[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.

[kadoban]

> 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]

> 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]

It depends on the job. If you're part of a team then cohesion and harmony matter as well.

[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.