Apple Employees at Unionized Maryland Store Denied Latest Benefits Provided to Non-Union Workers

[bruinsrme]

Why? The union asked to be able to negotiate their benefits with Apple. According to the article, negotiations will begin soon. Seems like things are working how they are supposed to.

We‘ll see what benefits they can negotiate.
having worked at a store I was amazed at the benefits they offere their associates. The offerings are right up there with intel. I can tell you intel is a tough company to work for but their benefits are excellent.

 

[Haust]

….and this is a tech forum. I’d be interested to read the actual internal arguments between the lawyers and then contrast them with some of the off base comments posting in this thread. It’s too bad nothing ever gets settled and no one ever changes their position no matter what anyone says. I think MR would do well to just turn off comments for political topics. It’s a pointless adventure that does no good and likely does harm to the general good feeling of this forum. Less screaming at the wind and more tech talk. That’s what I think.

 

[robbietop]

"Why can't we have these benefits?"
"You can, but your Union will have to negotiate with Apple to get them."
"Why does the Union have to negotiate with Apple?"
"Why the hell did you unionize if you didn't want a Union negotiating?"

 

[bruinsrme]

"Why can't we have these benefits?"
"You can, but your Union will have to negotiate with Apple to get them."
"Why does the Union have to negotiate with Apple?"
"Why the hell did you unionize if you didn't want a Union negotiating?"

Yup, then the union will take to the media and bash apple for their own failures they weren’t able to negotiate. Then a handful of outspoken union employees will become the faces of Apple’s corporate greed.
If apple proved one thing about their business model during the pandemic, it was they don’t need a brick and mortar store to peddle their products

 

[hudson1]

Be careful to wish for a decent wage and benefits?

My understanding is that Apple is is offering this benefit after the union deal, thereby treating employees punitively because of their union status.

These Apple employees didn't seek jobs at Apple because they knew they'd be getting indecent pay and indecent benefits.

 

[hudson1]

If Apple were to cut a benefit to non-union employees, does anyone think the unionized employees would be saying "That's not fair, why aren't our benefits being cut, too?"

 

[NY Guitarist]

These Apple employees didn't seek jobs at Apple because they knew they'd be getting indecent pay and indecent benefits.

Classic strawman fallacy.

 

[NY Guitarist]

If Apple were to cut a benefit to non-union employees, does anyone think the unionized employees would be saying "That's not fair, why aren't our benefits being cut, too?"

And another strawman.

 

[NY Guitarist]

... the union will take to the media and bash apple for their own failures they weren’t able to negotiate.

Apple could have offered this benefit to all employees but AFAIK didn't.

The question is WHY did Apple treat employees differently based on their union status?

 

[NY Guitarist]

In the context of cashflow, anything that puts money in your pocket is an asset, anything that takes money from your pocket is an liability.

Salepeople and other workers quite literally put money in Apple's (and their shareholders) pocket.

Corporations choose to see them as liabilities to justify paying them as little as possible.

 

[turbineseaplane]

The question is WHY did Apple treat employees differently based on their union status?

Yep… This is literally the entire point here.
I can’t tell if some people are trying to intentionally misunderstand the situation or what…

 

[BaldiMac]

"Why can't we have these benefits?"
"You can, but your Union will have to negotiate with Apple to get them."
"Why does the Union have to negotiate with Apple?"
"Why the hell did you unionize if you didn't want a Union negotiating?"

If Apple were to cut a benefit to non-union employees, does anyone think the unionized employees would be saying "That's not fair, why aren't our benefits being cut, too?"

To be fair, the article doesn't say anything about the union employees complaining.

Apple could have offered this benefit to all employees but AFAIK didn't.

The question is WHY did Apple treat employees differently based on their union status?

Why? Because the whole point of the union is to negotiate salary and benefits. Again, Apple may offer these benefits to union employees when negotiations take place. Giving them additional benefits before negotiating would be a dumb tactic.

 

[NY Guitarist]

Again, Apple may offer these benefits to union employees when negotiations take place. Giving them additional benefits before negotiating would be a dumb tactic.

You're moving the goalposts.

Did non-union employees negotiate for these benefits? Why would Apple offer these benefits to non-union employees and not at least offer them to union employees?

 

[cocky jeremy]

You love to see it. Now shut that store down so they can all go join the unemployment line.

 

[cocky jeremy]

You're moving the goalposts.

Did non-union employees negotiate for these benefits? Why would Apple offer these benefits to non-union employees and not at least offer them to union employees?

Because they want them to regret this union BS. Personally, I'd just close the store and be done with it.

 

[BaldiMac]

You're moving the goalposts.

No, I'm not. You asked a question. I answered it.

Did non-union employees negotiate for these benefits?

I doubt it. That's not how it usually works.

Why would Apple offer these benefits to non-union employees and not at least offer them to union employees?

Again, according to the article, negotiations haven't started yet. They may very well offer them to union employees as a normal part of reasonable negotiations.

They could also screw over union employees in negotiations. At that point, it would be reasonable to complain about Apple's tactics.

 

[hudson1]

To be fair, the article doesn't say anything about the union employees complaining.

....

You're right, it doesn't. However, it does say this:

"Apple has been continually improving benefits for retail workers in an effort to prevent unionization."

What info is MacRumors citing to support this claim? I think the more obvious reason for increasing benefits is to retain workers in a very tight labor market. All kinds of companies are doing this, not just the very few fighting off unionization.

 

[bruinsrme]

Salepeople and other workers quite literally put money in Apple's (and their shareholders) pocket.

Corporations choose to see them as liabilities to justify paying them as little as possible.

Many jobs out there. Meanwhile apple, for some reason, doesn’t have trouble finding employees.
‘do you have any idea what benefits apple offers to even their seasonal help?

 

[emmab2006]

Apple when it comes to its employee’s , treat them like utter TRASH, this has been something of a repeating problem for apple , even back in the 1990’s you had issues with it.

 

[NY Guitarist]

No, I'm not. You asked a question. I answered it.

You moved the goalposts regarding negotiation.

I asked why they would offer them to non-union employees who didn't negotiate for them and not offer them to union employees.

 

[BaldiMac]

Apple when it comes to its employee’s , treat them like utter TRASH, this has been something of a repeating problem for apple , even back in the 1990’s you had issues with it.

YMMV, but current Apple retail salary and benefits are far from TRASH from my point of view.

You moved the goalposts regarding negotiation.

I asked why they would offer them to non-union employees who didn't negotiate for them and not offer them to union employees.

I simply answered your question. Again, union employees formed a union in order to negotiate salary and benefits. According to the article, the negotiations will begin soon. Whether or not these new benefits will be part of the union package will be determined during the negotiation.

Seems pretty obvious that the primary reason to offer them to non-union employees is to better attract and retain talent. The likely reason that the weren't automatically given to union employees is that it would be a stupid negotiating tactic to give away something that could be offered in exchange for a concession from the union.

 

[NY Guitarist]

The likely reason that the weren't automatically given to union employees is that it would be a stupid negotiating tactic to give away something that could be offered in exchange for a concession from the union.

You're making my point for me.

Apple is using union membership as deciding factor to discriminate against certain employees and not compensate employees equally.

 

[BaldiMac]

Apple is using union membership as deciding factor to discriminate against certain employees and not compensate employees equally.

Correct. But what you are describing is how things are supposed to work. Union employees made the decision to negotiate their benefits separately from non-union employees. That's the point of the union.

Now, if Apple makes the decision to withhold these benefits in exchange for nothing during the union negotiations, then we'd have something to complain about. At that point, Apple would be illegally punishing union members.

 

[0924487]

Salepeople and other workers quite literally put money in Apple's (and their shareholders) pocket.

Corporations choose to see them as liabilities to justify paying them as little as possible.

Sales are assets, the sales people are liabilities.

Liabilities are not necessarily bad. Your student debt is a liability, but it served a purpose for you. Same with sales people Apple hires.

 

[kingtj1971]

I am on the side of all union workers in America. Change only happens from the bottom up. Don't expect any corporation to ever feel any sympathy for their employees. Demanding is the only thing that can achieve dignity and a fair wage.

I support the right of people to choose to unionize. That's part of having "freedom" in America, IMO. You should be able to opt to bargain individually or as a collective, as you see fit.

That said? I'm not a fan of unions, in general. I think they perpetuate this idea that "the employer is always the bad guy", when especially for small to mid-sized companies, I find that's often not true at all. With most large corporations, there are just so many people working there, it's hard not to be reduced to just another number in a payroll or H.R. database. But people choosing to work in those environments should know that's what they're getting into.

Most of my life, I took far lower pay than I could have made with my skill-sets. That's primarily because I'd rather work for a smaller business (family owned manufacturing places, for example). I could literally go out to eat with the owner of the company and chat about all sorts of things with him over lunch. I was empowered to make decisions that affected the whole company, or at least to have a meeting with upper management where a decision could be made right there to do or not do a project. I got to know everyone working there on a first name basis, and it wasn't difficult or confusing to figure out who I needed to go to for a given issue or question. Unfortunately, these shops had union employees doing the production work who almost always bad-mouthed the owners and made ridiculous demands that just hurt all of us. (EG. We have to have computer workstations within less than 20 feet of anyplace in the shop we work!)