3 ms·
That seems a somewhat pretzel-like contortion to enforce. If Apple says they don't want to run the store, how are they to be forced to run it? Especially if som
by roenxi 2y ago
That seems a somewhat pretzel-like contortion to enforce. If Apple says they don't want to run the store, how are they to be forced to run it? Especially if someone a bit Machiavellian gets involved; it can't possibly be hard for management to create reasons for a business to close. It is a delicate enough operation keeping one open; feigned incompetence at any level could easily result in a good reason to shut a store down.
What leverage are the union employees supposed to bring to bear, strike until the store opens? Or if suing business into existence turns out to be a workable strategy then we've maybe been running society wrong for a long time now.
- lucianbr 2y agoIsn't Apple running that store for a reason? Maybe to sell something, I would imagine. They should be opposed to closing it for that reason. Of course, that's assuming the main activity of a business is to make and sell things. Could be a wrong assumption.
- numpad0 2y agoThey can just spin up a new instance and destroy the old one. Legality aside…
- rdtsc 2y agoBut they run many others too not just that particular one store. Even closing and reopening a few stores in the region just to teach others “a lesson” could make “business sense”. They just have to find unrelated business reasons for to put on paper.
- mrangle 2y agoIt is a wrong assumption. The only activity of a business is to turn a profit.
- canadianfella 2y ago[dead]
- ergocoder 2y agoUnless there is a paper trail like email from an exec saying something like "we need to close this store as an example because they unionize", then there is no way to prove wrongdoing. This is a company with hundreds of thousands of people. I work in several ones. It is very hard to do this kind of things. If you do, there will be paper trail because you would need to get consensus from others. If store is unprofitable, then they would just use that reason. If the store is unionised and profitable, why would apple even close it?
- rdtsc 2y ago> It is very hard to do this kind of things. If you do, there will be paper trail because you would need to get consensus from others. Hard but doable. A few companies got burnt with direct messages between executives showing up in court in discovery, but everyone watched and learned to quickly scrub and remove those routinely. So next time it’s easier. And of course we only find out those that slip up and get caught. But even that is not needed, all it really takes is the subordinates to read between the lines. It takes just one minion to suggest closing that particular store for “unrelated reasons” and they are promoted quickly. Everyone else learns exactly what the idea is without leaving a single paper trail.
- FireBeyond 2y ago> Unless there is a paper trail like email from an exec saying something like "we need to close this store as an example because they unionize", then there is no way to prove wrongdoing. In my area, it didn't take a paper trail for Starbucks to get a smack. Several stores in the area were unionizing or considering unionizing. So Starbucks removed the cushioned anti-fatigue floor mats from a bunch of stores, declaring them a trip/fall hazard. Employees talked to each other and discovered that they'd only been removed from a few stores, not all. You can guess which. Employees told the NLRB who asked Starbucks to explain why the mats weren't a trip hazard in non-unionizing stores. The mats returned quickly.
- johnnyanmac 2y agoWas their bright idea here really: - remove conviniene for employees - employees get more tired - sales decline - store justifies shut down Seems like quite the stretch, just to not want to bargain with labor. I 100% believe it, but it's just sad. This all happened because businesses are stingy with paying employees properly.