10 ms·

This is a single retail location in Maryland. There's probably a reason they let them unionize without a lot of fighting, and I'm guessing it's because they wil

This is a single retail location in Maryland. There's probably a reason they let them unionize without a lot of fighting, and I'm guessing it's because they will shut the store down if the union becomes a problem. I know this site is pretty pro-union, but if I were them I would not have wanted to unionize at all. Apple has decent salaries for what it is, and it's probably cheaper to close the store than hire a McKinsey consultant to renegotiate union contracts.

tadfisher 2y ago
At this size, shuttering a store in retaliation for unionizing should result in the corporate death penalty. If Apple doesn't want to deal with unions, then they can feel free to make the point moot, by giving their employees an ownership stake in the company.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  So if a company is about to close an underperforming store and the employees get wind of it, all they have to do is sign union cards and the company has to keep the store open forever?
  - ajkjk 2y ago
    No? That's not what the person you're replying to said, nor what they meant, nor is it a logical implication of what they said.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - g15jv2dp 2y ago
        > But that's just pointless because there are a thousand other reasons they might want to close the store and there is no way to prove it That's the exact point where your argument breaks down. It is possible, sometimes, to prove that a company closed a store because of a union. See the recent Starbucks trial. In the end, they were only saved by the SCOTUS, who isn't exactly uncontroversial at the moment.
        AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        > It is possible, sometimes, to prove that a company closed a store because of a union. The "sometimes" is doing all the work there. Sure, if the company writes an email that says "we decided to close this store because the employees unionized and we're trying to deter that in other stores" then you could prove it, but then they could just... not do that, and close the store anyway.
        g15jv2dp 2y ago
        Maybe read up on recent union busting cases. Starbucks, Tesla, Walmart, Amazon... It's a lot more nuanced than that. And note I'm replying to someone claiming it's impossible to charge companies with union busting at all.
        AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        > It's a lot more nuanced than that. Which is kind of the other problem. You end up trying to mind read the intent behind some possible innuendo with an ambiguous meaning, because the outcome isn't determined by what they do, it's determined by what they write down. > And note I'm replying to someone claiming it's impossible to charge companies with union busting at all. If it's impossible to charge companies that have better lawyers but still use the same tactics, you still have the same problem with the law, because then those companies will have a competitive advantage and the others would either learn to do the same or lose their market position.
        consteval 2y ago
        I believe in labor disputes the standard is a preponderance of guilt. You don't need proof at all, just the inclination they could have had bad motives.
      - tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
        Luckily, executives have a habit of occasionally putting their blatantly illegal deals in writing (e.g. the recruiting cartel, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...). Beyond a certain size, it becomes hard to pretend you're doing it for one reason while actually doing it for another. Especially if it becomes a pattern.
        AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        > Luckily, executives have a habit of occasionally putting their blatantly illegal deals in writing This is the weirdest way to have laws though. It strongly implies that the person putting it in writing didn't know it was illegal, because otherwise they wouldn't have put it in writing. But then you're never enforcing the law against people knowingly breaking the law, you can only ever enforce it against people who didn't realize it was illegal. That seems like a bad design. In particular, it rewards a corporation the more evil it is, because the ones who know they're breaking the law are the ones who get away with it. > Beyond a certain size, it becomes hard to pretend you're doing it for one reason while actually doing it for another. Especially if it becomes a pattern. The pattern thing also doesn't really work. Suppose some of your stores are in high crime areas and keep getting knocked off. The employees in those stores don't like the risk and form a union so they can demand bulletproof glass and hazard pay. The company looks at those stores and the insurance cost is getting out of hand and shrinkage is high and the stores just aren't profitable. So they close the stores. Now you have a strong correlation between the stores that form a union and the stores that close, but it's because union formation and store closures are both caused by high crime, not because the company is purposely closing the stores that form a union.
        cgriswald 2y ago
        > It strongly implies that the person putting it in writing didn't know it was illegal, because otherwise they wouldn't have put it in writing. Just because someone created evidence that didn’t have to exist doesn’t mean they didn’t know their actions were illegal. On Chris Hansen’s latest predator sting show the suspects frequently acknowledge, in writing, the age of the decoy and the sex acts they want to perform. They also take steps to create alibis, suss out if it is a sting, or otherwise avoid getting caught, which indicates clearly that they know what they are doing is illegal.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - emseetech 2y ago
    We don't have card check unionization in the United States. Forming a union is much more difficult than you propose.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      It's just an expression. The point is, what happens after a union is formed?
      - emseetech 2y ago
        It's not relevant. Unionization takes months at least but usually years. The workers at this store in Maryland had their first vote in 2022. The campaign started in 2021. The NLRB moves like molasses and heavily favors employers. If workers had a notion that their store was underperforming, there's no way anyone could unionize fast enough to prevent it from closing. So it's not a realistic hypothetical. In fact, the company would probably close an underperforming store sooner if there was a unionization drive and would have plenty of time to do so before certification.
        AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        > In fact, the company would probably close an underperforming store sooner if there was a unionization drive and would have plenty of time to do so before certification. Presumably closing the store in response to an attempt at unionization would be the same thing?
        emseetech 2y ago
        Legally, closing an underperforming location in response to a unionization attempt and after a successful unionization are completely different situations. After unionization, what is required when closing a store is written into the negotiated contract.
        AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  - baubino 2y ago
    Unionizing a workplace is insanely difficult. It requires tons of bureaucratic work (to meet the standards set by state labor agencies) while also trying to get a large number of people who probably don’t know each other well, if at all, to all agree on a few things, all while risking their employment. This work often takes years. And all of this organizing work is unpaid labor on top of one’s regular job (which is already likely underpaid/overworked, hence the organizing effort). There is no “all they have to do is sign union cards.” The scenario you pose is practically impossible.
- jpcfl 2y ago
  > At this size Size has nothing to do with it. Just because a company is large doesn't mean it needs to start making poor business decisions. > corporate death penalty That's a bit extreme. If you want to be seen as objective, this kind of inflammatory rhetoric will only work against you.
  - brianzelip 2y ago
    > Just because a company is large doesn't mean it needs to start making poor business decisions To be clear this is also inflammatory rhetoric disguised as what some would have you think is ‘common sense’.
    - jpcfl 2y ago
      Is it not possible that employees forming a union could be bad for business?
      - consteval 2y ago
        It certainly is, and I would imagine letting the children chained up in your sweatshop go would be bad for business too. On the bright side, their eyes won't be adjusted to the sunlight, so they won't get very far. Yes, you can frame this as "bad for business". Contrary to what all the armchair economists online will say, you should never just do what's good for business. If we did we would be seeing crimes against humanity. And we do, just not here. Its always a balancing act. Often what's good for business isn't good, and what's bad for business isn't bad. You need more robust reasoning than that. Because if that's all you're relying on to form your opinions, you have no substance.
        jpcfl 2y ago
        When Apple chains children up in sweatshops, please let me know.
        consteval 2y ago
- dylan604 2y ago
  But they are willing to close stores for the specific purpose of no longer being in the jurisdiction of a specific court. So this is not a stretch at all. https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2019/2/22/18236424/apple-closing-stores-eastern-district-texas-avoid-patent-trolls https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2019/2/22/18236424/a...
- Zpalmtree 2y ago
  utterly absurd
jncfhnb 2y ago
McKinsey doesn’t do that sort of thing
- sqeaky 2y ago
  officially*
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    No just plainly. That’s no particular reason to hide that kind of work. It’s just a factually incorrect statement.
    - sqeaky 2y ago
      > That’s no particular reason to hide that kind of work. Wow, that is incredibly hard to respond to without casting aspersions. You claim there is no reason to hide a fundamentally unpopular and sometimes illegal thing? This is the kind of thing that is so wrong that it doesn't merit a factual response. This in line with people using levels on airplanes to prove the world is flat. I don't know if McKinsey is or isn't union busting, there are credible accusations against them. But I do know that discounting the notion out of hand and not even attempting to present evidence or argument is so laughably wrong that you should feel ashamed.
giraffe_lady 2y ago
If you were living off that money maybe you wouldn't find it so decent. Maybe you'd want a union idk unless you have some non-financial reason not to that you haven't mentioned here. I trust their perception of their needs more than I trust your perception of it.
- Zpalmtree 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - guywithahat 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - kennywinker 2y ago
      Globalization ate union and non-union jobs, so blaming unions for flint’s fall from grace… seems unfounded.
      - guywithahat 2y ago
        But the jobs didn’t disappear to Asia, the office jobs moved to Detroit and the factory jobs moved to other cities/states. Flint was the birthplace of the UAW, and it’s generally credited with driving all the jobs out. That said, blaming globalization for the loss of factory work feels intellectually lazy. Some things will always fall to the lowest bidder, but a lot of stuff is extremely complex and you wouldn’t send it overseas unless you felt like you had to (either because of unions, suppliers, local politics, or some other reason). The irony is most HN users advocate for unions, but never join one because the work is too boring or the pay is too low, as if those aren’t a direct result of the union.
    - paddim8 2y ago
      So why does it work so well in Nordic countries then? Unionisation is the norm here
matrix87 2y ago
> I know this site is pretty pro-union This site is pro-union for anything outside of tech, but staunchly anti-union for tech. except maybe gamedev, which has a reputation of underpaying
- g15jv2dp 2y ago
  "This site" isn't a single person and if you read the comments under this story, you will find a ton of anti-union sentiment.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - g15jv2dp 2y ago
      Are you trying to make a joke? Or just derailing the conversation? I'm clearly talking about the people posting on this site.
      - randomdata 2y ago
        [flagged]
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Makes sense. When you're paid well and you can raise your own salary every 2-3 years, why would you want a union? You're doing fine on your own. Sure, some shitty markets like right now happen, but you negotiated your way into years of savings to tap into as you need. You can weather the storm. But yes, I'm in gamedev and this was a forgone conclusion for studios making record profits but laying off very talented people. If your ace isn't safe, the rest of us jokers need to band together to survive. These same FAANGs seem to forgotten why they paid their other tech so well, and they are sowing what they reap.
JKCalhoun 2y ago
> I know this site is pretty pro-union If this site is primarily workers (as opposed to business owners) then I am not surprised.
- doctorpangloss 2y ago
  I'm a business owner. I am "pro-union."
  - ayende 2y ago
    Do you have a union in your business? If not, why not? If yes, what is the experience like?
    - Rinzler89 2y ago
      Usually the pro-union business owners who don't have unions justify it like this" "I'm such a a good boss that my workers don't need a union, If I ever hear that they want to unionize I would be shocked and would think I failed" - Linus Sebastian of Linus Tech Tips.
      - Atotalnoob 2y ago
        Genuine question, if I was a business owner, how would I force my employees to join a union? Isn’t it a non-managerial activity (on purpose)? Seems like there would be very limited influence on creating one Linus’s position and other people like him is indefensible.
        pjmlp 2y ago
        In European countries, you do an agreement with an industry union, everyone on the building gets the agreement, regardless of how they feel about it. From this side of the pound, usually the large majority is happy with the benefits, even without being themselves union members. That is why countries with strong union culture have negociation rounds of industry leaders with the main union groups, to discuss how the sector will be handled for the current fiscal year.
threatofrain 2y ago
It's illegal to close a store just because you're afraid of unions. It's one thing for a Starbucks to close a store because they're opening and closing stores all the time and have thinner profit margins and thus have cover, but for Apple it's another deal.
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  Everyone has ‘cover’. It’s just the P&L sheet. If they’re losing money on that store, they’ll close it. If not, they’ll keep it open. But it’s not mandated to keep a money losing store opened. No one’s going to go into court and argue, “no fair! They closed my money losing location!” And there you have the real reason Apple doesn’t care about a union here. The performance of this location can be ascertained in a fashion that is authoritative, objective, and unassailable. If they ever lose money, they’ll close, union or no union. So it doesn’t make a difference to Apple.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- _the_inflator 2y ago
  Paper… I am a Senior Manager and saw a thing or two. What I dislike about your statement is the confrontational usage. If we don’t fundamentally agree on collaboration, we run into fights over power. A business owner sets the direction and the goals. A union is a commitment and should go beyond defensive rights. Both should work together on different interests sometimes but shall fundamentally agree: without a successful business there won’t be any employees, not the other way around.
  - kergonath 2y ago
    > without a successful business there won’t be any employees, not the other way around. And without employees there would not be any business. At the end of the day they put the work as well. It’s in Apple’s interest to keep these employees happy because they are the face of the company. Their customers interact with them when they buy something and when something goes wrong. I agree that the relationship should be more constructive than confrontational, but it goes both ways. Apple is both a wonderful and difficult company to work for.
ngcazz 2y ago
I find it hard to believe that HN is truly pro-union when the top comment here seems to miss the point entirely, suggesting that “decent salaries” make unions unnecessary. The reality is that workers are individuals who have to fend for themselves. Employers are naturally organized and have the power to modulate work conditions and say "find work elsewhere if you're not happy." Unions are the countervailing force to that. Even in the fairest of societies this would be true.
asimovfan 2y ago
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00197939221129261 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00197939221129261 Workers in unions earn up to a million dollars more in their lifetime.
- gruez 2y ago
  The study is paywalled so I can't see what their methodology is, but the effect size is suspiciously large. Are they accounting for the fact that well paid jobs, especially in manufacturing tend to be unionized?
  - Symbiote 2y ago
    If you can't read it, at least have the decency to assume the scientist has taken account of the most obvious factor in their work. They probably didn't need a software developer to tell them.
    - majewsky 2y ago
      As per site guidelines, please assume the most charitable reading of your parent comment. They don't have access to the linked source, and there is no tone indication of snark in their message, so it is possible they are asking a genuine question.
ksec 2y ago
>Apple has decent salaries for what it is That's the thing. I dont know of any Apple Retail in the world that pays below average to their industry counterparts. And benefits are decent as well.
pjmlp 2y ago
Unions is more than just salaries, is about proper work conditions, fair layoffs, not being called on the middle of weekend just because boss feels like, being able to go home when desired not because we're crunching as there is no tomorrow dying before getting to enjoy all that money,....
jakupovic 2y ago
First comment is of course Apple knows what they are doing and they don't need unions, nobody does. This site is overrun by pro-capitalist forces, and this is against hacker ethos, but it's ok as hacker is just a random word we keep in the title. Shame.

tadfisher 2y ago

At this size, shuttering a store in retaliation for unionizing should result in the corporate death penalty. If Apple doesn't want to deal with unions, then they can feel free to make the point moot, by giving their employees an ownership stake in the company.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
So if a company is about to close an underperforming store and the employees get wind of it, all they have to do is sign union cards and the company has to keep the store open forever?
- ajkjk 2y ago
  No? That's not what the person you're replying to said, nor what they meant, nor is it a logical implication of what they said.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - g15jv2dp 2y ago
      > But that's just pointless because there are a thousand other reasons they might want to close the store and there is no way to prove it That's the exact point where your argument breaks down. It is possible, sometimes, to prove that a company closed a store because of a union. See the recent Starbucks trial. In the end, they were only saved by the SCOTUS, who isn't exactly uncontroversial at the moment.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        > It is possible, sometimes, to prove that a company closed a store because of a union. The "sometimes" is doing all the work there. Sure, if the company writes an email that says "we decided to close this store because the employees unionized and we're trying to deter that in other stores" then you could prove it, but then they could just... not do that, and close the store anyway.
        g15jv2dp 2y ago
        Maybe read up on recent union busting cases. Starbucks, Tesla, Walmart, Amazon... It's a lot more nuanced than that. And note I'm replying to someone claiming it's impossible to charge companies with union busting at all.
        AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        > It's a lot more nuanced than that. Which is kind of the other problem. You end up trying to mind read the intent behind some possible innuendo with an ambiguous meaning, because the outcome isn't determined by what they do, it's determined by what they write down. > And note I'm replying to someone claiming it's impossible to charge companies with union busting at all. If it's impossible to charge companies that have better lawyers but still use the same tactics, you still have the same problem with the law, because then those companies will have a competitive advantage and the others would either learn to do the same or lose their market position.
        consteval 2y ago
        I believe in labor disputes the standard is a preponderance of guilt. You don't need proof at all, just the inclination they could have had bad motives.
    - tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
      Luckily, executives have a habit of occasionally putting their blatantly illegal deals in writing (e.g. the recruiting cartel, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...). Beyond a certain size, it becomes hard to pretend you're doing it for one reason while actually doing it for another. Especially if it becomes a pattern.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        > Luckily, executives have a habit of occasionally putting their blatantly illegal deals in writing This is the weirdest way to have laws though. It strongly implies that the person putting it in writing didn't know it was illegal, because otherwise they wouldn't have put it in writing. But then you're never enforcing the law against people knowingly breaking the law, you can only ever enforce it against people who didn't realize it was illegal. That seems like a bad design. In particular, it rewards a corporation the more evil it is, because the ones who know they're breaking the law are the ones who get away with it. > Beyond a certain size, it becomes hard to pretend you're doing it for one reason while actually doing it for another. Especially if it becomes a pattern. The pattern thing also doesn't really work. Suppose some of your stores are in high crime areas and keep getting knocked off. The employees in those stores don't like the risk and form a union so they can demand bulletproof glass and hazard pay. The company looks at those stores and the insurance cost is getting out of hand and shrinkage is high and the stores just aren't profitable. So they close the stores. Now you have a strong correlation between the stores that form a union and the stores that close, but it's because union formation and store closures are both caused by high crime, not because the company is purposely closing the stores that form a union.
        cgriswald 2y ago
        > It strongly implies that the person putting it in writing didn't know it was illegal, because otherwise they wouldn't have put it in writing. Just because someone created evidence that didn’t have to exist doesn’t mean they didn’t know their actions were illegal. On Chris Hansen’s latest predator sting show the suspects frequently acknowledge, in writing, the age of the decoy and the sex acts they want to perform. They also take steps to create alibis, suss out if it is a sting, or otherwise avoid getting caught, which indicates clearly that they know what they are doing is illegal.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- emseetech 2y ago
  We don't have card check unionization in the United States. Forming a union is much more difficult than you propose.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    It's just an expression. The point is, what happens after a union is formed?
    - emseetech 2y ago
      It's not relevant. Unionization takes months at least but usually years. The workers at this store in Maryland had their first vote in 2022. The campaign started in 2021. The NLRB moves like molasses and heavily favors employers. If workers had a notion that their store was underperforming, there's no way anyone could unionize fast enough to prevent it from closing. So it's not a realistic hypothetical. In fact, the company would probably close an underperforming store sooner if there was a unionization drive and would have plenty of time to do so before certification.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        > In fact, the company would probably close an underperforming store sooner if there was a unionization drive and would have plenty of time to do so before certification. Presumably closing the store in response to an attempt at unionization would be the same thing?
        emseetech 2y ago
        Legally, closing an underperforming location in response to a unionization attempt and after a successful unionization are completely different situations. After unionization, what is required when closing a store is written into the negotiated contract.
        AnthonyMouse 2y ago
- baubino 2y ago
  Unionizing a workplace is insanely difficult. It requires tons of bureaucratic work (to meet the standards set by state labor agencies) while also trying to get a large number of people who probably don’t know each other well, if at all, to all agree on a few things, all while risking their employment. This work often takes years. And all of this organizing work is unpaid labor on top of one’s regular job (which is already likely underpaid/overworked, hence the organizing effort). There is no “all they have to do is sign union cards.” The scenario you pose is practically impossible.
jpcfl 2y ago
> At this size Size has nothing to do with it. Just because a company is large doesn't mean it needs to start making poor business decisions. > corporate death penalty That's a bit extreme. If you want to be seen as objective, this kind of inflammatory rhetoric will only work against you.
- brianzelip 2y ago
  > Just because a company is large doesn't mean it needs to start making poor business decisions To be clear this is also inflammatory rhetoric disguised as what some would have you think is ‘common sense’.
  - jpcfl 2y ago
    Is it not possible that employees forming a union could be bad for business?
    - consteval 2y ago
      It certainly is, and I would imagine letting the children chained up in your sweatshop go would be bad for business too. On the bright side, their eyes won't be adjusted to the sunlight, so they won't get very far. Yes, you can frame this as "bad for business". Contrary to what all the armchair economists online will say, you should never just do what's good for business. If we did we would be seeing crimes against humanity. And we do, just not here. Its always a balancing act. Often what's good for business isn't good, and what's bad for business isn't bad. You need more robust reasoning than that. Because if that's all you're relying on to form your opinions, you have no substance.
      - jpcfl 2y ago
        When Apple chains children up in sweatshops, please let me know.
        consteval 2y ago
dylan604 2y ago
But they are willing to close stores for the specific purpose of no longer being in the jurisdiction of a specific court. So this is not a stretch at all. https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2019/2/22/18236424/apple-closing-stores-eastern-district-texas-avoid-patent-trolls https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2019/2/22/18236424/a...
Zpalmtree 2y ago
utterly absurd

jncfhnb 2y ago

McKinsey doesn’t do that sort of thing

sqeaky 2y ago
officially*
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  No just plainly. That’s no particular reason to hide that kind of work. It’s just a factually incorrect statement.
  - sqeaky 2y ago
    > That’s no particular reason to hide that kind of work. Wow, that is incredibly hard to respond to without casting aspersions. You claim there is no reason to hide a fundamentally unpopular and sometimes illegal thing? This is the kind of thing that is so wrong that it doesn't merit a factual response. This in line with people using levels on airplanes to prove the world is flat. I don't know if McKinsey is or isn't union busting, there are credible accusations against them. But I do know that discounting the notion out of hand and not even attempting to present evidence or argument is so laughably wrong that you should feel ashamed.

giraffe_lady 2y ago

If you were living off that money maybe you wouldn't find it so decent. Maybe you'd want a union idk unless you have some non-financial reason not to that you haven't mentioned here. I trust their perception of their needs more than I trust your perception of it.

Zpalmtree 2y ago
[flagged]
- guywithahat 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - kennywinker 2y ago
    Globalization ate union and non-union jobs, so blaming unions for flint’s fall from grace… seems unfounded.
    - guywithahat 2y ago
      But the jobs didn’t disappear to Asia, the office jobs moved to Detroit and the factory jobs moved to other cities/states. Flint was the birthplace of the UAW, and it’s generally credited with driving all the jobs out. That said, blaming globalization for the loss of factory work feels intellectually lazy. Some things will always fall to the lowest bidder, but a lot of stuff is extremely complex and you wouldn’t send it overseas unless you felt like you had to (either because of unions, suppliers, local politics, or some other reason). The irony is most HN users advocate for unions, but never join one because the work is too boring or the pay is too low, as if those aren’t a direct result of the union.
  - paddim8 2y ago
    So why does it work so well in Nordic countries then? Unionisation is the norm here

matrix87 2y ago

> I know this site is pretty pro-union This site is pro-union for anything outside of tech, but staunchly anti-union for tech. except maybe gamedev, which has a reputation of underpaying

g15jv2dp 2y ago
"This site" isn't a single person and if you read the comments under this story, you will find a ton of anti-union sentiment.
- randomdata 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - g15jv2dp 2y ago
    Are you trying to make a joke? Or just derailing the conversation? I'm clearly talking about the people posting on this site.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      [flagged]
johnnyanmac 2y ago
Makes sense. When you're paid well and you can raise your own salary every 2-3 years, why would you want a union? You're doing fine on your own. Sure, some shitty markets like right now happen, but you negotiated your way into years of savings to tap into as you need. You can weather the storm. But yes, I'm in gamedev and this was a forgone conclusion for studios making record profits but laying off very talented people. If your ace isn't safe, the rest of us jokers need to band together to survive. These same FAANGs seem to forgotten why they paid their other tech so well, and they are sowing what they reap.

JKCalhoun 2y ago

> I know this site is pretty pro-union If this site is primarily workers (as opposed to business owners) then I am not surprised.

doctorpangloss 2y ago
I'm a business owner. I am "pro-union."
- ayende 2y ago
  Do you have a union in your business? If not, why not? If yes, what is the experience like?
  - Rinzler89 2y ago
    Usually the pro-union business owners who don't have unions justify it like this" "I'm such a a good boss that my workers don't need a union, If I ever hear that they want to unionize I would be shocked and would think I failed" - Linus Sebastian of Linus Tech Tips.
    - Atotalnoob 2y ago
      Genuine question, if I was a business owner, how would I force my employees to join a union? Isn’t it a non-managerial activity (on purpose)? Seems like there would be very limited influence on creating one Linus’s position and other people like him is indefensible.
      - pjmlp 2y ago
        In European countries, you do an agreement with an industry union, everyone on the building gets the agreement, regardless of how they feel about it. From this side of the pound, usually the large majority is happy with the benefits, even without being themselves union members. That is why countries with strong union culture have negociation rounds of industry leaders with the main union groups, to discuss how the sector will be handled for the current fiscal year.

threatofrain 2y ago

It's illegal to close a store just because you're afraid of unions. It's one thing for a Starbucks to close a store because they're opening and closing stores all the time and have thinner profit margins and thus have cover, but for Apple it's another deal.

bilbo0s 2y ago
Everyone has ‘cover’. It’s just the P&L sheet. If they’re losing money on that store, they’ll close it. If not, they’ll keep it open. But it’s not mandated to keep a money losing store opened. No one’s going to go into court and argue, “no fair! They closed my money losing location!” And there you have the real reason Apple doesn’t care about a union here. The performance of this location can be ascertained in a fashion that is authoritative, objective, and unassailable. If they ever lose money, they’ll close, union or no union. So it doesn’t make a difference to Apple.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
_the_inflator 2y ago
Paper… I am a Senior Manager and saw a thing or two. What I dislike about your statement is the confrontational usage. If we don’t fundamentally agree on collaboration, we run into fights over power. A business owner sets the direction and the goals. A union is a commitment and should go beyond defensive rights. Both should work together on different interests sometimes but shall fundamentally agree: without a successful business there won’t be any employees, not the other way around.
- kergonath 2y ago
  > without a successful business there won’t be any employees, not the other way around. And without employees there would not be any business. At the end of the day they put the work as well. It’s in Apple’s interest to keep these employees happy because they are the face of the company. Their customers interact with them when they buy something and when something goes wrong. I agree that the relationship should be more constructive than confrontational, but it goes both ways. Apple is both a wonderful and difficult company to work for.

ngcazz 2y ago

I find it hard to believe that HN is truly pro-union when the top comment here seems to miss the point entirely, suggesting that “decent salaries” make unions unnecessary. The reality is that workers are individuals who have to fend for themselves. Employers are naturally organized and have the power to modulate work conditions and say "find work elsewhere if you're not happy." Unions are the countervailing force to that. Even in the fairest of societies this would be true.

asimovfan 2y ago

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00197939221129261 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00197939221129261 Workers in unions earn up to a million dollars more in their lifetime.

gruez 2y ago
The study is paywalled so I can't see what their methodology is, but the effect size is suspiciously large. Are they accounting for the fact that well paid jobs, especially in manufacturing tend to be unionized?
- Symbiote 2y ago
  If you can't read it, at least have the decency to assume the scientist has taken account of the most obvious factor in their work. They probably didn't need a software developer to tell them.
  - majewsky 2y ago
    As per site guidelines, please assume the most charitable reading of your parent comment. They don't have access to the linked source, and there is no tone indication of snark in their message, so it is possible they are asking a genuine question.

ksec 2y ago

>Apple has decent salaries for what it is That's the thing. I dont know of any Apple Retail in the world that pays below average to their industry counterparts. And benefits are decent as well.

pjmlp 2y ago

Unions is more than just salaries, is about proper work conditions, fair layoffs, not being called on the middle of weekend just because boss feels like, being able to go home when desired not because we're crunching as there is no tomorrow dying before getting to enjoy all that money,....

jakupovic 2y ago

First comment is of course Apple knows what they are doing and they don't need unions, nobody does. This site is overrun by pro-capitalist forces, and this is against hacker ethos, but it's ok as hacker is just a random word we keep in the title. Shame.