Apple Employees at Unionized Maryland Store File Labor Board Complaint After Being Denied Benefits

[Admiralbison]

Apple Corporation

- anti consumer
- monopoly App store and digital markeplace
- anti-trusts from several countries
- labor law exploitations
- tax loopholes and avoidance headquartering
- discriminating against workers organizing fighting for better conditions.
and a whole other litany of issues

Apple shareholders here can defend and excuse Apple like it does no wrong all they want, but they can’t fool the growing awareness that under Apple’s the clean pristine marketing and presentations, Apple is one of the most greediest, controlling, manipulative and abusive corporations in the world.




I stand and side with Apple consumers/end users and Apple workers, NOT Apple corporation and its greedy good for nothing wealthy corporate owner shareholders.


Organize, Unionize, Socialize.

 

[5232152]

How dare individuals want to fight for fairness against a billion-dollar cooperation that would milk the entire universe if they could

 

[A Hobo]

They are pathetic losers for wanting benefits, better pay, and better working conditions? You’re defending a trillion dollar company who doesn’t care about you, or it’s employees.

I hope this is one of the most downvoted comments in MR history.

Post is deleted due to cowardice.

 

[genovelle]

Ive worked both union and non-union places over the years.
It sounds right that unionized workers would have to negotiate these benefits. After all, that is the point of the union.

As an aside, would these benefits even be offered if there were no unionized stores? It sounds like Apple is trying to pressure the union stores.

Interestingly Apple had remained one of highest paying retail employers and I believe the only that offered benefits to part-timers. Let’s not forget that when the pandemic hit and they were not considered essential workers, but they never had to worry about getting laid off. Their check kept coming every pay day.

 

[The_Joker13]

I know. I just can't stand unions. In my experience it just creates lazy workers because they know it's next to impossible to be fired. They create this weird cult like environment (calling each other "brother", ect.). And the union dues end up just buying the union bosses nice cars, houses, etc. and workers end up only seeing a small fraction at best coming back to them from what they put in. It's like a ponzi scheme.

Then just the very idea that some peon that is doing a job that literally anyone off the street can do is telling someone that had the talent, vision, money, and blood sweat and tears how they HAVE to run their company is just complete BS.

We have laws to protect workers. If any laws are being broken, then take that up with the labour board. Don't like the benefits, pay, etc. at your job? That sucks, but you're welcome to go find another one that offers what you need.

Tell me how I know you've never been in a union. I think you're confusing public unions with private unions when you cry that unions promote laziness and make it difficult to fire people. I was a member of the IBEW for 10 years, which is a private union. Let me tell you, if you're lazy and not productive, you will be fired or laid off very quickly. Let's not forget that the laws that protect workers only came to fruition through the blood, sweat, and tears of unions. 40 hr work week, overtime pay, paid holidays, etc. are all owed to unions. Public unions on the other hand, well those are a problem and need a serious overhaul in my opinion.

 

[laptech]

Is that how unions work in the US? a unionized workforce is not allowed to get pay increases or benifits unless it's first been put forward to the union for approval???

 

[MysticCow]

You know, if all these "woke" companies would treat their employees better, they wouldn't NEED to unionize. I thought "woke" companies were SUPPOSED to treat their employees better than steaming piles of garbage...

 

[mrochester]

Is that how unions work in the US? a unionized workforce is not allowed to get pay increases or benifits unless it's first been put forward to the union for approval???

That's the point of unions, they negiotiate with the employer on behalf of the employees. For instance, in the UK, the NHS union had to agree with the payrise that the government offered before any NHS employee gets that payrise, but then all NHS employees get it as opposed to just those who are in the union. But that's a bit of a different situation to this situation with Apple where the non-union workers are getting better conditions than the union workers. It's supposed to be the other way around (hence the purported benefit of unionising).

 

[NightFox]

unionization = more expensive products

i don't mind paying for better worker pay, but if you're going to complain why the next iPhone is $100 more expensive, this is why

apple passes the cost onto consumers. don't like it? don't buy it. it's very simple

This gets spouted every time Apple's hit by a ruling or cost but it simply isn't true. Apple already sell their devices at the highest cost the market will bear. If they could increase the prices without it having a negative impact on sales, they would have done so already.

 

[jshort]

Close the store.

 

[cmcbhi]

Ladies and gentlemen. Here’s a person that defends a trillion dollar company not properly paying and providing benefits for their employees.

You cannot read.
Apple has said that they will pay whatever benefits the union cares to negotiate. That's why they unionized.
So use that union you pay dues into.
Or, you could go on strike!!
Yeah!!
Thats the solution.
See how Apple gets along without your store.

 

[hagjohn]

Actually it's well within Apple's rights to do just that. Apple, and really any retailer, can shut down a store, fire its employees and there's not a thing unions can do to stop it.

Actually, no. But I'm sure they will come up with another reason to close it.


Under the 1965 Supreme Court case Textile Workers Union vs. Darlington Manufacturing, it is legal for companies to close their entire business even if doing so is a response to union activity. However, companies cannot legally shut down part of their business (such as a chain closing individual stores) “if the purpose is to discourage unionism in any of the employer’s remaining plants and if the employer may reasonably have foreseen such effect,” according to the court’s decision.

Source:

Are Starbucks and Chipotle union-busting by closing stores?

Big chains open and close stores all the time as a matter of course. But recent moves by Starbucks and Chipotle to close US stores in the wake of employee organizing efforts are drawing allegations from workers and labor advocates that the companies are engaging in union-busting.

qz.com

 

[laptech]

That's the point of unions, they negiotiate with the employer on behalf of the employees. For instance, in the UK, the NHS union had to agree with the payrise that the government offered before any NHS employee gets that payrise, but then all NHS employees get it as opposed to just those who are in the union. But that's a bit of a different situation to this situation with Apple where the non-union workers are getting better conditions than the union workers. It's supposed to be the other way around (hence the purported benefit of unionising).

So in a sense then Apple's head of retail, Deirdre O'Brien is saying it's the unions fault for acting too slow as to why non-union staff have got their benifits and the unionized staff haven't but whilst the non-union staff are given a 'take it or leave it' option by Apple, the union can push for a better deal if the unionized staff do not like what Apple is offering. Personally i'd rather have someone negotiating on my behalf for better deals rather than a 'take it or leave it' deal.

 

[SnappleRumors]

public company = duty to shareholders.

All my business life I’ve felt that responsibility has been wrong. The fiduciary duty should be to the shareholders and employees.

 

[laptech]

Actually, no. But I'm sure they will come up with another reason to close it.


Under the 1965 Supreme Court case Textile Workers Union vs. Darlington Manufacturing, it is legal for companies to close their entire business even if doing so is a response to union activity. However, companies cannot legally shut down part of their business (such as a chain closing individual stores) “if the purpose is to discourage unionism in any of the employer’s remaining plants and if the employer may reasonably have foreseen such effect,” according to the court’s decision.

Source:

Are Starbucks and Chipotle union-busting by closing stores?

Big chains open and close stores all the time as a matter of course. But recent moves by Starbucks and Chipotle to close US stores in the wake of employee organizing efforts are drawing allegations from workers and labor advocates that the companies are engaging in union-busting.

qz.com

So let me see if I have got this right. It is legal for a company to shut down it's 'entire' business to discourage union activity but it is illegal to shutdown 'part' of it's business for the some purposes.

Or does this only apply to businesses that are 'chains'? basically a business that have multiple individual stores/shops/buildings.

 

[cocky jeremy]

Close the store. Let those "high skilled" retailers go get another job. I hope they're ready to ask if you want fries with that all day.

 

[cocky jeremy]

They are pathetic losers for wanting benefits, better pay, and better working conditions? You’re defending a trillion dollar company who doesn’t care about you, or it’s employees.

I hope this is one of the most downvoted comments in MR history.

It looks like Apple and I have something in common then because I also don't give a **** about their employees.

 

[jimbobb24]

Ladies and gentlemen. Here’s a person that defends a trillion dollar company not properly paying and providing benefits for their employees.

"Properly paying".....tripe nonsense. They are getting paid properly they are just greedy and want more. So now because of laws from the 1930s and a govt agency full of political hacks their greed is going to be weighed against the greed of the shareholders and a decision will be made. There is no moral position here. One side is just using the power of the govt to enforce their greed on the other side.

 

[Someyoungguy]

“It is unlawful to…

• Confer benefits on employees during a union organizing campaign to induce employees to vote against the union.”

If they can show any other store is attempting to organize, Apple will lose. Didn’t we read yesterday about a store in Europe considering it?

 

[Someyoungguy]

Lol- PargerU. The hackiest of the political hack sites.

 

[bmustaf]

"Hey shareholders, we're not going to aim for record profits"
"Hey Johny Srouji, where are you going? We need you to design M3 but with lower pay!"
"Spaceship? Nah, you new recruits get to engineer in the basement!"
"Lobbyist? Nah, we're going to let Google/Facebook/Netflix dictate our future"

You're talking as if this is all optional and the board isn't going to fire Tim if he doesn't follow on through for shareholders.


Because you need to keep the talent. Like it or not, Tim has grown the company. How can you replace someone like Johny Srouji that easily for running a great team designing the chips? Meanwhile, retail staff are highly replacable.

Saying "just pay execs less" isn't really an option.

I didn't say that at all. You are missing the point entirely. Reread (and don't selectively, out of context) misquote people.

I literally said "I'm not saying paying for performance is bad." and only was talking about those people trying to blame product cost increases on improving low end pay and narrowing the multiplier (and narrowing the multiplier doesn't mean less money for Tim necessarily, it can also mean more for the lowest paid ranks).

Misconstruing what others are saying only further discredits your point.

 

[jimbobb24]

Free healthcare, free education, paid holidays, employment rights, and food standards should all be expected in every developed country. Unfortunately that is not the case in USA. I hope that will change and we will catch up with the rest of the civilized world.

Unions have little to do with the above. In essence, unions are organized bullying. That worked 100 years ago in fixing some important factory work related problems, but today is a hindrance to the both parties involved.

Nothing is free unless you expect others to be your slaves. In which case...the easy reason is the productive members dont want free loaders who think things are "free". At a minimum we want people economically savvy to understand wealth transfers and the reasons they might make sense. People who want free stuff are usually ignorant and ignorant people generally hurt the long term prospects of democratic nations.

Say what you mean...you want health care funded by taxes and heavily regulated and controlled through the government. Thats something educated people can talk about. Free is just unicorns and fairy tales.

The rest of the stuff we already have (even gun control).

 

[jimbobb24]

anyone who disagrees is a hypocrite using apple products. unions are liberal organizations, just like apple

Sure...or they are adults who realize in a complicated world of tradeoffs we dont always have perfect moral matches for our choices and the more distance between us and the transaction the less relevant it becomes. I dont care about the politics of the musicians I listen to (Kayne is apparently nuts now...so what), the actors, the authors. And I dont care about the politics of businesses I buy things from unless it starts to directly impact me. How could I keep track of all that to enforce a consistent world view to avoid being a hypocrite? You cannot and its not even rational to do it.

 

[Someyoungguy]

Can America just hurry up and split into two countries, please. The in-fighting is getting tedious. The ultra-capitalists can all go live with themselves.

They won’t live long.

 

[marclondon]

And I dont care about the politics of businesses I buy things from unless it starts to directly impact me.

If you don't mind being selfish then good luck to you in life.

Sadly there are people posting here who seem to have no solidarity with anyone but themselves. That works maybe until it's you in the firing line...