[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.