[35208654]

Here’s the problem I have with this discourse:

> Apple also withheld new benefits from unionized locations, drawing outcry from labor advocates.

I am pro-union. Fight for your rights! But understand what you’re getting into: 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’s up to the individual and the collective to figure out how and whether unionizing benefits them in the context of their employer-employee relationship. Eyes open: the company has interests too. Mischaracterizing those interests is a disservice when you’re at the negotiating table.

[nimbius]

I'm a Union diesel mechanic and I've seen this before. Its an undercut strategy used by companies who have lost a union battle but don't understand what that means, so they're told by consultants that if they just piss hard enough in the union cheerios people will see the difference and give up their membership. Sometimes they do it to undercut new membership but its been my experience unions often unintentionally make the membership bar pretty hard to begin with.

Ultimately the union bargains for benefits above and beyond what companies already give their non union employees. The tactic winds up putting some companies over the barrel during union negotiations sometimes as it means whatever we win gets extended to an already well compensated non union workforce.

Thank a union carpenter for your 40 hour work week ;)

[waboremo]

Yep, they aren't new tactics. Might be new to tech union figures, so it might be beneficial for them to take a great look at physical labor unions and the various strategies that will be deployed to potentially weaken numbers. There's decades and decades of these little tactics to learn from!

[908B64B197]

> Yep, they aren't new tactics.

It also serves the union's employees well: they'll have to go negotiate and prove to their members that they are worth the union dues they pay to get these benefits. These people have no interests in Apple just raising salaries for everyone.

> Might be new to tech union figures

Apple Stores isn't tech, it's retail.

[capableweb]

> Apple Stores isn't tech, it's retail.

Apple Stores are ultimately owned by Apple, which most would consider a "tech" company.

[colechristensen]

But also now any time Apple does anything positive for its nonunion employees it will be cast in the light of being an anti-union tactic.

I’m happy about workers fighting for rights union or not… but what gets me irritated is rhetoric that focuses on the union itself and not the workers.

In this case… The union agreed to its contract, people should stop whining about what they agreed to. You want now you have to wait until it’s time to renegotiate. You wanted a deal that only gets updated periodically when the contact is up, that’s the mechanics of what you agreed to.

[waboremo]

Well, it is an anti-union tactic. You're selecting which employees get [new positive thing] based on whether or not they're in a union. If they want to avoid such light they should only base the additions off department/team.

I do agree that they should be focusing on renegotiations, what's currently happening is they're letting a lot of reporters get away with framing the situation as a "loss" for the union.

I don't fully grasp your irritation regarding the focus on the union itself, it's supposed to be a representation of the workers as a baseline.

[refurb]

Its not anti-union, its just how contracts works.

If union negotiates X,Y,Z into their contract and a year later the company offers an upgraded Z2, the union doesn't get it because it’s not in their contract.

That’s just how labor negotiations work.

[capableweb]

Generally, companies don't have to ask unions for approval for anything that is universally beneficial for the union members, obviously no one would say no to improvements. Union contracts are there to stop changes that might be hurtful for the members, not benefits.

Have you participated in a real union somewhere before and read through the bylaws and such?

[guelo]

They haven't negotiated a contract yet. Apple, completely by coincidence I'm sure, announced these new bennefits that union workers won't get a few days before the Oklahoma store voted to unionize.

[35208654]

How do you know the union workers wont get those benefits if a contract hasn’t been signed?

[shrike]

Starbucks did the same thing, arguing that -

“Wages and benefits are mandatory subjects of the collective bargaining process,” the company said. It rejects the union’s argument that it could offer the wage and benefit enhancements to unionized stores at any time.

The NLRB countered -

"...the NLRB said Starbucks violated labor law by offering raises and benefits — including increased training, career development opportunities, expanded tipping and even looser dress code policies — only to nonunion stores."*

Source: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/starbucks-shortchanged..., @ https://archive.ph/CrZTh

[35208654]

Is there an update to this story? The story doesn’t cite what law the NLRB claimed was violated, only that doing what starbucks did interfered with their ability to organize. The final paragraph mentions that the case is yet to be heard:

>The regional complaint will be heard by an administrative law judge at the NLRB. Once a decision is reached, either side can appeal to the full National Labor Relations Board in Washington.

Full disclosure: I’m operating on logic, not an expertise on labor law. I am genuinely interested in expanding my understanding of labor laws and process.

[yardie]

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/starbucks/starbucks-il...

Unfortunately, by reading the first article I'm paywalled from reading the second. But the NLRB judge found them guilty is in the first paragraph.

[35208654]

From reading the article you linked, it appears they violated the law by refusing to negotiate, not by giving non-union workers benefits that they didn’t give to union workers.

[firstlink]

The NLRB process is to first find the company guilty no matter what, and then look for convenient soundbite-ready justifications later.

[kadoban]

> 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]

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]

> 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.

[qwytw]

Aren't Apple's retail workers relatively well off in most ways? (compared to others in similar jobs obviously)

[oh_sigh]

But anyone can still unionize at any time, so it isn't much lost.

[anigbrowl]

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]

Fine then, forming a union for apple employees would be no harder than it was before.

[catiopatio]

> 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.

[35208654]

> refuses to negotiate afterwards

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

[luckylion]

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]

'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?

[brightlancer]

IANAL but when I looked into this ~15 years ago, my understanding was non-union workers have a legal right "to communicate with each other about your pay, benefits, and working conditions". That doesn't come from union membership.

Unions have the ability to _force_ collective bargaining, but worker protections aren't restricted to union members.

[anigbrowl]

Certainly, but many employers discourage this practice. I'm characterizing the employer's basis for offering less than the default to union members.

[luckylion]

> Owners and agents of capital are able to communicate freely with each other

Not really, and with good reason Google, Apple & co were punished when they "communicated" with each other to suppress wages by not competing with each other.

But that's besides the point. If you negotiate (or delegate the negotiation) a deal, you're doing so independent from others who might or might not negotiate a deal as well. Union employees certainly won't mind if they get more than non-union employees. Yet, when the union agrees to a worse deal, it's suddenly abhorrent and criminal.

It's understandable, employees are capitalists as well and optimize for maximum profit, but it's also pretty much what everyone everywhere goes through. If you buy a meal for $5 and someone else tomorrow buys the same meal and haggles it down to $4, should you get $1 back?

[ysavir]

They could negotiate in bad faith, sure, but that's exactly where the collective bargaining of the union kicks in, and the union has the option of taking action. It exists for just this situation.

[luckylion]

But this would be after the collective bargaining and signing a contract laying out the terms for union employees. If non-union employees can get better terms, the union can simply annul the contract and force a re-negotiation where they can't be denied because labor law? Or do you mean they could demand re-negotiations and strike otherwise?

Germany is said to be a lot more pro-labor than the US, but as far as I'm aware, unions can't strike during the duration of their collective bargaining contracts.

[anonymouskimmer]

> 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.

If you don't actively support your union by signing petitions, being a member (US unions can no longer collect funds from non-members, so membership rates matter), and voting to take action, there's not much the leaders can do. There's still some things the leadership can do, but it's typically not action that will get the company to do anything.

> you will only get what you bargain for

Negotiating in bad faith does happen. At my job management quickly agreed to, and paid out early, our bargaining. And then a couple months after it was signed gave out out-of-cycle inflation raises to non-represented employees. The first time this has happened that I know of. And my union can't do anything about it for a few years because our contract is signed.

Management said that all raises, even this special out-of-cycle one, was subject to negotiation. Even though our bargained contract stated that out-of-cycle raises could happen without negotiation. Heads they win, tails we lose.

Edit: changed "month and a half" to "couple months" because it was shortly after, but I may be a bit wrong about the timing.

[peyton]

That’s what you signed up for.

[anonymouskimmer]

No, I didn't sign up for disrespect and lies. Regardless, even this is better than the alternative I had before (years working as a permatemp, no yearly raise above 2%, even with outstanding ratings). At least now I can vent my ire at the boss without getting fired.

[peyton]

I think it’s disingenuous to paint a decision in the framework you agreed upon as “disrespect and lies.”

[anonymouskimmer]

Of the things that I posted, this is what I'm calling a lie: "Management said that all raises, even this special out-of-cycle one, was subject to negotiation. Even though our bargained contract stated that out-of-cycle raises could happen without negotiation."

There are things that I did not post, and am not going to.

[bittercynic]

I think the discourse makes a lot of sense if part of the purpose is to show the extent of the imbalance of power between Apple and its retail employees - even if they are able to unionize.

Apple is so enormous, and so powerful, that it's going to take more than some locations unionizing to start to level things out.

[bwestergard]

The workers are the union, and workers elected by their peers will be bargaining.

Source: I am a software engineer in the same union, currently serving on a bargaining committee.

[rvnx]

Then instead of being able to negotiate by yourself or freely pool together with other employees, you will have to go through the union.

Which means it becomes a political game where the union is going to help you only if you help them.

Essentially adding a third-party that lives on the monster.

And then the bosses get used to these unions and they know personally the people who represent the union, etc.

And you end up with a negotiator that will negotiates his own best interests.

[nrook]

Er, what exactly do you think "freely pooling together with other employees" looks like? A group of employees that negotiates together is a union.

You can negotiate alone, but you have much less bargaining power that way. There's a reason the big tech companies all work together on their side of this negotiation (colluding with other employers to lower salaries, all doing layoffs at the same time, etc.): it works.

[brightlancer]

> Er, what exactly do you think "freely pooling together with other employees" looks like? A group of employees that negotiates together is a union.

In states without Right-to-work laws, once the union is in place, employees are NOT able to freely pool with other employees, they're restricted to pooling with ALL of the union members in that shop, or even multiple shops.

[anigbrowl]

Then instead of being able to negotiate by yourself or freely pool together with other employees, you will have to go through the union.

Freely pooling together...like a union? Your argument seems to hang on the notion that once people do pool together, they lose all control and the union they created turns on its own members. That's like saying corporations shouldn't have any management because the managers will just enrich themselves at the expense of the owners.

It's particularly odd to read this since the person you replied told you that they're literally on the bargaining committee. So you're warning them about...themselves?

[rvnx]

If it's was so easy to form an union they would already have one.

Yes I'm sure that OP already knows that sitting at the negotiating table is a good position for him but all the other members of the Union don't have that privilege.

[anigbrowl]

I can't speak for OP's situation obviously, but in most union contexts a person on the bargaining committee is answerable to other members, subject to removal, and reliant on re-election. Some organizations have practices of job rotation or term limits to ensure no single individual is irreplaceable.

[bwestergard]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

All bargaining sessions are open to observation by all unit members, and have been since day one. Ten percent of the unit was elected by single transferrable vote (Meek Rule) to speak at the bargaining table. But that is just to keep the bargaining orderly; union proposals are drafted by any interested members. We keep them all in a Google Drive so anyone can check in on the state of bargaining. We also take extensive notes for members who could not observe in real time to catch up the state of bargaining.

Once the bargaining committee reaches a tentative agreement with the employer, the whole membership will have to ratify it by secret ballot before it goes into effect.

Where is the "privilege" in this system, exactly?

[anonymouskimmer]

> Which means it becomes a political game where the union is going to help you only if you help them.

In the US unions are required to assist even non-members who are in jobs represented by the union. It's called the "free rider" problem.

> And then the bosses get used to these unions and they know personally the people who represent the union, etc.

This has historically been a problem in non-worker-run unions, and may still be. In worker-run unions workers directly elect their representatives from the membership. If you think your current leadership is too tight with management then you can run against them, or vote for someone who does.

[phpisthebest]

>>If you think your current leadership is too tight with management then you can run against them, or vote for someone who does.

Then you can get the opposite problem.. some with no understanding of the business, which never works out for anyone either the workers or the business.

Workers could get screwed with out knowing it, or the demands are soo outside what the business can support the business would never agree.

[anonymouskimmer]

> the demands are soo outside what the business can support the business would never agree.

Contract negotiations typically always start this way, from both sides of the bargaining table. That's why it's called contract bargaining. After a few rounds of back and forth you're supposed to hit something that's acceptable to both sides.

[anonymouskimmer]

> Then you can get the opposite problem.. some with no understanding of the business, which never works out for anyone either the workers or the business.

The elected person is still a worker at the business. Still talks with other workers at the business, as well as management. And still has access to the non-elected employees of the union whose job it is to catalog and remember institutional knowledge.

[ClumsyPilot]

> Then you can get the opposite problem..

Spunds like damned if you do, damned of you don't

Is there any way for a worker to stand up for himself that sits right with you?

[phpisthebest]

I am an individualist.. Standing up for yourself means exactly that... do it yourself not via a collectivist organization

[illiarian]

This is such a bleak and very American view.

Especially ironic is that the (frankly quite few) benefits and rights that workers have in the States are thanks to unions.

[phpisthebest]

>>Especially ironic is that the (frankly quite few) benefits and rights that workers have in the States are thanks to unions.

This is very slanted view of how labor developed in the US to simply give unions 100% of the credit, it is very revisionist history and not completely factual.

Unions can claim some credit, but to say they are solely responsible for "benefits and rights that workers have" is false.

Hell most "benefits" today (health insurance, vacation time, etc) are more directly attributive to wage price controls during WWII than they are to unions. as employers had to get creative with compensation to attract workers as they could not simply raise raw wages

[illiarian]

> Hell most "benefits" today (health insurance, vacation time, etc) are more directly attributive to wage price controls during WWII than they are to unions.

I'd say the system of vacations and health insurance in the US is so shitty precisely because unions were gutted after WWII.

[phpisthebest]

then you have no understanding of what most workers actually prefer. Not what they claim on surveys but what they actually vote for both in unions and via the market place of jobs.

Workers routinely reveal their preference for higher wages over more time off. Given the option both in unions and in non-unions most workers will trade away increases in vacation time for high wage increases or starting wages.

One of the most unpopular changes my employer ever did was taking away the ability to Cash out vacation time. Many workers preferred just to cash out that time instead of taking it off.

[bluefirebrand]

There is nothing stopping companies from offering the same benefits to union employees that non-union employees are getting.

It is not 100% automatically on the union to chase the company for literally everything. That only winds up being the case when the company is actively trying to weaken the union.

Any union that automatically rejects offered benefits from the company unless they are part of yearly negotiations or something is just a bad union.

Maybe many such bad unions exist. I think it's much more likely that companies are very aware that they can make your unions look bad by offering benefits to non-union employees and when asked they pretend to be helpless. Obviously it's the big mean union that is not working.

[35208654]

>There is nothing stopping companies from offering the same benefits to union employees that non-union employees are getting.

Sure, but it could be construed as promising benefits to employees to discourage their union support, which violates the NLRA [0] and indeed was cited by Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corp. in the dispute against them back in 2019 [1]. No company with a sane legal department would treat a counterparty differently than the contract stipulates, even if such a treatment could be considered 'preferential.' The legal risk is just too great.

[0]https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/human-resources/article/nation... [1]https://ogletree.com/insights/nlrb-explains-when-granting-be...

[bluefirebrand]

> it could be construed as promising benefits to employees to discourage their union support, which violates the NLRA [0]

Ok, but there is nothing stopping them from approaching the union with the proposed new benefit.

[guelo]

The timing of the new non-union perks points to it being illegal anti-union vote tampering. They announced them days before the Oklahoma store's union vote. Apple is also spreading misinformation about the perks, messaging that it's impossible for union employees to receive them, and using them as a scare tactic ahead of other store votes. Also, Apple suspiciously announced these new benefits via news media instead of internal communication.

You can read the union making these points here https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/23209996-core-lett...

[DubiousPusher]

Agreed. Virtue capitalism is the sociological illness that defines our times. A widespread belief in corporate paternalism is the spoonful of sugar that helped the pill of de-unionization go down in the first place.

We fight for unions on the basis that absent better labor laws the corporation requires an adversary to keep it from exploiting workers. It's hypocritical to insist upon a union and then get mad about a lack of corporate generosity.

I think the ultimate solution is a economic system which fundamentally recognizes that workers are involved with enterprise and deserve an ownership and some power stake in it. That might create the opportunity for this relationship to become one that is more cooperative.

At least that way the struggle might get a little less existential as every corporation would be on an even footing. I think a good portion of corporate resistance to unionization is about fearing they will have to compete with an un-unionized company.

[35208654]

> I think the ultimate solution is an economic system which fundamentally recognizes that workers are involved with enterprise and deserve an ownership and controlling stake in it. That might create the opportunity for this relationship to become one that is more cooperative.

I believe this is how Germany does it. I may be getting the details a bit off, but I believe corporate boards have to have a worker’s/union representative as a member. This makes total sense to me.

[brightlancer]

> I think the ultimate solution is a economic system which fundamentally recognizes that workers are involved with enterprise and deserve an ownership and some power stake in it.

Our economic system _permits_ that; is there something you think is specifically handicapping employee-owned businesses?

[uni_rule]

Perhaps we should follow the German model where large stakes in public companies are actually mandatory to be owned by the employees so they have a more direct say in workplace democracy by default.

[brightlancer]

While there are times where government needs to step in and force things, I'm cautious about presuming it.

Workers in the US are free to get together and argue (without a union) for a group or general pay increase. Workers can as a group walk off the job. Workers are free to quit at any time.

Voting with your feet is the most democratic thing we have.

And employers can ignore workers or fire them. If the company ignores too much or fires too many, then the company will suffer.

IME, that works much better than using the law to privilege either side.

[DubiousPusher]

> Workers can as a group walk off the job. Workers are free to quit at any time.

Have you ever actually studied a labor action? How it happens? The power dynamic is vastly in the employers favor. By far the majority fail or are outright broken by targeted firings, strike breaking, etc.

> IME, that works much better than using the law to privilege either side.

You're begging the question that it currently doesn't favor a side.

[refurb]

How does that work? Say your a union for Siemens. Is the company just supposed to hand over $10B worth of equity?

[DubiousPusher]

Basically. I would expect a system where this happens over time would be more palatable though.

[refurb]

And where would the money cone from? Or you expect the company to just hand employees billions in equity for free?

[DubiousPusher]

Yes because of the fear that a business will put itself at a disadvantage by having to answer to its employees. Which it will.

[ClumsyPilot]

Limited ability to raise capital

[anonymouskimmer]

Very nice comment.

> I think a good portion of corporate resistance to unionization is about fearing they will have to compete with an un-unionized company.

Who is Apple actually in competition with?

[DubiousPusher]

Google, Samsung, some other company in a market they aren't in today but may be in 10 years from now.

[hiddencost]

Part of the negotiation process between unions and their employers happens in the public sphere.

Apple plays hardball, by blaming the union for Apple's failure to extend benefits. The union blames apple for union busting in the public sphere.

The hope is that Apple's attempt to kill the nascent union will be so unpalatable to people like us, that apple will suffer more harm than benefit and agree to work with the union on an honest basis.

There's no requirement that the relationship between a union and management has to be hostile; unions are just democratic self governance structures for workers. Having a worker-led say in how the business is run can be good for the business, as unions can push back again short term business incentives.

(E.g., protecting against the cost cutting measures that led to the catastrophic train derailment in Palestine, Ohio.)

[catiopatio]

> There's no requirement that the relationship between a union and management has to be hostile

How could it not be? It’s inherent to the adversarial nature of the relationship between management and a union.

[uni_rule]

Workers don't exactly decide to collectivize in situations where the status quo is comfortable and they already feel like their voices are heard. It's almost a sense of "if there isn't a workplace democracy we'll make it one".

If anything an adversarial relationship with upper management precludes attempts to organize as it implies they failed their boots on the ground in some way and the problems got so fad they felt there was absolutely zero "internal" channels available to get the changes they want heard, let alone enacted.

[scarab92]

Apple employees aren’t unionising because of poor working conditions in Apple stores. It’s generally considered one of the best employers for retail staff already.

They are unionising because Apple has money and the employees would like some more of that money. No judgement, but both sides here are simply motivated by financial self-interest.

[mannyv]

Unions are advocates and adversarial by default, because there's no cost to being so and plenty of benefits.

In addition, the union doesn't care about one unit of workers. They will happily sacrifice one store, or one industry, to further their goals - which may or may not be aligned with the workers.

Their actions and their rhetoric shows that's the case.

If workers agree to be a means to some other end then that's great. But most of them aren't smart enough or aware enough to understand this, from what it seems. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[anigbrowl]

union leaders, who need to do their fucking jobs and bargain for the benefits

You're assuming good faith bargaining, which is frequently absent. It's strategic for the company to reward non-union employees to hurt the union, even if it's economically inefficient to do so. The reality is that the only leverage the union has is litigation, moral conflict (complaining about it publicly), or going on strike. The union's resources are a function of its members' resources. Apple is rich, the union members are relatively poor, and Apple intends to keep it that way.

A lot of modern labor strategic dilemmas stem from Samuel Gompers, a 19th century trade unionist who was deeply anti-socialist. He fought against affiliations of unions across industries (as promoted by more socialist groups like the IWW), arguing that laborers within each industry had more interests in common with their employers than workers in other industry. He argued instead for a federalized model of labor, which gave rise to the modern AFL.

The reason this matters today is that the fragmentation of trade unions makes coordinated industrial action virtually impossible even where unions exist, because few companies are vertically integrated. Trade unions thus have only one site (their own workplace) to exert leverage because they're unable to coordinate with workers in other areas (ie farther back on the supply chain), and sympathy strikes are now generally illegal. In theory the AFL was supposed to fill this coordination function. In practice it served as an administrative brake on the ambitions of more assertive organizers, and kept workers at their posts during World War 1 to ensure the successful participation of the USA in that war (which was opposed by more socialist minded organizations).

Intentionally or not, Gompers institutionalized the fragmentation of the labor movement in the US, and practitioners of corporate divide-and-conquer tactics have been quietly thanking him ever since.