5 ms·

> once you engage with a third party (union) to negotiate for you, you will only get what you bargain for. The animus around unequal benefits ought to be direct

> once you engage with a third party (union) to negotiate for you, you will only get what you bargain for. The animus around unequal benefits ought to be directed to their union leaders, who need to do their fucking jobs and bargain for the benefits. That’s what you pay them for! It could be this, or it could be Apple playing tricks. If Apple just waits for the union to negotiate something and then immediately gives a better version to the non-union workers and refuses to negotiate afterwards, then that's not the union's fault.

prepend 4y ago
Yeah, but it’s good for workers. The union members sacrifice for the greater good and are still benefiting the worker (just jot them). So they are resulting in better worker benefits. Or maybe Apple is just doing what they were going to do anyway to attract and retain workers and they are restricted from changing the benefits agreed to by the union bargaining agreement.
- kadoban 4y ago
  > Yeah, but it’s good for workers. The union members sacrifice for the greater good and are still benefiting the worker (just jot them). So they are resulting in better worker benefits. In the short term it's good for the workers. After it kills off the union, it'll go back to being bad.
  - oh_sigh 4y ago
    But anyone can still unionize at any time, so it isn't much lost.
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      LOL, LMAO It's hard to form a union in the US. Companies do things like retaliating against organizers, messing with the election process, forcing workers to sit through mandatory HR briefings etc. Most unionization attempts are fought by companies who refuse to give countenance to the idea that employees should be able to delegate the business of negotiation. American business practice is to keep employees feeling as if they're in competition to each other for the affections of management. The moment workers try to avail themselves of the benefits of a corporate model (specialization, delegation, efficiency) it's treated as some sort of betrayal.
      - oh_sigh 4y ago
        Fine then, forming a union for apple employees would be no harder than it was before.
        kadoban 4y ago
        > Fine then, forming a union for apple employees would be no harder than it was before. Which was, very hard. It takes a long time and a lot of effort.
      - catiopatio 4y ago
        > American business practice is to keep employees feeling as if they're in competition to each other for the affections of management … they literally are in competition with each other, though. If I provide more value to my employer than other employees, I’m worth more, and can negotiate for more.
        anigbrowl 4y ago
        It depends on the job. If you're part of a team then cohesion and harmony matter as well.
  - qwytw 4y ago
    Aren't Apple's retail workers relatively well off in most ways? (compared to others in similar jobs obviously)
35208654 4y ago
> refuses to negotiate afterwards Refusing to negotiate is illegal, the NLRB has ruled on that in the Starbucks case.
- luckylion 4y ago
  Surely that just means "you have to talk to them", not that you have to give in to their demands, otherwise it wouldn't be much of a negotiation and unions could simply set raises and working conditions. And if it doesn't: read "refuses to negotiate" as "will dutifully sit at the table, listen to the demands and then explain that they had just a short while ago reached an agreement that is binding both sides, and they're happy to negotiate a new agreement once the current one has expired".
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    'I'm offering you less than non-union workers because you union members have chosen to communicate with each other about your pay, benefits, and working conditions' isn't a reasonable argument. Owners and agents of capital are able to communicate freely with each other, participate in corporate elections and so on, why shouldn't those selling their time & labor be able to do the same?
    - catiopatio 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - anigbrowl 4y ago
        It doesn't have to be an adversarial relationship. It's simply that the workers are choosing to delegate negotiation with HR, much as the owners and managers of the firm delegate it to the HR department. Arguably, this is better off for the company insofar it cuts down on duplication and can bring clarity and consistency to employment agreements. You don’t think Apple plays hardball when negotiating a contract with a supplier? It's far from a necessity. Many fruitful business relationships are constructed on a win-win basis rather than adversarial zero-sum thinking. Whining that “it’s not faaaair” is just that — whining. If you see someone doing that, let me know. I'll be sure to pass on your message.

prepend 4y ago

Yeah, but it’s good for workers. The union members sacrifice for the greater good and are still benefiting the worker (just jot them). So they are resulting in better worker benefits. Or maybe Apple is just doing what they were going to do anyway to attract and retain workers and they are restricted from changing the benefits agreed to by the union bargaining agreement.

kadoban 4y ago
> Yeah, but it’s good for workers. The union members sacrifice for the greater good and are still benefiting the worker (just jot them). So they are resulting in better worker benefits. In the short term it's good for the workers. After it kills off the union, it'll go back to being bad.
- oh_sigh 4y ago
  But anyone can still unionize at any time, so it isn't much lost.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    LOL, LMAO It's hard to form a union in the US. Companies do things like retaliating against organizers, messing with the election process, forcing workers to sit through mandatory HR briefings etc. Most unionization attempts are fought by companies who refuse to give countenance to the idea that employees should be able to delegate the business of negotiation. American business practice is to keep employees feeling as if they're in competition to each other for the affections of management. The moment workers try to avail themselves of the benefits of a corporate model (specialization, delegation, efficiency) it's treated as some sort of betrayal.
    - oh_sigh 4y ago
      Fine then, forming a union for apple employees would be no harder than it was before.
      - kadoban 4y ago
        > Fine then, forming a union for apple employees would be no harder than it was before. Which was, very hard. It takes a long time and a lot of effort.
    - catiopatio 4y ago
      > American business practice is to keep employees feeling as if they're in competition to each other for the affections of management … they literally are in competition with each other, though. If I provide more value to my employer than other employees, I’m worth more, and can negotiate for more.
      - anigbrowl 4y ago
        It depends on the job. If you're part of a team then cohesion and harmony matter as well.
- qwytw 4y ago
  Aren't Apple's retail workers relatively well off in most ways? (compared to others in similar jobs obviously)

35208654 4y ago

> refuses to negotiate afterwards Refusing to negotiate is illegal, the NLRB has ruled on that in the Starbucks case.

luckylion 4y ago
Surely that just means "you have to talk to them", not that you have to give in to their demands, otherwise it wouldn't be much of a negotiation and unions could simply set raises and working conditions. And if it doesn't: read "refuses to negotiate" as "will dutifully sit at the table, listen to the demands and then explain that they had just a short while ago reached an agreement that is binding both sides, and they're happy to negotiate a new agreement once the current one has expired".
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  'I'm offering you less than non-union workers because you union members have chosen to communicate with each other about your pay, benefits, and working conditions' isn't a reasonable argument. Owners and agents of capital are able to communicate freely with each other, participate in corporate elections and so on, why shouldn't those selling their time & labor be able to do the same?
  - catiopatio 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      It doesn't have to be an adversarial relationship. It's simply that the workers are choosing to delegate negotiation with HR, much as the owners and managers of the firm delegate it to the HR department. Arguably, this is better off for the company insofar it cuts down on duplication and can bring clarity and consistency to employment agreements. You don’t think Apple plays hardball when negotiating a contract with a supplier? It's far from a necessity. Many fruitful business relationships are constructed on a win-win basis rather than adversarial zero-sum thinking. Whining that “it’s not faaaair” is just that — whining. If you see someone doing that, let me know. I'll be sure to pass on your message.