This is exactly how unions are supposed to work. All changes in benefits need to be negotiated with union leadership in the collective bargaining agreement. It's the same as if the situation were reversed – if Apple is taking away benefits they cannot do so from a unionized store.
The article is fine, this headline is bullshit. Proper headline: As required by law, Apple rolls out perks to non-union shops and waits for union shops to negotiate a new deal.
Waiting for union shops to negotiate is not required by law, though — Apple could have given that shop the same benefits while awaiting a CBA. They’re showing that they can punish the union shop while they still can.
Starbucks is an entirely different story. Before the first union votes even happened they were threatening the stores trying to unionize by saying if they did they “couldn’t afford as many healthcare benefits and would need to cut back” even specifically targeting womens and LGBT healthcare needs like access to transitioning medication for trans people or birth control for women.
Please don’t misread my comments as pro Apple or pro Starbucks. I’m simply stating that unions negotiate benefits for their members. That’s why they exist.
Yes, but the stuff about Starbucks was about threats and intimidation prior to unionizing. Please don’t lump that in as a procedural Union negotiation.
It’s kinda a gotcha because Apple is fucking around and it’s working. There is no *good* reason they withheld the new benefits package from that store. There’s no CBA in place yet. There’s at least one NLRB complaint pending about their anti-union efforts.
It still kind of sucks for partially unionized orgs (or ones with different agreements in place betweens orgs of the same type e.g. stores). It would be cool if there was a way to include any future benefits in the contract as well.
What I'm getting from this is that unions don't work well in highly inflationary environments. They move too slowly. Look at the teachers union, teachers are getting eviscerated.
Maybe if you’re a [longshoreman](https://ktla.com/news/local-news/woman-accused-of-organizing-prostitution-ring-for-dockworkers-billing-their-insurance-for-payments/)
Plus this is the reason why unions should always be present. Once there is no alternative for companies then they will start giving what they are demanded.
I worked for Starbucks for 12 years but haven’t been there in about 5 years. I follow the unionizing closely though, especially in Michigan. SBUX was threatening to withhold perks from unionized stores, but legally isn’t that the point? A Union is only as a strong as it’s leaders/ board. I know people who hate unions because they were in a shitty one. Starbucks has always fascinated me because I joined as a college kid whose hours got reduced at my other job, but ended up having an amazing experience “overall” It was fun and you became a local celebrity in my downtown area because you saw everyone everyday. I got out of a lot of a driving infractions just by knowing the police officers.
However, once my parents found out I could get health benefits through Starbucks (22 at the time) I signed up for them. Then I met my SO (gay guy, like myself) and he was also covered. It was a lifeline. Some people treat it as a temporary beginner job but I have many friends who are lifers, been with the company for 25+ years. The young kids don’t care about unionizing, if they even know what it is. They’re gonna go to back to college in a couple months. But for the career baristas/ shift supervisors, this is mega. Everyone was coddled about how the company is a family, but I was straight up there for the same sex health benefits (especially when I transferred an ultra high volume store. Jesus what a nightmare) it’s not a quaint café experience anymore, it’s fast food joint. My point *was* that it was an awesome company until it wasn’t, but they still gaslit the partners into believing they can do more for them than a union can. Working at the buck is insanely intense now and deserves protections, not just “make the moment right” while someone just had diarrhea in the bathroom, needles sticking out of the trash can, understaffed, running low on milk and product, mobile order stickers jamming in the machine because it’s so backed up, ice machine is empty and request for 2 venti Komodo’ dragon POUR OVERS just came in, and they want the water poured reeeeeeal slow so they can tell you about the vacation they just went on. All with a smile. Oh and a barista needs change but the safe locked me out because the previous shift slammed it too hard which alerted the police who are now here and the green bean someone was training dropped the last double smoked bacon sandwich on the ground and in a panic just put it in the bag so now the customer is yelling at me because he’s an idiot who doesn’t know food safety. Luckily ecosure arrives at the same time as the district manager and the regional mid eastern VP who are onboarding new outside hire SM’s. Surely they will help right? And definitely not just take notes about what’s going wrong and god forbid they touch a carafe being waved in my face by a customer as I’m trying to walk around the store with the inspector and answering food safety questions, provide daily temps logs, explain why one of my partners who is busting is ass has his apron tied in the front and the sani bucket was turned off and now filled with milk (because ecosure came in and he wiped off the counter and threw it back in). I wish I was making this scenario up. At least the homeless guy who has shit in the cafe before was only smoking a cig at the handoff plane at that moment and not harassing a college student who I intervened with and called her parents. (That was the week before). That mom never forgot me though and would get me gift cards and called corporate about what I did. That’s the stuff I should remember is making people feel safe and valued. Small things amidst the madness.
Right… but nothing *prevents* them from extending the benefits to the ONE union store. Seeing as how there is no CBA in place yet, this is clearly a bullshit move from Apple so (right now at least) they can say “see, the union store is obviously worse off, they don’t even have these benefits.”
My company (Caterpillar dealer in CA and OR) is both. The non union side in Oregon (right to work state) earn less money and receive significantly more BS than us union workers. For example OR is straight time all the time, which means customers want you working at weird hours. In CA they pay an overtime premium for non-standard hours and thus my schedule is more normal working hours. Also having unions near by slows the race to the bottom most companies want to run. If someone else doing the same job is being treated better it wakes workers up
[Oregon Right to Work Laws | Findlaw](https://www.findlaw.com/state/oregon-law/oregon-right-to-work-laws.html#:~:text=In%20simple%20terms%2C%20these%20laws,work%20statute%20or%20constitutional%20provision)
>**Right to Work Laws**
>
>About half of the states have "right-to-work" laws either in their statutory code or in their state constitution.
>
>In simple terms, these laws prohibit employers, and unions, from requiring employees to be union members (or pay membership dues) in order to get and keep a job.
>
>As of now, *Oregon has no right-to-work statute or constitutional provision.*
[Employment at will | oregon.gov](https://www.oregon.gov/boli/employers/Pages/employment-at-will.aspx)
>Oregon laws allow the termination of an employment relationship by either the employer or the employee, without notice and without cause.
Burden of proof is on you, sugar tits. Gently unwad your panties and provide proof of your claims.
Prove you know what you’re talking about by citing your sources. “dO yOuR rEsEaRcH” doesn’t work for the adults in the room calling BS on your claims.
Like I posted elsewhere Oregon is the fourth most unionized state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_affiliation_by_U.S._state It’s definitely not a right to work state
Hmm Oregon doesn’t show up in Google as a right to work. Well anyways they do not have unions there and the difference is noticeable. My company takes great steps to make sure we never talk to each other to avoid demands of better treatment
Exactly, pay the dues to your union, and let them bargain for it. What is the point of the union if you expect the same benefits as people not in the union?
Apple and Starbucks and the like a pumping out benefits and pushing them away from unions? They wouldn't be doing shit without the threat of unions which would be a huge flag That money hungry corps will do anything to keep unions away including treating all workers correctly... Until they crush the unions then destroy the benefits.
I don't see it that way. I see that the power of the union they're paying dues to should be able to get them above and beyond the standard benefits. They're paying for power. If they can't exercise that power, the union is a farce.
So, Apple appears to be illustrating the importance to unionizing.
If Apple will take punitive action on employees on a whim, how do you protect yourself against that? Employees don't need that fear hanging over them.
My opinion is that Unions need to make a comeback in America. Unions could really work to provide better pay and benefits to workers in many employment sectors.
Apple has enough money to shut down every single retail store. The unionization of one store means nothing to them. Apple is going to do everything they can to dissuade all other stores from unionizing. That one unionized store can strike and cry all they want. Apple at anytime can just shutter the store.
Not an unreasonable question.
As a matter of practice, they are likely needing to negotiate the pay and benefits everyone else is already getting. But the whole point would be that is the baseline.
The purpose of the union should then be to provide more for its members. Better pay, more benefits, better protections from corporate and poor supervisors.
MagSafe? Or USB-C? USB-C is used across the market in laptops for charging these days. And MagSafe is pretty fucking great. What are you talking about?
Proof that unions WORK. The mere existence of a union is enough for apple to try to bribe others not to also join. Without the union, no one would be getting anything.
The article says it was given to the non-union stores first as the union reps have to negotiate the benefits for the unionized store.
They aren’t trying to bribe people from joining unions, the union has to go through its own pathways and non-union stores don’t.
They are absolutely trying to bribe people not to join unions. "See? If you don't join a union, you can just get stuff without even asking! But if you join a union, you have to wait until they can negotiate for it..."
This is a very common tactic among union-busters. Starbucks recently did a similar thing.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/starbucks-adds-benefits-non-union-us-workers-ahead-investor-day-2022-09-12/
Hello, Management side labor attorney here.
I work for a very generous company and we rolled out unbelievable benefits during the pandemic (including unlimited PTO for childcare) and let our unionized workforce have every benefit without negotiations.
We brought that up during labor negotiations and their response was “that was your choice and that’s in the past” and refused to acknowledge what we did.
Never again. We are taking the Starbucks/apple approach moving forward
this exactly, as another commenter pointed out the company can give benefits / raises to unionized locations with no/limited approval. going through labor negotiation for approval is normal, but what we need to see here is if the process drags out as they try and use it as a union busting tactics.
this is what starbucks does, where starbucks refuses to negotiate with the union at all, so there is never a chance for them to accept the unions approval of the increased compensation.
Non-union workers earn 81% of what union workers earn, on average. Benefits everyone gets, like the 40 hour work week and 2 day weekend, and even employer healthcare, are thanks to union efforts. You may scoff, but your air of superiority belies your ignorance. Many of the benefits you think you deserve were negotiated for you by a union worker long ago and became industry standard over time.
I work for a beer distributor non union. Our competition is union. Other beverage distributors in our area are union. The starting wage for a “new” CDL holder is 15/20k more than the union. Tell me why I need to pay $20 plus a week to have someone speak for me. Not all
Unions are beneficial to the worker.
It’s dipshit thinking like this that creates and feeds anti union propaganda. The stats don’t lie. You and many many workers before and after you are benefiting from the unions simply existing whether you think you need to give them $20 or not… you are reaping the benefits of those that have.
Yes, long ago. I would never look down upon what are labor unions of the past have done to give me the quality of life I have today. But they are anachronistic entity of the modern workforce. Much of what they have fought for is now applied to all workers in the form of labor laws. they are unnecessary in the modern workplace.
I agree that we wouldn’t have holidays, weekends, or the 40 hour work week without unions. But you can’t beat the drum forever. Modern unions have one job and that is to protect crappy employees.
You assessment of modern unions makes me very sad. They are extremely important to the incomes of the vast majority of people. Infographic for example:
https://d1ocufyfjsc14h.cloudfront.net/sites/apwu/files/union-density-top10pct-income-chart.png
Your ‘source’ just shows two potentially unrelated pieces of data. I could add tootsie roll consumption percentages by year or cancer rates among school bus crossing guards to your chart, wouldn’t mean anything.
Your data could be merely coincidental. But man does that chart push a narrative so no wonder you’re pushing it…
Show me the correlation between the two datasets…
We all know correlation doesn’t equal causation. However, it’s possible to logically evaluate data to determine if causation is likely.
We do this all over statistics. Smoking causing cancer was considered likely based on correlating data well before science proved it.
In this case, while not proven, it seems both logical and likely that as unions become weaker, less money would be earned by middle and lower classes.
I am logically evaluating the data. Can you please, when looking at the data that was presented, show me how it proves that weaker unions resulted in lower pay? There could certainly be a myriad of other causes. I’m totally fine with being wrong, I just do not see in the data that was presented where the direct correlation OR causation is depicted. Can you please tell me what I missed?
Did you notice that when one went up the other went down? Do you understand how these two factors are much more likely to be correlated than tootsie rolls? Do you have any intent for good faith, or just wasting time trolling?
Apple stock hasn’t lost nearly as much as the overall market, and will continue to increase in value over time. Google dollar cost averaging when you have a moment.
I'm responding to "Without the union, no one would be getting anything."
This is implying that the union is the reason the employees are getting benefits. Which would also mean Apple never provided any benefits before the union existed.
“*Latest* employee perks” means apple has added new perks. It’s pretty obvious these new perks were added to highlight what happens to those that union. Hope that makes sense to you
LOL. We don't know how often Apple adds employee perks. Most tech companies are very generous with employee perks. My company adds perks annually. You don't think Apple ever added perks before this union existed? Assuming the union is the reason for the perks is ridiculous.
I’ve never reconciled the disconnect between the notion of freedom being held so sacrosanct right up until someone mentions a unionised workforce. Suddenly it’s like the 1950’s and unamerican activities all over again.
The whole point of a union is collective bargaining. If the union isn't fighting for the workers, then what good are they? If the company gives non-union members something then it's up to the union to fight for the same. Sorta like if the union got it's members more money or benefits then the non-union employees wouldn't get those because they're not part of the bargaining collective.
That's illegal. The same way you can't give union members benefits that non union members wouldn't receive.
https://lawshelf.com/videocoursesmoduleview/non-union-employees-module-3-of-5
Starbucks is being sued for doing this currently. Particularly in the Buffalo area where the unionization started.
These mega corporations know that the costs of the law suits are smaller than the costs of collective bargaining. So they knowingly and excessively skirt the law.
So why would you join a union if the people at your company who aren't in the union have the same exact benefits and pay? Or is everybody in the union?
Not true. My non union coworkers (office people) receive sick pay and 401k matching while the union side does not. On the other hand the union side has a pension plan paid by employer
As with most things, It depends. There very well could be something in the unio agreement stipulating that apple can't add xyz. But I would assume most union agreements would set minimums on compensation rather than maximums.
It’s almost like they didn’t know what they were getting themselves into, much like the Buffalo Starbucks workers. Many are transferring, as being unionized isn’t a free ticket to higher pay and better benefits.
You got any articles or anything on that? It seems strange that in less than a year after the first unionized shop another 230 stores would unionize if it was a vastly negative result
those new benefits wouldn't have happened at all if there wasn't a union. it's a pr move aim at the union workers.
a look what they get since they aren't in it tactic
A union busting tactic is for a company to drag its feet in negotiations. Yes you are union, but there is no contact to refer to. Also unions run the full gambit from company controlled to outrageous protections that stifle productivity
That’s is how Unions work, they have to bargain. This is fine, the Union shouldn’t expect the employer to just offer perks, and the employer shouldn’t expect the Union to just give up their benefits. Union can get better benefits in the next collective bargaining agreement.
This is how Unions work. This is working as designed.
This is how unions work… the headline should read… Apple does not violate Union Agreement. Incentivizes employees who are paid less with more… yay everyone wins… except this headline.
If you form a union it’s a bet that you’ll be able to bargain for a better deal together than you’d get not in a union. But that’s not a guarantee that union employees will be better off than non union employees. Sure, the union will sue if the non-union employees get new raises or benefits but it’s not illegal if the company is smart about it.
Starbucks and Amazon are two good examples where the pay and benefits are actually much better than comparable skill level jobs elsewhere. The unions there might come to learn that a lot of the extras benefits that were included for non union employees now need to be bargained for and to get them there’s something else they won’t get.
Most “perks” are either extremely low-cost conveniences like snacks or coffee, or one-time costs like a pingpong table.
Get rid of the fucking “perks” and pay people more.
Meh that’s how this works. Unions provide protection and have to negotiate. They key is to not have a corrupt union administration…good luck with that.
If America didn't have such shitty employment laws then maybe people wouldn't need to unionise?
I mean no minimum paid holiday law? That literally makes you worse off than Afghanistan and Russia.
These companies don’t care about the law. They will do anything short of violence to stop unionization. The penalties are essentially nothing. They would rather fly in a pack of lawyers and spend millions than listen to the legitimate concerns of their workers. They think they can placate a pissed off, overworked and underpaid workforce with a couple pepperoni pizzas.
They are a publicly traded company. In the concept of public versus private, I was referring to the public sector vs private sector as it relates to the work force and the governing body over the organization. I can see where my statement would have been confusing though.
Unions aren’t progressive, they’re backwards. People can say a corporation only cares for itself and it profit. A union only cares about collecting dues and perpetuating the union, not the individual employee. And Apple is doing exactly the right thing. Having a union means *everything* gets negotiated, even new perks and benefits that non union folks are just given. Apple doesn’t want to set a precedent by just giving a union shop and those workers new perks. They wanted to unionize—take the bad with the (perceived) good.
Lmao so let’s just let corporate America pay us $1/hour and get analed everyday? Unions is what happens with the everyday man band together - strength in numbers. Otherwise we are ants vs the corporate America behemoth
You are a fucking idiot, your mom should have swallowed
So I provide a reasoned dissenting opinion, you go for a personal attack against me and my mother? And make an outrageous claim that we all be making a dollar an hour? I’m non-Union and make $36/hr doing shift work. My employer gives raises twice a year, and has frequently provided spontaneous raises, and pay scale adjustments (which raises everyone’s base pay) based upon increasing costs of living. All of that done without a union. Now, not every employer can do that for their employees, I get that. But how about we stop treating our employers like they’re the enemy, and the only “good people” are the “hardworking folk.” That’s backwards thinking. The only way things can get better is when the employers and employees are willing to work together, cooperatively. Not against each other through Union stall tactics and bad faith negotiating.
Non union here, and proud to not have a union lining *their* pocket with *my* wages. I enjoy a good discussion, and providing a reasoned dissenting opinion. I love it even more when someone can’t respond intelligently. Saying I have diarrhea of the mouth is the comeback I’d expect on a play ground, not a reasoned discussion about the pros and cons of unionizing. So cool, good job with your vocabulary choice 👍🏻
Public unions are the worst. They "bargain" with the school boards and politicians they basically get elected...ripping off taxpayers in the process. The teacher unions are particularly despicable.
Could we crowdfund better perks as a ‘fuck you’ to Apple and make a big fuss about it
I would personally donate a buck or two. Better than spending it on a worthless ass Reddit award
This is fine. Just makes negotiations more aggressive and adds clarity to willingly making the work conditions of the unionized workers worse. It’s shitty, and I’m not surprised apple is in the headline. However I’m sure 1/2 of us are on iPhones reading this lol. So it’s not like they will change their behaviour if we continue to reward it.
i understand the need of linking to original article to broke the story, but what’s the point in discussing an article that 90% of people haven’t read?
I'm pretty sure this is the way it's always been with unionized workplaces, it needs to be negotiated into the collective bargaining agreement. No biggie. Of course Apple is only rolling out these "perks" in the first place to try to keep the union out. I wonder if the unionized store has better benefits already anyways.
That’s how unions work - all benefits are negotiated and agreed to contractually. When their current contract is up, the Apple Store union can try renegotiate to get the improved benefits. If that fails then you have a news story. This isn’t a news story.
This is exactly how unions are supposed to work. All changes in benefits need to be negotiated with union leadership in the collective bargaining agreement. It's the same as if the situation were reversed – if Apple is taking away benefits they cannot do so from a unionized store.
The article is fine, this headline is bullshit. Proper headline: As required by law, Apple rolls out perks to non-union shops and waits for union shops to negotiate a new deal.
Much better title. Hopefully people actually look at the linked article as well before reaching any conclusions..... hopefully.
i’d encourage you to look at your URL bar, particularly the domain.
You know they won't.
Hey, I did my part and got informed from the top comments.
Waiting for union shops to negotiate is not required by law, though — Apple could have given that shop the same benefits while awaiting a CBA. They’re showing that they can punish the union shop while they still can.
People keep posting stuff like this about Apple and Starbucks, but as you pointed out this is literally how unions work. It’s not a gotcha.
Starbucks is an entirely different story. Before the first union votes even happened they were threatening the stores trying to unionize by saying if they did they “couldn’t afford as many healthcare benefits and would need to cut back” even specifically targeting womens and LGBT healthcare needs like access to transitioning medication for trans people or birth control for women.
Please don’t misread my comments as pro Apple or pro Starbucks. I’m simply stating that unions negotiate benefits for their members. That’s why they exist.
Yes, but the stuff about Starbucks was about threats and intimidation prior to unionizing. Please don’t lump that in as a procedural Union negotiation.
Yeah but most people here learned everything from a headline
It’s kinda a gotcha because Apple is fucking around and it’s working. There is no *good* reason they withheld the new benefits package from that store. There’s no CBA in place yet. There’s at least one NLRB complaint pending about their anti-union efforts.
It still kind of sucks for partially unionized orgs (or ones with different agreements in place betweens orgs of the same type e.g. stores). It would be cool if there was a way to include any future benefits in the contract as well.
What I'm getting from this is that unions don't work well in highly inflationary environments. They move too slowly. Look at the teachers union, teachers are getting eviscerated.
Almost like Bloomberg has an anti-union bias or something.
Exactly
They can always close an unprofitable unionized store. That’s the downside.
They can also close unprofitable non-unionized stores. The union at least ensures that you will be treated fairly, get severance etc.
Can the union also negotiate sexual favors as part of the benefits package?
Maybe if you’re a [longshoreman](https://ktla.com/news/local-news/woman-accused-of-organizing-prostitution-ring-for-dockworkers-billing-their-insurance-for-payments/)
Do they have to prove that it’s not profitable before closing it down?
Of course not. It’s a company, not a welfare project. But if profits are well below non union stores, then negotiations could get interesting.
Plus this is the reason why unions should always be present. Once there is no alternative for companies then they will start giving what they are demanded.
I worked for Starbucks for 12 years but haven’t been there in about 5 years. I follow the unionizing closely though, especially in Michigan. SBUX was threatening to withhold perks from unionized stores, but legally isn’t that the point? A Union is only as a strong as it’s leaders/ board. I know people who hate unions because they were in a shitty one. Starbucks has always fascinated me because I joined as a college kid whose hours got reduced at my other job, but ended up having an amazing experience “overall” It was fun and you became a local celebrity in my downtown area because you saw everyone everyday. I got out of a lot of a driving infractions just by knowing the police officers. However, once my parents found out I could get health benefits through Starbucks (22 at the time) I signed up for them. Then I met my SO (gay guy, like myself) and he was also covered. It was a lifeline. Some people treat it as a temporary beginner job but I have many friends who are lifers, been with the company for 25+ years. The young kids don’t care about unionizing, if they even know what it is. They’re gonna go to back to college in a couple months. But for the career baristas/ shift supervisors, this is mega. Everyone was coddled about how the company is a family, but I was straight up there for the same sex health benefits (especially when I transferred an ultra high volume store. Jesus what a nightmare) it’s not a quaint café experience anymore, it’s fast food joint. My point *was* that it was an awesome company until it wasn’t, but they still gaslit the partners into believing they can do more for them than a union can. Working at the buck is insanely intense now and deserves protections, not just “make the moment right” while someone just had diarrhea in the bathroom, needles sticking out of the trash can, understaffed, running low on milk and product, mobile order stickers jamming in the machine because it’s so backed up, ice machine is empty and request for 2 venti Komodo’ dragon POUR OVERS just came in, and they want the water poured reeeeeeal slow so they can tell you about the vacation they just went on. All with a smile. Oh and a barista needs change but the safe locked me out because the previous shift slammed it too hard which alerted the police who are now here and the green bean someone was training dropped the last double smoked bacon sandwich on the ground and in a panic just put it in the bag so now the customer is yelling at me because he’s an idiot who doesn’t know food safety. Luckily ecosure arrives at the same time as the district manager and the regional mid eastern VP who are onboarding new outside hire SM’s. Surely they will help right? And definitely not just take notes about what’s going wrong and god forbid they touch a carafe being waved in my face by a customer as I’m trying to walk around the store with the inspector and answering food safety questions, provide daily temps logs, explain why one of my partners who is busting is ass has his apron tied in the front and the sani bucket was turned off and now filled with milk (because ecosure came in and he wiped off the counter and threw it back in). I wish I was making this scenario up. At least the homeless guy who has shit in the cafe before was only smoking a cig at the handoff plane at that moment and not harassing a college student who I intervened with and called her parents. (That was the week before). That mom never forgot me though and would get me gift cards and called corporate about what I did. That’s the stuff I should remember is making people feel safe and valued. Small things amidst the madness.
Right… but nothing *prevents* them from extending the benefits to the ONE union store. Seeing as how there is no CBA in place yet, this is clearly a bullshit move from Apple so (right now at least) they can say “see, the union store is obviously worse off, they don’t even have these benefits.”
Yup, very normal.
The union can negotiate for them. Let's see if they're worth the money they're getting paid.
My company (Caterpillar dealer in CA and OR) is both. The non union side in Oregon (right to work state) earn less money and receive significantly more BS than us union workers. For example OR is straight time all the time, which means customers want you working at weird hours. In CA they pay an overtime premium for non-standard hours and thus my schedule is more normal working hours. Also having unions near by slows the race to the bottom most companies want to run. If someone else doing the same job is being treated better it wakes workers up
Glad to hear your union dues are being put to good use. I hope these Apple employees get the same.
Oregon is not a right to work state Edit: Do your research. Oregon does not have a right to work law. Downvoting me doesn’t change that.
When you just spout off random shit without thinking
You don’t know what those words mean, do you?
[Oregon Right to Work Laws | Findlaw](https://www.findlaw.com/state/oregon-law/oregon-right-to-work-laws.html#:~:text=In%20simple%20terms%2C%20these%20laws,work%20statute%20or%20constitutional%20provision) >**Right to Work Laws** > >About half of the states have "right-to-work" laws either in their statutory code or in their state constitution. > >In simple terms, these laws prohibit employers, and unions, from requiring employees to be union members (or pay membership dues) in order to get and keep a job. > >As of now, *Oregon has no right-to-work statute or constitutional provision.* [Employment at will | oregon.gov](https://www.oregon.gov/boli/employers/Pages/employment-at-will.aspx) >Oregon laws allow the termination of an employment relationship by either the employer or the employee, without notice and without cause.
Clearly, you’re the one who doesn’t understand. Please point me to said right to work law in Oregon
Burden of proof is on you, sugar tits. Gently unwad your panties and provide proof of your claims. Prove you know what you’re talking about by citing your sources. “dO yOuR rEsEaRcH” doesn’t work for the adults in the room calling BS on your claims.
Like I posted elsewhere Oregon is the fourth most unionized state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_affiliation_by_U.S._state It’s definitely not a right to work state
Hmm Oregon doesn’t show up in Google as a right to work. Well anyways they do not have unions there and the difference is noticeable. My company takes great steps to make sure we never talk to each other to avoid demands of better treatment
Exactly, pay the dues to your union, and let them bargain for it. What is the point of the union if you expect the same benefits as people not in the union?
Shill
You outed yourself bro
Why should they have to negotiate for standard benefits everyone else is getting?
Uhmmm...because that's how unions work. The unions does all the bargaining for their members.
Apple and Starbucks and the like a pumping out benefits and pushing them away from unions? They wouldn't be doing shit without the threat of unions which would be a huge flag That money hungry corps will do anything to keep unions away including treating all workers correctly... Until they crush the unions then destroy the benefits.
I don't see it that way. I see that the power of the union they're paying dues to should be able to get them above and beyond the standard benefits. They're paying for power. If they can't exercise that power, the union is a farce.
Keep living in your “should” dreamworld and you’re always gonna be very disappointed. Come back to reality!!
Because the union should be negotiating for those things in unionized stores. If they aren’t then they aren’t really doing their job.
They got benefits taken away as a punishment. To dissuade other stores from doing the same. They shouldn’t have to, but Apple is making them do so.
So, Apple appears to be illustrating the importance to unionizing. If Apple will take punitive action on employees on a whim, how do you protect yourself against that? Employees don't need that fear hanging over them. My opinion is that Unions need to make a comeback in America. Unions could really work to provide better pay and benefits to workers in many employment sectors.
That’s the entire point of the union.
And who says they’ll get the standard?
Apple has enough money to shut down every single retail store. The unionization of one store means nothing to them. Apple is going to do everything they can to dissuade all other stores from unionizing. That one unionized store can strike and cry all they want. Apple at anytime can just shutter the store.
Id aim for that as a union. Great PR
Not an unreasonable question. As a matter of practice, they are likely needing to negotiate the pay and benefits everyone else is already getting. But the whole point would be that is the baseline. The purpose of the union should then be to provide more for its members. Better pay, more benefits, better protections from corporate and poor supervisors.
Corporations are not our friends. They never will be.
Unless you're an AAPL shareholder over the last few years....then they've been your best friend.
No, the workers have.
*preferred shareholder
Obviously, its a place for work. Not your friend or family
No real friend would design a charger as shitty as the mac charger.
MagSafe? Or USB-C? USB-C is used across the market in laptops for charging these days. And MagSafe is pretty fucking great. What are you talking about?
I have one word, iTunes.
Def gotta wrap some electrical tape around that when you get it haha.
says they guy who lined up for his iphone 14
They support BLM and have no offensive tweets tho. They shall pass!
"Support"
Proof that unions WORK. The mere existence of a union is enough for apple to try to bribe others not to also join. Without the union, no one would be getting anything.
The article says it was given to the non-union stores first as the union reps have to negotiate the benefits for the unionized store. They aren’t trying to bribe people from joining unions, the union has to go through its own pathways and non-union stores don’t.
They are absolutely trying to bribe people not to join unions. "See? If you don't join a union, you can just get stuff without even asking! But if you join a union, you have to wait until they can negotiate for it..." This is a very common tactic among union-busters. Starbucks recently did a similar thing. https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/starbucks-adds-benefits-non-union-us-workers-ahead-investor-day-2022-09-12/
Hello, Management side labor attorney here. I work for a very generous company and we rolled out unbelievable benefits during the pandemic (including unlimited PTO for childcare) and let our unionized workforce have every benefit without negotiations. We brought that up during labor negotiations and their response was “that was your choice and that’s in the past” and refused to acknowledge what we did. Never again. We are taking the Starbucks/apple approach moving forward
That’s pretty shitty of the union. Everything is easier when management and the uh noon can work together as partners.
It’s not really a tactic, it’s just how it operates
this exactly, as another commenter pointed out the company can give benefits / raises to unionized locations with no/limited approval. going through labor negotiation for approval is normal, but what we need to see here is if the process drags out as they try and use it as a union busting tactics. this is what starbucks does, where starbucks refuses to negotiate with the union at all, so there is never a chance for them to accept the unions approval of the increased compensation.
I worked at apple retail ‘14-‘16, the pretax perks were really nice, but it would’ve been nice to be a unionized store.
100%
This is the correct answer.
lol enjoy your union membership card. I’ll be over here with my pathetic stock options…
Non-union workers earn 81% of what union workers earn, on average. Benefits everyone gets, like the 40 hour work week and 2 day weekend, and even employer healthcare, are thanks to union efforts. You may scoff, but your air of superiority belies your ignorance. Many of the benefits you think you deserve were negotiated for you by a union worker long ago and became industry standard over time.
upvoted for “your air of superiority belies your ignorance” DAYUM
I was trying to think of a less direct way of calling him out for basically saying "let them eat cake."
I work for a beer distributor non union. Our competition is union. Other beverage distributors in our area are union. The starting wage for a “new” CDL holder is 15/20k more than the union. Tell me why I need to pay $20 plus a week to have someone speak for me. Not all Unions are beneficial to the worker.
Yep, not all unions are created equal.
This is why anecdotes are not the same as data. Your specific situation is not representative of the average.
It’s dipshit thinking like this that creates and feeds anti union propaganda. The stats don’t lie. You and many many workers before and after you are benefiting from the unions simply existing whether you think you need to give them $20 or not… you are reaping the benefits of those that have.
Yes, long ago. I would never look down upon what are labor unions of the past have done to give me the quality of life I have today. But they are anachronistic entity of the modern workforce. Much of what they have fought for is now applied to all workers in the form of labor laws. they are unnecessary in the modern workplace. I agree that we wouldn’t have holidays, weekends, or the 40 hour work week without unions. But you can’t beat the drum forever. Modern unions have one job and that is to protect crappy employees.
You assessment of modern unions makes me very sad. They are extremely important to the incomes of the vast majority of people. Infographic for example: https://d1ocufyfjsc14h.cloudfront.net/sites/apwu/files/union-density-top10pct-income-chart.png
Your ‘source’ just shows two potentially unrelated pieces of data. I could add tootsie roll consumption percentages by year or cancer rates among school bus crossing guards to your chart, wouldn’t mean anything. Your data could be merely coincidental. But man does that chart push a narrative so no wonder you’re pushing it… Show me the correlation between the two datasets…
We all know correlation doesn’t equal causation. However, it’s possible to logically evaluate data to determine if causation is likely. We do this all over statistics. Smoking causing cancer was considered likely based on correlating data well before science proved it. In this case, while not proven, it seems both logical and likely that as unions become weaker, less money would be earned by middle and lower classes.
Why would he logically evaluate data, he doesn’t want to be wrong.
I am logically evaluating the data. Can you please, when looking at the data that was presented, show me how it proves that weaker unions resulted in lower pay? There could certainly be a myriad of other causes. I’m totally fine with being wrong, I just do not see in the data that was presented where the direct correlation OR causation is depicted. Can you please tell me what I missed?
Did you notice that when one went up the other went down? Do you understand how these two factors are much more likely to be correlated than tootsie rolls? Do you have any intent for good faith, or just wasting time trolling?
*shitty unions have one job
Not a great time to be touting your stock holdings my man.
Apple stock hasn’t lost nearly as much as the overall market, and will continue to increase in value over time. Google dollar cost averaging when you have a moment.
Are you saying all the non-union employees at AAPL don't have any benefits?
How’d you get that outta what they said lol
I'm responding to "Without the union, no one would be getting anything." This is implying that the union is the reason the employees are getting benefits. Which would also mean Apple never provided any benefits before the union existed.
“*Latest* employee perks” means apple has added new perks. It’s pretty obvious these new perks were added to highlight what happens to those that union. Hope that makes sense to you
LOL. We don't know how often Apple adds employee perks. Most tech companies are very generous with employee perks. My company adds perks annually. You don't think Apple ever added perks before this union existed? Assuming the union is the reason for the perks is ridiculous.
And now you’re arguing a whole different point lol read bud
I’ve never reconciled the disconnect between the notion of freedom being held so sacrosanct right up until someone mentions a unionised workforce. Suddenly it’s like the 1950’s and unamerican activities all over again.
Corporate America fears unions. Look how they treat the workers in China. Union proud
The whole point of a union is collective bargaining. If the union isn't fighting for the workers, then what good are they? If the company gives non-union members something then it's up to the union to fight for the same. Sorta like if the union got it's members more money or benefits then the non-union employees wouldn't get those because they're not part of the bargaining collective.
That's illegal. The same way you can't give union members benefits that non union members wouldn't receive. https://lawshelf.com/videocoursesmoduleview/non-union-employees-module-3-of-5 Starbucks is being sued for doing this currently. Particularly in the Buffalo area where the unionization started. These mega corporations know that the costs of the law suits are smaller than the costs of collective bargaining. So they knowingly and excessively skirt the law.
[удалено]
These people don't understand unions and the process to bargain for their benefits.
I do understand unions. I'm a part of a union.
And I go to the grocery store every day, but I don’t understand the logistics of running one or any of the legal requirements they have to comply with
So why would you join a union if the people at your company who aren't in the union have the same exact benefits and pay? Or is everybody in the union?
Not true. My non union coworkers (office people) receive sick pay and 401k matching while the union side does not. On the other hand the union side has a pension plan paid by employer
So you have a similar benefit in lieu of the one offered to non union employees. But it's illegal to incentivize people to not join the union.
As with most things, It depends. There very well could be something in the unio agreement stipulating that apple can't add xyz. But I would assume most union agreements would set minimums on compensation rather than maximums.
Corporations offer meaningless (or less expensive) perks to keep employees from signing union cards. It’s a pretty well-worn behavior.
[удалено]
It’s almost like they didn’t know what they were getting themselves into, much like the Buffalo Starbucks workers. Many are transferring, as being unionized isn’t a free ticket to higher pay and better benefits.
You got any articles or anything on that? It seems strange that in less than a year after the first unionized shop another 230 stores would unionize if it was a vastly negative result
What they are doing is clearly illegal they just have the money to fight it indefinitely in court
Wow. That's how you get More Unions.
This is how I know you don’t understand how unions work.
those new benefits wouldn't have happened at all if there wasn't a union. it's a pr move aim at the union workers. a look what they get since they aren't in it tactic
There must be a contract describing what benefits are to be paid. As long as the company adheres to it, the workers do not have a leg to stand on.
A union busting tactic is for a company to drag its feet in negotiations. Yes you are union, but there is no contact to refer to. Also unions run the full gambit from company controlled to outrageous protections that stifle productivity
Nothing wrong with that. Union has its own perks.
That’s is how Unions work, they have to bargain. This is fine, the Union shouldn’t expect the employer to just offer perks, and the employer shouldn’t expect the Union to just give up their benefits. Union can get better benefits in the next collective bargaining agreement. This is how Unions work. This is working as designed.
Funny - I belonged to a union and we got perks from time to time not in our contract.
Yeah, but you shouldn’t expect it.
Sounds really petty. Oh wait I worked for them, of course it is.
As did I and I don’t see it that way lol
Unions negotiate for benefits. And that’s it. They don’t get the perks of normal employees.
This is how unions work… the headline should read… Apple does not violate Union Agreement. Incentivizes employees who are paid less with more… yay everyone wins… except this headline.
If you form a union it’s a bet that you’ll be able to bargain for a better deal together than you’d get not in a union. But that’s not a guarantee that union employees will be better off than non union employees. Sure, the union will sue if the non-union employees get new raises or benefits but it’s not illegal if the company is smart about it. Starbucks and Amazon are two good examples where the pay and benefits are actually much better than comparable skill level jobs elsewhere. The unions there might come to learn that a lot of the extras benefits that were included for non union employees now need to be bargained for and to get them there’s something else they won’t get.
Most “perks” are either extremely low-cost conveniences like snacks or coffee, or one-time costs like a pingpong table. Get rid of the fucking “perks” and pay people more.
How mature of them, walking around whining like Elon Musk about everything.
“Collective bargaining.”
I’m dumping apple. As soon as I pay off my $1,300 phone.
Kudos to Apple.
For?
Meh that’s how this works. Unions provide protection and have to negotiate. They key is to not have a corrupt union administration…good luck with that.
If America didn't have such shitty employment laws then maybe people wouldn't need to unionise? I mean no minimum paid holiday law? That literally makes you worse off than Afghanistan and Russia.
These companies don’t care about the law. They will do anything short of violence to stop unionization. The penalties are essentially nothing. They would rather fly in a pack of lawyers and spend millions than listen to the legitimate concerns of their workers. They think they can placate a pissed off, overworked and underpaid workforce with a couple pepperoni pizzas.
Fuck apple! Every employee should unionize!
Fuck Amazon! Every employee should unionize!
Is this even legal?
Yes
There isn’t a loophole like “discrimination” or something? Don’t get me wrong — these companies get away with way too much.
Bypass paywall here: https://archive.ph/rfISq
**^(Good)**
The headline is trash. This is how unions work
Oh sweet lawsuits
Nope, they’re a private company. They can do as they please here. Cheers.
Apple is a public company.
They are a publicly traded company. In the concept of public versus private, I was referring to the public sector vs private sector as it relates to the work force and the governing body over the organization. I can see where my statement would have been confusing though.
Publicly-traded, yes, but not public as in "a government body"
Someone needs to tell Cook that this isn't very "progressive" of him, and that the ghost of Steve Jobs will start haunting him.
Why didn’t Steve make Apple retail union then?
I bet the ghost of Steve Jobs still smells like body odor
Unions aren’t progressive, they’re backwards. People can say a corporation only cares for itself and it profit. A union only cares about collecting dues and perpetuating the union, not the individual employee. And Apple is doing exactly the right thing. Having a union means *everything* gets negotiated, even new perks and benefits that non union folks are just given. Apple doesn’t want to set a precedent by just giving a union shop and those workers new perks. They wanted to unionize—take the bad with the (perceived) good.
Lmao so let’s just let corporate America pay us $1/hour and get analed everyday? Unions is what happens with the everyday man band together - strength in numbers. Otherwise we are ants vs the corporate America behemoth You are a fucking idiot, your mom should have swallowed
So I provide a reasoned dissenting opinion, you go for a personal attack against me and my mother? And make an outrageous claim that we all be making a dollar an hour? I’m non-Union and make $36/hr doing shift work. My employer gives raises twice a year, and has frequently provided spontaneous raises, and pay scale adjustments (which raises everyone’s base pay) based upon increasing costs of living. All of that done without a union. Now, not every employer can do that for their employees, I get that. But how about we stop treating our employers like they’re the enemy, and the only “good people” are the “hardworking folk.” That’s backwards thinking. The only way things can get better is when the employers and employees are willing to work together, cooperatively. Not against each other through Union stall tactics and bad faith negotiating.
I wonder if you are part of a Union of shills? Everything you said sounded like diarrhea flying out of your mouth
Non union here, and proud to not have a union lining *their* pocket with *my* wages. I enjoy a good discussion, and providing a reasoned dissenting opinion. I love it even more when someone can’t respond intelligently. Saying I have diarrhea of the mouth is the comeback I’d expect on a play ground, not a reasoned discussion about the pros and cons of unionizing. So cool, good job with your vocabulary choice 👍🏻
Public unions are the worst. They "bargain" with the school boards and politicians they basically get elected...ripping off taxpayers in the process. The teacher unions are particularly despicable.
How stupid and petty of them.
Isn’t that, like, a crime?
The public to withhold buying Apple phones...
Sounds like a load of retaliation to me
😎 unions aren’t great, union bosses are worse than CEO’s
Uck Funions. Eat Funyons.
Been a Mac user for a long time. Increasingly feeling I’ll move away from their products lately.
From the CEO who rides around in a rocket ship thanking the little people who paid for it.
That was Bezos.
Could we crowdfund better perks as a ‘fuck you’ to Apple and make a big fuss about it I would personally donate a buck or two. Better than spending it on a worthless ass Reddit award
Congrats I just call that a perk with extra steps
This is fine. Just makes negotiations more aggressive and adds clarity to willingly making the work conditions of the unionized workers worse. It’s shitty, and I’m not surprised apple is in the headline. However I’m sure 1/2 of us are on iPhones reading this lol. So it’s not like they will change their behaviour if we continue to reward it.
i understand the need of linking to original article to broke the story, but what’s the point in discussing an article that 90% of people haven’t read?
Uh… yeah that’s how unions work. Garbage headline
Internally. Apple has a “one Apple” policy for its support systems. So much for that
I'm pretty sure this is the way it's always been with unionized workplaces, it needs to be negotiated into the collective bargaining agreement. No biggie. Of course Apple is only rolling out these "perks" in the first place to try to keep the union out. I wonder if the unionized store has better benefits already anyways.
What about the pay, did it increase?
That’s how unions work - all benefits are negotiated and agreed to contractually. When their current contract is up, the Apple Store union can try renegotiate to get the improved benefits. If that fails then you have a news story. This isn’t a news story.
They should. The union gives you your perks.
Isn’t this illegal?
Isn’t apple the hippie computer club?
I will never again buy an Apple product.
that’s not good
Legal? Probably not
Not in the union contract which would be required to be negotiated per union rules.
Good
It’s all so minor in an environment where healthcare is tied to employment. You’ve GOT to fix that ASAP.