by dc1rjj 4y ago

danuker 4y ago
I believe unions are necessary in a world of humongous companies. That is because, in case of disagreements, an employee's prospect (losing 100% of their income) is a much worse negotiating position than a large company losing <1% of its workforce.
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  Why not with SMB? Often employees at these have an even harder time calling attention to abuse or exploitation.
  - danuker 4y ago
    In a small business, maybe you're the only person doing <critical task X>. This is a more level playing field, but maybe a union is still useful here also.
    - GoOnThenDoTell 4y ago
      In a small company, a real conversation is possible. In a large one the CEO is 100% doublespeak and the HR departments are cold
      - wahnfrieden 4y ago
        >In a small company, a real conversation is possible. Why do you think employees have enough leverage across most SMBs to the extent that workers shouldn't organize? Even SMB owners and managers organize adversarially against their workers (eg by setting compensation and benefits per VC or consultant provided guidance on labor market, by hiring HR specialists to coordinate with managers on keeping wages as low as the market will bear). Why should workers not in turn organize in those cases?
      - fsociety 4y ago
        In my experience, I have seen more power imbalance at small/medium sized businesses. Whereas larger companies you tend to get lost in the bureaucracy and have the ability to switch teams/orgs and get out of bad situations. HR is usually more helpful with this too.
      - krageon 4y ago
        A real conversation is generally not possible anywhere. Your boss has enormous power over you and the reality is that even if you are somehow special, they won't see you that way. It sounds hopeless, but if you approach your boss in this manner (he couldn't care less whether or not you do actually get hit by a bus) the negotiation is easier to do.
- wccrawford 4y ago
  As much as I don't want to be part of one, I absolutely agree that they're necessary as a check on corporations.
  - nickpp 4y ago
    Corporations are kept in check by competition from other corporation. Uniting is called cartel and is illegal. Unions on the other hand are allowed to join indefinitely, until they become multinational humongous forces like Teamsters. So the balance of power is slanted in favor of Unions.
    - Jotra7 4y ago
    - krageon 4y ago
      And yet it's not, so clearly you are making a thought error somewhere along this heavily elided process.
      - nickpp 4y ago
        Please do point out my logical error. I see countless examples of competition keeping corporations in check. What is keeping Unions in check then?
        AbrahamParangi 4y ago
        Unions are kept in check by attrition of the companies they are associated with.
        splistud 4y ago
        bryanrasmussen 4y ago
        I believe the parent is saying that if your logic were correct unions would be extremely powerful in relation to multinational corporations and everyone would be afraid of getting the union angry, as this is not the case something must be keeping unions in check or they cannot, at any rate, grow to be as powerful as you suppose. That your logic as stated does not hold any identifiable logical error does not mean that it gives the correct result.
- refurb 4y ago
  I think the challenge is the way unions are set up in the US. It's very different than Europe. I recall some HNer mentioning in the UK (I think) your work place can have multiple unions, you can join whichever one you want.
  - Macha 4y ago
    Yeah, the whole concept of employers recognizing a union or employees being required to join a union which is raised in US union discussions are kind of weird. Employers don't have to recognize a union in Europe, employees can still join and avail of legal support or group actions by those employees that did join. Similarly, if the majority of your workplace is in a union, you don't have to join, just don't be surprised they don't bother defending your case if you end up a victim of unfair dismissal. Your employer may be unwilling to offer you employment terms different to what the union employees get because of the overhead for them, but if you had that little leverage you probably didn't have the imaginary invididual negotiating power the anti-union crowd imagines anyway.
    - OkayPhysicist 4y ago
      Minority unions undermine the collective bargaining that underpins the very concept of a union. They make no sense to me, at all. The whole point of a union is having a large enough block of workers committed to act together that the company is forced to either negotiate or perish. This obviously works when you have all the workers unionized, as a company without employees can achieve nothing at all. As the union gets a smaller and smaller fraction of the workforce, however, their bargaining power diminishes dramatically.
      - JoshTriplett 4y ago
        That sounds like a really good argument for a union providing sufficiently valuable services to their members that they want to be a member. If a union isn't serving its members those members should be able to seek better options. If unions worked like this in the US, it seems like many more people would be in favor of them.
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  Many unions soon get corrupted and get in bed with the government (or atleast one side of it). Here in slovenia, many worker unions were against the lowering the taxes on paychecks (higher net with same gross pay), because their political parties were against those, even if the workers themselves would benefit from those. We also have some areas (eg. a government rail company), where you cannot even get a job, if you don't get approved by one of the two unions, which mostly means that you have to pay off someone in the union to get an approval (for a very cozy job).
  - LeanderK 4y ago
    This is not a law of nature, many unions just do their job. Many companies also treat their workers unfairly, so there's that. Workers need a way to organise. What's worse, a company churning through employee after employee or a company captured by its union? Both can happen.
  - noelherrick 4y ago
    Unions that are run like a business eventually become a business. Unions need to be democratically-controlled, where regular workers can propose new contract terms and vote on them, as well as voting to call a strike.
    - j33zusjuice 4y ago
      Right. It’s completely unsurprising that to see corruption in groups that were forced to elect leadership that holds views contrary to the foundations of unionization (i.e. they were all but required to elect capitalists because of the communist control act and the internal security act).
  - blackbear_ 4y ago
    So just like lobbying, just from the other side?
  - frippertronics 4y ago
    I don't think it's valid to write off all unions based on anecdotal evidence. For every example of bad unionisation one can probably provide one or more counter-examples of good unionisation (e.g. the Scandinavian countries).
- e12e 4y ago
  One point I've seen little or no discussion about on hn, is that employers are often (at least in Norway) organized. So they will have access to legal aid, standard contracts, training on negotiating etc - this in addition to the skewed bargaining power between a single employee and the company as a whole. Is this not common in the US (illegal collusion on wages aside)? It's always seemed strange to me that people will be reluctant to join unions, while employers are eager to join organizations. Ftr at the moment I'm not a member of a union - as there's isn't really one that feels applicable to my current situation, and I have relativly good bargaining position.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    Also, anti-poaching agreements - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipoaching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipoaching : > Research has found that 58 percent of major franchisors' contracts in 2016, including those of McDonald's, Burger King, Jiffy Lube, and H&R Block, contained agreements not to hire the workers of other franchisees You mentioned "standard contracts". I had a possible customer want me to toss my contract in favor of one they wanted. It said that I "will defend or settle any action brought against Customer" - basically, if they were sued for their use of my software then I would have to pay the court costs. This is very unusual. I DDG-ed it, and found it likely came from a "subscription based contract database and resource center that helps over 300,000 lawyers and business owners draft and negotiate contracts more effectively", found at https://www.lawinsider.com/clause/ptcs-obligation-to-indemnify-customer https://www.lawinsider.com/clause/ptcs-obligation-to-indemni..., with the example has "PTC, at its own expense, will defend any action brought against Customer based on a claim that any Licensed Product infringes a United States patent, copyright or trademark and ..." So, along the lines of what you said, though from a vendor perspective. BTW, I said "fuck off", though in polite terms. "This clause will require renegotiation of the price as I have not included litigation in the pricing. I can identify an appropriate insurance company and pass the costs to you."
  - ars 4y ago
    Keep in mind that unions in Europe are not the same thing as US unions, despite the same name. In Europe there are multiple unions you can join for an employer. This competition keeps them working well. In the US it's a single union per employer, and if the employer has one, you are forced to join it (and in some states you can decline to join, but still be required to pay fees). This causes lots of problems with corruption, and the union is more interested in their goals, than yours.
- diob 4y ago
  Exactly, and companies can stand to starve folks out. Strikes aren't as big a deal as they used to be even.
- andrepd 4y ago
  I feel like this is such an obvious fact that I don't know how people say "contract of free association" with a straight face when it comes to the employment market.
WeylandYutani 4y ago
It's heart warming to see the US rediscover labour unions Republicans wrote American socialists out of the history books but you can't keep the people down! You'll see increased lobbying from companies for increased migration to keep wages down.
- winReInstall 4y ago
  Or, hear me out, they could ditch the lipservice to democracy entirely and push some ursurper on a throne. After all strong hierarchys controlled by a godking are closer to a company anyway. What has democracy ever done for us?
  - wahnfrieden 4y ago
    That's a paradox of the left - is the fight to keep people laboring, or to do away with it (through automation etc.)
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      I've never heard of this before. Are there other political paradoxes you're aware of, say for example, a paradox of the right?
      - lexiPrime 4y ago
        Is the answer to this supposed to be obvious enough to not actually require a response? Whether or not that is the case, it seems useful to lay out an example. A paradox of the Right is that they say that they fight for peoples' freedoms, yet they continue to fight to restrict freedoms. See any of the Right's stances regarding the freedoms of LGBT people for a salient and current example. You could say "the Right is against rights", if you want to be cute about it.
    - Bilal_io 4y ago
      Is it really? There is nothing wrong with fighting for workers rights while automation is not here yet. The problem is that automation has to be taxed accordingly to allow us to live with dignity when there is no job to occupy (i.e UBI), and guess who's against taxation? "The left" would be the wrong answer. I don't see any paradox. 1.Tax the rich now. 2. Improve worker rights which will push us faster towards automation. 3. Prepare legislation to tax automation and implement UBI. What happens if we don't do that? 1. The rich will continue to take advantage of people's labor while paying them peanuts. 2. The middle class disappears, we end up with a system of two classes, the slaves and the lords. 3. Automation will come regardless and we won't be ready for it regulation wise, and people will die from hunger. Pick
peterjmag 4y ago
https://archive.ph/ld0KF https://archive.ph/ld0KF
halpmeh 4y ago
> The agency can require remedies, such as posting of notices and reversals of policies or punishments, but it has no authority to impose punitive damages on companies. So, in essence, there is zero incentive for Apple to change its behavior.
- phone8675309 4y ago
  It just works
  - aesh2Xa1 4y ago
    Or else it gets the hose again
phone8675309 4y ago
Anti-union tactics aren't illegal so long as the company that employs them isn't completely ruined as a result of the punishment they get.
jimbob45 4y ago
While the NLRB has previously held that companies can require employees to attend anti-union meetings, the agency’s current general counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, views such “captive audience” gatherings as inherently coercive and illegal. Her office is pursuing cases that could change the precedent, including at Amazon.com Inc. and Starbucks Corp., both of which have denied wrongdoing. So it sounds like Apple's tactics weren't illegal but this new counsel wants to reverse precedent to make sure they are now illegal. Seems bizarre to try and change precedent from the side of the lawyers rather than the judges. Paired with the PR-tone of this article, it looks like an upstart lawyer trying to win the court of public opinion rather than a legal court.
mikeyouse 4y ago
That Starbucks, Apple, Amazon, Walmart and basically every extraordinarily profitable company in America are so stridently anti-union that they're willing to break the law to prevent them, is probably the biggest selling point for workers to join them.
- fundad 4y ago
  There is no authority to enforce these laws so it doesn't take much will to break them.

324 points by dc1rjj 4y ago

I believe unions are necessary in a world of humongous companies. That is because, in case of disagreements, an employee's prospect (losing 100% of their income) is a much worse negotiating position than a large company losing <1% of its workforce.

wahnfrieden 4y ago
Why not with SMB? Often employees at these have an even harder time calling attention to abuse or exploitation.
- danuker 4y ago
  In a small business, maybe you're the only person doing <critical task X>. This is a more level playing field, but maybe a union is still useful here also.
  - GoOnThenDoTell 4y ago
    In a small company, a real conversation is possible. In a large one the CEO is 100% doublespeak and the HR departments are cold
    - wahnfrieden 4y ago
      >In a small company, a real conversation is possible. Why do you think employees have enough leverage across most SMBs to the extent that workers shouldn't organize? Even SMB owners and managers organize adversarially against their workers (eg by setting compensation and benefits per VC or consultant provided guidance on labor market, by hiring HR specialists to coordinate with managers on keeping wages as low as the market will bear). Why should workers not in turn organize in those cases?
    - fsociety 4y ago
      In my experience, I have seen more power imbalance at small/medium sized businesses. Whereas larger companies you tend to get lost in the bureaucracy and have the ability to switch teams/orgs and get out of bad situations. HR is usually more helpful with this too.
    - krageon 4y ago
      A real conversation is generally not possible anywhere. Your boss has enormous power over you and the reality is that even if you are somehow special, they won't see you that way. It sounds hopeless, but if you approach your boss in this manner (he couldn't care less whether or not you do actually get hit by a bus) the negotiation is easier to do.
wccrawford 4y ago
As much as I don't want to be part of one, I absolutely agree that they're necessary as a check on corporations.
- nickpp 4y ago
  Corporations are kept in check by competition from other corporation. Uniting is called cartel and is illegal. Unions on the other hand are allowed to join indefinitely, until they become multinational humongous forces like Teamsters. So the balance of power is slanted in favor of Unions.
  - Jotra7 4y ago
  - krageon 4y ago
    And yet it's not, so clearly you are making a thought error somewhere along this heavily elided process.
    - nickpp 4y ago
      Please do point out my logical error. I see countless examples of competition keeping corporations in check. What is keeping Unions in check then?
      - AbrahamParangi 4y ago
        Unions are kept in check by attrition of the companies they are associated with.
        splistud 4y ago
      - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
        I believe the parent is saying that if your logic were correct unions would be extremely powerful in relation to multinational corporations and everyone would be afraid of getting the union angry, as this is not the case something must be keeping unions in check or they cannot, at any rate, grow to be as powerful as you suppose. That your logic as stated does not hold any identifiable logical error does not mean that it gives the correct result.
refurb 4y ago
I think the challenge is the way unions are set up in the US. It's very different than Europe. I recall some HNer mentioning in the UK (I think) your work place can have multiple unions, you can join whichever one you want.
- Macha 4y ago
  Yeah, the whole concept of employers recognizing a union or employees being required to join a union which is raised in US union discussions are kind of weird. Employers don't have to recognize a union in Europe, employees can still join and avail of legal support or group actions by those employees that did join. Similarly, if the majority of your workplace is in a union, you don't have to join, just don't be surprised they don't bother defending your case if you end up a victim of unfair dismissal. Your employer may be unwilling to offer you employment terms different to what the union employees get because of the overhead for them, but if you had that little leverage you probably didn't have the imaginary invididual negotiating power the anti-union crowd imagines anyway.
  - OkayPhysicist 4y ago
    Minority unions undermine the collective bargaining that underpins the very concept of a union. They make no sense to me, at all. The whole point of a union is having a large enough block of workers committed to act together that the company is forced to either negotiate or perish. This obviously works when you have all the workers unionized, as a company without employees can achieve nothing at all. As the union gets a smaller and smaller fraction of the workforce, however, their bargaining power diminishes dramatically.
    - JoshTriplett 4y ago
      That sounds like a really good argument for a union providing sufficiently valuable services to their members that they want to be a member. If a union isn't serving its members those members should be able to seek better options. If unions worked like this in the US, it seems like many more people would be in favor of them.
ajsnigrutin 4y ago
Many unions soon get corrupted and get in bed with the government (or atleast one side of it). Here in slovenia, many worker unions were against the lowering the taxes on paychecks (higher net with same gross pay), because their political parties were against those, even if the workers themselves would benefit from those. We also have some areas (eg. a government rail company), where you cannot even get a job, if you don't get approved by one of the two unions, which mostly means that you have to pay off someone in the union to get an approval (for a very cozy job).
- LeanderK 4y ago
  This is not a law of nature, many unions just do their job. Many companies also treat their workers unfairly, so there's that. Workers need a way to organise. What's worse, a company churning through employee after employee or a company captured by its union? Both can happen.
- noelherrick 4y ago
  Unions that are run like a business eventually become a business. Unions need to be democratically-controlled, where regular workers can propose new contract terms and vote on them, as well as voting to call a strike.
  - j33zusjuice 4y ago
    Right. It’s completely unsurprising that to see corruption in groups that were forced to elect leadership that holds views contrary to the foundations of unionization (i.e. they were all but required to elect capitalists because of the communist control act and the internal security act).
- blackbear_ 4y ago
  So just like lobbying, just from the other side?
- frippertronics 4y ago
  I don't think it's valid to write off all unions based on anecdotal evidence. For every example of bad unionisation one can probably provide one or more counter-examples of good unionisation (e.g. the Scandinavian countries).
e12e 4y ago
One point I've seen little or no discussion about on hn, is that employers are often (at least in Norway) organized. So they will have access to legal aid, standard contracts, training on negotiating etc - this in addition to the skewed bargaining power between a single employee and the company as a whole. Is this not common in the US (illegal collusion on wages aside)? It's always seemed strange to me that people will be reluctant to join unions, while employers are eager to join organizations. Ftr at the moment I'm not a member of a union - as there's isn't really one that feels applicable to my current situation, and I have relativly good bargaining position.
- eesmith 4y ago
  Also, anti-poaching agreements - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipoaching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipoaching : > Research has found that 58 percent of major franchisors' contracts in 2016, including those of McDonald's, Burger King, Jiffy Lube, and H&R Block, contained agreements not to hire the workers of other franchisees You mentioned "standard contracts". I had a possible customer want me to toss my contract in favor of one they wanted. It said that I "will defend or settle any action brought against Customer" - basically, if they were sued for their use of my software then I would have to pay the court costs. This is very unusual. I DDG-ed it, and found it likely came from a "subscription based contract database and resource center that helps over 300,000 lawyers and business owners draft and negotiate contracts more effectively", found at https://www.lawinsider.com/clause/ptcs-obligation-to-indemnify-customer https://www.lawinsider.com/clause/ptcs-obligation-to-indemni..., with the example has "PTC, at its own expense, will defend any action brought against Customer based on a claim that any Licensed Product infringes a United States patent, copyright or trademark and ..." So, along the lines of what you said, though from a vendor perspective. BTW, I said "fuck off", though in polite terms. "This clause will require renegotiation of the price as I have not included litigation in the pricing. I can identify an appropriate insurance company and pass the costs to you."
- ars 4y ago
  Keep in mind that unions in Europe are not the same thing as US unions, despite the same name. In Europe there are multiple unions you can join for an employer. This competition keeps them working well. In the US it's a single union per employer, and if the employer has one, you are forced to join it (and in some states you can decline to join, but still be required to pay fees). This causes lots of problems with corruption, and the union is more interested in their goals, than yours.
diob 4y ago
Exactly, and companies can stand to starve folks out. Strikes aren't as big a deal as they used to be even.
andrepd 4y ago
I feel like this is such an obvious fact that I don't know how people say "contract of free association" with a straight face when it comes to the employment market.

WeylandYutani 4y ago

It's heart warming to see the US rediscover labour unions Republicans wrote American socialists out of the history books but you can't keep the people down! You'll see increased lobbying from companies for increased migration to keep wages down.

winReInstall 4y ago
Or, hear me out, they could ditch the lipservice to democracy entirely and push some ursurper on a throne. After all strong hierarchys controlled by a godking are closer to a company anyway. What has democracy ever done for us?
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  That's a paradox of the left - is the fight to keep people laboring, or to do away with it (through automation etc.)
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    I've never heard of this before. Are there other political paradoxes you're aware of, say for example, a paradox of the right?
    - lexiPrime 4y ago
      Is the answer to this supposed to be obvious enough to not actually require a response? Whether or not that is the case, it seems useful to lay out an example. A paradox of the Right is that they say that they fight for peoples' freedoms, yet they continue to fight to restrict freedoms. See any of the Right's stances regarding the freedoms of LGBT people for a salient and current example. You could say "the Right is against rights", if you want to be cute about it.
  - Bilal_io 4y ago
    Is it really? There is nothing wrong with fighting for workers rights while automation is not here yet. The problem is that automation has to be taxed accordingly to allow us to live with dignity when there is no job to occupy (i.e UBI), and guess who's against taxation? "The left" would be the wrong answer. I don't see any paradox. 1.Tax the rich now. 2. Improve worker rights which will push us faster towards automation. 3. Prepare legislation to tax automation and implement UBI. What happens if we don't do that? 1. The rich will continue to take advantage of people's labor while paying them peanuts. 2. The middle class disappears, we end up with a system of two classes, the slaves and the lords. 3. Automation will come regardless and we won't be ready for it regulation wise, and people will die from hunger. Pick

peterjmag 4y ago

https://archive.ph/ld0KF https://archive.ph/ld0KF

halpmeh 4y ago

> The agency can require remedies, such as posting of notices and reversals of policies or punishments, but it has no authority to impose punitive damages on companies. So, in essence, there is zero incentive for Apple to change its behavior.

phone8675309 4y ago
It just works
- aesh2Xa1 4y ago
  Or else it gets the hose again

phone8675309 4y ago

Anti-union tactics aren't illegal so long as the company that employs them isn't completely ruined as a result of the punishment they get.

jimbob45 4y ago

While the NLRB has previously held that companies can require employees to attend anti-union meetings, the agency’s current general counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, views such “captive audience” gatherings as inherently coercive and illegal. Her office is pursuing cases that could change the precedent, including at Amazon.com Inc. and Starbucks Corp., both of which have denied wrongdoing. So it sounds like Apple's tactics weren't illegal but this new counsel wants to reverse precedent to make sure they are now illegal. Seems bizarre to try and change precedent from the side of the lawyers rather than the judges. Paired with the PR-tone of this article, it looks like an upstart lawyer trying to win the court of public opinion rather than a legal court.

mikeyouse 4y ago

That Starbucks, Apple, Amazon, Walmart and basically every extraordinarily profitable company in America are so stridently anti-union that they're willing to break the law to prevent them, is probably the biggest selling point for workers to join them.

fundad 4y ago
There is no authority to enforce these laws so it doesn't take much will to break them.