Apple Hit With Unfair Labor Practice Charge for Refusing to Transfer Unionized Towson Workers

[macsimcon]

I'm anti-union because I understand they make my prices go up even more, just like any other layer of bureaucracy between me and those I do business with.

Wow, both specious AND incorrect. Here are the facts: extensive research indicates a strong correlation between declining private-sector union membership and wage stagnation for many U.S. workers. Studies show that as union density dropped from 1 in 3 workers in the 1950s to about 1 in 20 today, the weakening of collective bargaining directly suppressed wage growth for both union and nonunion workers, contributing to rising income inequality (emphasis mine).

Data shows that from 1979 to 2017, the decline of unions depressed the median male worker's hourly wage by $2.49.

And this is from the Department of the Treasury's website.

 

[BBCWatcher]

There was a time when children worked in horrific factories. This is thankfully not that time. Move on.

I don’t think you’ve been paying enough attention. Several states have significantly weakened child labor laws in recent years, allowing children to work longer hours (even on school nights) and in much more dangerous jobs. Child labor law violations and workplace injuries (and even deaths) seem to be increasing since federal and state child labor law enforcement is also much weaker.

Child labor protections are not the only area of labor practices that unions focus on. But it’s an increasingly important one in the U.S. given the disturbing trends.

I’m not sure what these developments have to do with whether Apple is acting illegally with respect to Apple Towson employees. Apple alleges they’re prohibited by union contract from offering the same terms they’re offering other comparably situated employees. I doubt it; I think the IAM is probably correct. But the NLRB and courts will figure this out. Unfortunately it’ll take time.

 

[BBCWatcher]

Considering it's been four years since the store unionized and that malls dying is hardly a new thing around the country, I have a feeling the union is going to have a very hard time proving their case. All Apple needs to do is show evidence of decreasing sales and foot traffic at that store.

The IAM isn’t contesting Apple’s closure of the Towson location. It’s contesting Apple’s discriminatory treatment of their Towson employees. It’s clearly discriminatory; even Apple doesn’t argue that point. Apple claims the union contract requires Apple to discriminate in this way.(*) The IAM disagrees. That’s the specific question for the NRLB (and, if necessary, the courts) to resolve. Not “Can Apple close a store in a failing mall?”

(*) Apple presumably also believes there’s no relevant law that overrides/supersedes the union contract. You cannot legally adhere to a contract if some law says otherwise. For example, if Apple signs a contract that says, “We agree never to rehire Mormon employees,” that would be an illegal contract term that Apple must not follow. “We signed a contract and followed it” isn’t necessarily a good defense. The IAM isn’t arguing the contract has an illegal clause, but in principle any contract could.

 

[coolfactor]

The best thing for employees would be to universally unionize all stores. It's interesting how people are anti-union, but are also probably struggling to pay their own bills in the economy where prices go up, large corporations, and billionaires make more money, and standard income stagnates at a rate lower than the cost-of-living increases. The USA and many other countries I've been exhibiting all the hallmarks of eventually economic collapse and depression.

While unions may bring a lot of benefits to employees, they also cost businesses a LOT, which only increases prices thereby making unions demand more pay, and the cycle continues.

Now, imagine if employees worked hard, earned their pay, prices were kept fair, and everyone was happy? Unions do not achieve that balance no matter how you look at it. Unions are anti-balanced books.

 

[surferfb]

The IAM isn’t contesting Apple’s closure of the Towson location. It’s contesting Apple’s discriminatory treatment of their Towson employees. It’s clearly discriminatory; even Apple doesn’t argue that point. Apple claims the union contract requires Apple to discriminate in this way.(*) The IAM disagrees. That’s the specific question for the NRLB (and, if necessary, the courts) to resolve. Not “Can Apple close a store in a failing mall?”

My guess is the union contract says something like “can’t reduce hours/change schedules around without employee’s permission”; “can’t materially change working conditions without approval”; or maybe even “cannot move union employees to a non-unionized store.”

As a Maryland resident who is generally pro-union, if the union didn’t foresee that store closing and negotiate language in th contract about what happens if it did close then they’re idiots and had no business negotiating that contract. The mall has been dying for years now.

 

[FatLouie]

Here is how these events often work out. The Department of Labor will probably get involved. Both the NLRB and the DOL know that Apple has an iron-clad case. Both the DOL and the NLRB will have talks with Apple and basically beg them to let the Union people transfer. During this process, the union will probably have a pubic campaign about how Apple is screwing the little guy. There will likely be 'union calls' where the employees are given the 'rah-rah' speech and reminded of how much the union is doing for them.

If Apple is smart about this, it will refuse to let these union employees transfer. Doing so will set a precedent, and the Union will never forget it the next time Apple closes a unionized store. Any future contract negotiations will have the right to transfer. Transferring is how the union attempts to provide employees with job security during a reduction in force or facility closures. Apple would be a damn fool to agree to this transfer.

The union has lost face in this matter, in my view. They negotiated a contract for these employees, and now it has come back to bite the employee and the union in the ass. If the union does not secure this transfer, they will have great difficulty in unionizing another Apple store.

 

[FatLouie]

.
.
(*) Apple presumably also believes there’s no relevant law that overrides/supersedes the union contract. You cannot legally adhere to a contract if some law says otherwise. For example, if Apple signs a contract that says, “We agree never to rehire Mormon employees,” that would be an illegal contract term that Apple must not follow. “We signed a contract and followed it” isn’t necessarily a good defense. The IAM isn’t arguing the contract has an illegal clause, but in principle any contract could.

There is no discrimination here, and union contracts are more binding than HOA agreements. Now, if Apple said we are only transferring this 'minority' group, then there is an issue. If the contract does not stipulate anything about transfers or states that Apple can transfer union members if space is available, then Apple is not in violation if it does not have space to place someone.

Here is another aspect. If Apple has to reduce employees' hours at the 'gaining' store, that will cause grief for non-union employees who lose work hours. That is in Apple's favor, so... the union should be very careful about what they ask for. If this does not go the unions way, they could call a strike in the other union stores, but that would be foolish and would let other Apple stores know that they never want to unionize.

When unions go to the NLRB or the DOL, it is usually when they have put themselves in a rock-and-a-hard-place and have no one to pull them out.

 

[IIGS User]

Employers can easily avoid ever dealing with unions by treating employees fairly, respectfully, and properly compensating them.

Unless forced into a closed shop, employees who are treated well by their employers do not join unions. Union membership only takes hold in a place it wasn’t before when employers treat their employees poorly.

 

[BBCWatcher]

There is no discrimination here...

There clearly is, and Apple doesn't even contest this point. Apple's claim is that their contract with the IAM requires Apple to discriminate between comparably situated union and non-union employees in this way. The IAM disagrees. It's a straightforward union contract language dispute.

...and union contracts are more binding than HOA agreements.

Contracts cannot override applicable laws. It doesn't matter whether it's a union contract or a HOA agreement.

Now, if Apple said we are only transferring this 'minority' group, then there is an issue. If the contract does not stipulate anything about transfers or states that Apple can transfer union members if space is available, then Apple is not in violation if it does not have space to place someone.

No, that's not correct. Apple is claiming that their contract with the IAM bars Apple from offering the same store transfer terms that they're offering comparably situated non-union employees — not that the contract is silent. (And, by extension, that there's no applicable law that overrides the contract.) Apple is NOT claiming that they're allowed to offer the same terms. Apple's argument is "the contract ties our hands." The IAM disagrees.

 

[Mr_Ed]

OK. So is your point that Apple employees should make even less because you aren't paid fairly? $24 an hour is still under $50,000 a year, which is very little. Apple can easily afford to pay the backbone of their customer support really well, and they should because it gives us all better customer service

Just goes to show why unions exist. If you had a union you could negotiate together for higher wages for your job in a dirty warehouse. Then you wouldn't have to complain about someone making $5 more than you

I can’t speak for @The_Gream but I honestly took his comment to mean Apple employees, presumably at a non-union store, were being well compensated, not a complaint that they should make less.

The fallacy in your way of thinking is that it presumes corporate resources are infinite. You can raise wages of unskilled labor up to a point, then some of them are let go, and where feasible, investment in automation goes up to replace even more. In Apple’s case all they have to do is pay slightly better, with better benefits than the average retail position and they’ll never run out of willing candidates. It may be “tech”, but this is still a retail job that pretty much anyone can do.

Edit: wrong user name cited

 

[BBCWatcher]

Bloomberg Law has a good summary of the dispute between the IAM and Apple here.

Does anyone know if there's a public and verifiable true copy of the IAM CORE contract with Apple? Because that'd probably be quite helpful in figuring out whether Apple's assertions are correct. It's at least difficult to figure out who's correct without reading the actual contract.

 

[BBCWatcher]

$24 an hour is still under $50,000 a year, which is very little.

At 2,000 hours per year (full-time) $24 per hour equates to $48,000 gross per year. As one point of comparison, Costco reported that their median full-time worker earned $66,262 in 2025.

 

[CarAnalogy]

It's almost like whichever group controls the labor pool, whether it's a company or a union, becomes exploitative...

 

[Mr_Ed]

At 2,000 hours per year (full-time) $24 per hour equates to $48,000 gross per year. As one point of comparison, Costco reported that their median full-time worker earned $66,262 in 2025.

The $24/hr cited was supposedly starting pay for Apple store retail employee in St. Louis “a couple of years ago”.

Your Costco figure likely includes all full time employees, at all seniority levels, including corporate, excluding CEO. I have no figures to give, but I would bet starting pay at a Costco retail store is nowhere near that in most places.

 

[The_Gream]

OK. So is your point that Apple employees should make even less because you aren't paid fairly? $24 an hour is still under $50,000 a year, which is very little. Apple can easily afford to pay the backbone of their customer support really well, and they should because it gives us all better customer service

Just goes to show why unions exist. If you had a union you could negotiate together for higher wages for your job in a dirty warehouse. Then you wouldn't have to complain about someone making $5 more than you

Well, I wasn’t meaning to complain. I was trying to make a point.

You go back to the 1950, 60s etc, most management, even upper management didn’t make that much more than the people on the floor. Then laws changed.

In the USA, we shouldn’t need unions. We have a Federal Department of Labor, which should be the union for the people, but it isn’t.
The Fed Min wage is a joke, and has been for a long time. Cost of living goes up, but people’s wages for the most part haven’t.

My $20 an hr met my needs, as I live in a rural area and have 0 debt. Prior to that position I was making like $12. Prior to that, I worked as a CNA making like $9.5

Sure Apple could pay more, but guess what. Oil companies could charge less. Homes and rentals could be cheaper. There are a billion moving parts in this global machine, and I am sorry to say, Apple starting their store employees at $24 is rather nice compared to say other jobs in a similar market.

Please, a union in the place I used to work at would do nothing for the employees.

I recently changed jobs, and there is no union, but this company believes in taking care of their employees.

The majority of the USA employers just need to learn to take care of their employees. Full stop.

No need to kiss the employee’s butts, but make your employees feel valued. Pay them a living wage, provide actual benefits, give them ample time off etc. you don’t need a union for that, you just need to not be a … (can’t say the word).

I think it is in the Bible, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Eastern religions would probably call it karma.

 

[The_Gream]

The $24/hr cited was supposedly starting pay for Apple store retail employee in St. Louis “a couple of years ago”.

Your Costco figure likely includes all full time employees, at all seniority levels, including corporate, excluding CEO. I have no figures to give, but I would bet starting pay at a Costco retail store is nowhere near that in most places.

Just did a quick search for Costco

Bottom of the scale hourly for stores is 20~, while top of the scale is over 30.

While Walmart is paying from 13 to 22.50 depending on position and time.

 

[The_Gream]

This is hardly the first time that this particular union has loudly complained about their own poor negotiating skills with Apple on behalf of their members. The problem is Apple's default benefits are rather good, better than what the union contract specifies.

I remember when all this crap with a few stores trying to unionize started.
After, what three of them unionized, set their contracts etc, Apple went and raised the wages and benefits for all the non-union store employees.

I am pretty sure, Apple’s upper management, the VPs etc would have more than happily talked with the employees. My history with management issues is the middle management, they don’t really serve a purpose anymore, they only get in the way of progress.

With all the technology these days, communication should be extremely easy. At my last job, the CEO would make a decision about something, send out emails, but the middle management never passed that info onto the employees in a timely fashion.
Any issues the employees would bring up, got to the middle management and from all appearances never went higher. I know this for a fact, because I brought stuff up and then later would speak to someone I knew personally in the office and they had no clue or they would ask people who the issue was related to and they had no clue about the problem.

 

[Jeeve Stubbs]

Let the justice system decide.

 

[mannyvel]

The rules the union negotiated prevent the outcome they want, which is hilarious. Are they going to sue themselves for negligence?

 

[maxoakland]

The fallacy in your way of thinking is that it presumes corporate resources are infinite. You can raise wages of unskilled labor up to a point, then some of them are let go, and where feasible, investment in automation goes up to replace even more. In Apple’s case all they have to do is pay slightly better, with better benefits than the average retail position and they’ll never run out of willing candidates. It may be “tech”, but this is still a retail job that pretty much anyone can do.

Apple is a trillion dollar company. They can easily afford to pay their employees a living wage. This isn't about a false belief that Apple has unlimited resources. It's about the realistic understanding that people deserve to be paid fairly.

Just this year, Apple paid $2 Billion for an AI company. If they have $2 billion for corporate acquisitions, they have plenty of money to pay their employees fairly

I think it's sad we live in a society where people are more concerned about corporate welfare for trillion dollar companies than the people working next to us. People matter. Corporations come second

 

[maxoakland]

Well, I wasn’t meaning to complain. I was trying to make a point.

You go back to the 1950, 60s etc, most management, even upper management didn’t make that much more than the people on the floor. Then laws changed.

In the USA, we shouldn’t need unions. We have a Federal Department of Labor, which should be the union for the people, but it isn’t.
The Fed Min wage is a joke, and has been for a long time. Cost of living goes up, but people’s wages for the most part haven’t.

My $20 an hr met my needs, as I live in a rural area and have 0 debt. Prior to that position I was making like $12. Prior to that, I worked as a CNA making like $9.5

Sure Apple could pay more, but guess what. Oil companies could charge less. Homes and rentals could be cheaper. There are a billion moving parts in this global machine, and I am sorry to say, Apple starting their store employees at $24 is rather nice compared to say other jobs in a similar market.

That's true, but we shouldn't just accept scraps. People deserve to live decent lives in exchange for work. And Apple can afford it. There's no excuse not to

Please, a union in the place I used to work at would do nothing for the employees.

I recently changed jobs, and there is no union, but this company believes in taking care of their employees.

The majority of the USA employers just need to learn to take care of their employees. Full stop.

That would be nice but capitalism rewards exploiting employees. This has *always* been a problem, and it's why unions exist. Because unless you have a union, companies don't *have* to take care of their employees. And that means a lot of them won't. Unions level the playing field and make companies listen when they don't want to. That's why greedy corporations hate them

No need to kiss the employee’s butts, but make your employees feel valued. Pay them a living wage, provide actual benefits, give them ample time off etc. you don’t need a union for that, you just need to not be a … (can’t say the word).

I agree. If companies acted like that, we wouldn't need unions. Until they do, unions are important

 

[maxoakland]

These are unskilled retail salespeople. They don’t deserve a union. They can be replaced in 30 seconds, literally.

You don't see why people who can be replaced so easily need a union to protect their livelihood?

 

[maxoakland]

might be good to actually reserve judgment until the case has been decided? Not every complaint means the plaintiff is right...

Apple's repeatedly violated labor laws over the past few years. Especially when it comes to unions. They don't deserve the benefit of the doubt until they earn it back

 

[maxoakland]

I will avoid any unionized Apple Store. Go visit your local grocery store and see what happens when stores unionize. You’ll end up with a self check out stand and one unknowledgeable worker on duty.

Blame that on the greedy corporation, not the people trying to make a living in a world where costs are always rising

 

[maxoakland]

Wow, both specious AND incorrect. Here are the facts: extensive research indicates a strong correlation between declining private-sector union membership and wage stagnation for many U.S. workers. Studies show that as union density dropped from 1 in 3 workers in the 1950s to about 1 in 20 today, the weakening of collective bargaining directly suppressed wage growth for both union and nonunion workers, contributing to rising income inequality (emphasis mine).

Data shows that from 1979 to 2017, the decline of unions depressed the median male worker's hourly wage by $2.49.

And this is from the Department of the Treasury's website.

You show the actual data rather than feelings and vibes and the charlatans laugh because it threatens their worldview. What a sad state of affairs. At least I appreciate you giving us a dose of reality