Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple is Permanently Closing Three U.S. Stores This Month

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster


Apple will be permanently closing three of its retail stores in the U.S. on the evening of Saturday, June 20, according to its website.

Apple-Towson-Town-Center.jpeg
Apple Towson Town Center​

The locations that are closing:In April, Apple said it made the "difficult decision" to close the stores due to "declining conditions" at the shopping malls in which they are located.

Notably, the staff at the Towson Town Center location became Apple's first retail employees in the U.S. to unionize in 2022. They belong to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers' Coalition of Organized Retail Employees (IAM CORE), and they signed a collective bargaining agreement with Apple in 2024.

The union and the store's employees have been protesting the planned closure, and some lawmakers in Maryland have voiced their support.

Apple-Towson-Rally.jpg

The union is upset that Apple is allowing non-unionized employees at the Trumbull and North County stores to transfer to nearby locations, but not extending this offer to unionized employees at the Towson location. For its part, Apple said it is simply honoring the terms of the collective bargaining agreement that the employees agreed to.

According to Apple, the contract states that in the event of a store closure, Apple would transfer or rehire employees if the company opened a new store within 50 miles of the current location at Towson Town Center. In any other circumstance, the union negotiated for employees to receive severance, which is being provided.

Apple said it has no current plans to open a new store in the area, but if it were to do so within 18 months after the collective bargaining agreement was ratified, the affected employees would have the right of first refusal.

Nevertheless, IAM has accused Apple of potential union busting and said that the agreement "requires equal treatment."

"Apple workers in Towson voted to join the IAM, fought for and won a contract, and are now being punished for it," said IAM President Brian Bryant. "Apple signed a collective bargaining agreement that requires equal treatment. It is time for Apple to honor that agreement and do right by these workers before June 20."

Towson Town Center is genuinely in a state of decline and has lost many other major retailers in recent years, so it is very likely that Apple is exiting the shopping mall at least partly due to the worsening conditions. Nevertheless, the situation could benefit Apple by warning employees at other stores that joining a union does not always work out. However, we may never know Apple's true and full intentions behind its decision.

Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: Apple is Permanently Closing Three U.S. Stores This Month
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2026/06/03/three-apple-stores-closing-this-month/
IAM: "Apple signed a collective bargaining agreement that requires equal treatment."

This sounds like something from the union contract taken out of context. Why would there be a defined provision for 50 mile relocation clause that doesn't exist for non-union workers, but IAM states it says "equal treatment"? The fact there is a defined relocation clause just for union workers sort of goes again equal treatment claim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ejbrennan
Not OK from Apple. The legal question is a federal one, and I'm sure they would not be doing this unless they thought they could get away with it per the National Labor Relations Board, which, with the current NLRB, is a reasonable assumption. But Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act very clearly prohibits retaliation and the definition there includes unequal treatment. So the question will be presumably whether NLRB defines this as unequal treatment or not. In any case, I think it's designed to discourage people from unionizing -- and at a time that wealth inequality is at record highs and unionized employees are generally being treated a lot better than non-union, the motives are pretty clear.
 
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: ejbrennan, kolebee and applesith
dblissmn said:
Not OK from Apple. The legal question is a federal one, and I'm sure they would not be doing this unless they thought they could get away with it per the National Labor Relations Board, which, with the current NLRB, is a reasonable assumption. But Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act very clearly prohibits retaliation and the definition there includes unequal treatment. So the question will be presumably whether NLRB defines this as unequal treatment or not. In any case, I think it's designed to discourage people from unionizing -- and at a time that wealth inequality is at record highs and unionized employees are generally being treated a lot better than non-union, the motives are pretty clear.
Click to expand...
No okay from Apple? They arn't closing a profitable store. It's business. If it was making money it continue to exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: k1121j, ejbrennan, gleepskip and 2 others
fenderbass146 said:
No okay from Apple? They arn't closing a profitable store. It's business. If it was making money it continue to exist.
Click to expand...
That's not the point -- their argument that they're effectively dealing with dead mall syndrome at these locations is perfectly defensible not least because it's true. It's the part about not offering employees transfers, say to north suburban DC or to Newark, Delaware, that raises questions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Loismustdie1, thejadedmonkey, J.J. Sefton and 1 other person
dblissmn said:
Not OK from Apple. The legal question is a federal one, and I'm sure they would not be doing this unless they thought they could get away with it per the National Labor Relations Board, which, with the current NLRB, is a reasonable assumption. But Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act very clearly prohibits retaliation and the definition there includes unequal treatment. So the question will be presumably whether NLRB defines this as unequal treatment or not. In any case, I think it's designed to discourage people from unionizing -- and at a time that wealth inequality is at record highs and unionized employees are generally being treated a lot better than non-union, the motives are pretty clear.
Click to expand...

the contract states that in the event of a store closure, Apple would transfer or rehire employees if the company opened a new store within 50 miles of the current location at Towson Town Center. In any other circumstance, the union negotiated for employees to receive severance, which is being provided.
Click to expand...

Apple is abiding by the terms of the agreement the union negotiated.

This same thing happened when Apple paid out bonuses to non-union employees but did not extend it to the unionized ones, as it did not meet the terms of their agreement.

This is the fault of the union and the employees that joined it, as well as the municipality for surrendering to crime and disorder leading to the death of the mall. Multiple brands have been pulling their stores out over the last several months. Apple wasn't the first, second, or even fifth brand to decide to close.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ejbrennan, gleepskip, DEMinSoCAL and 1 other person
dblissmn said:
That's not the point -- their argument that they're effectively dealing with dead mall syndrome at these locations is perfectly defensible not least because it's true. It's the part about not offering employees transfers, say to north suburban DC or to Newark, Delaware, that raises questions.
Click to expand...
Because their contract has a clause that defines relocation options for union workers. You can't have it both ways -- a special, defined and detailed clause for relocation that is different from non-union and then claim you want "equal treatment" to the non-union workers.
 
No one should be confused that "Apple workers in Towson voted to join the IAM, fought for and won a contract" is in any way causal to the "declining conditions" in "due to 'declining conditions' at the shopping malls in which they are located." The o.p. somewhat dances around it with "Towson Town Center is genuinely in a state of decline and has lost many other major retailers in recent years, so it is very likely that Apple is exiting the shopping mall at least partly due to the worsening conditions." "Worsening conditions" is doing some major heavy lifting there… has a rising sea level begun lapping at the edge of the front door? Has a volcano sprouted up from the ground right out front? Is the store built upon a significant paranormal fault line, unleashing untold millennia-old evil? No, Towson Town Center could be Exhibit #1 in what is now commonly referred to as 'fatigue'.
The IAM is clearly attempting to conflate things, because that's what leftists do, as a matter of course (and no, don't start with me… unions in the United States openly flaunt their left-leaning political ideologies nowadays), but there is a greater societal issue—about which, discussion is actively avoided—that is driving Apple's decision-making in Towson. Everyone wants to dance around it. Nobody wants to be that kid who points out the Emperor is not wearing any clothes. "Whistle past the graveyard", I believe is the olden-times saying.
But doesn't mean that Apple could just not be jerks to their union-organized employees too.

EDIT: And a lot of people not understanding logic here… rather ironic considering 'logic' runs the devices we're here discussing most of the time. Because the contract stipulates a MUST (that Apple must offer a relocation offer IF a new store is opened within a particular distance) does NOT also act as a 'eXclusive OR', such that it overrides "equal treatment". That means that if Apple builds a new store within said distance but does NOT make a relocation offer to non-contractual employees, it MUST make said offer to contracted employees; conversely it ALSO means—"equal treatment"—that IF Apple DOES make a relocation offer to a store BEYOND the stipulated distance to non-contracted employees, Apple MUST ALSO extend that offer to contracted employees. Contracted employees bargained for BETTER treatment than non-contracted employees; that's the way it works. Apple is being obtuse here, and will lose. But it tracks with the way Apple treats its employees. (No one should be under the illusion that $4T Apple is a Good Entity; they are not. This has been extensively documented, not debatable.)
 
Last edited:
  • Disagree
  • Haha
Reactions: GMShadow and kolebee
The people in that picture don't look like your average Apple Store employees...they look more like machinists and aerospace workers from the union. Also odd (to me) is why they chose a machinist and aerospace workers union -- aren't there retail worker unions?
 
dblissmn said:
That's not the point -- their argument that they're effectively dealing with dead mall syndrome at these locations is perfectly defensible not least because it's true. It's the part about not offering employees transfers, say to north suburban DC or to Newark, Delaware, that raises questions.
Click to expand...
Sound to like Apple is doing what it’s allowed to do in the contract. The contract that was signed by both parties in which one party didn’t think it all the way through. Or maybe that same party didn’t expect that particular mall to die.

Either way, agreeing with a contract, signing said contract and then not agreeing with it when things turn bad is poor form.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Happy_John
Dirk Pieters said:
Sound to like Apple is doing what it’s allowed to do in the contract. The contract that was signed by both parties in which one party didn’t think it all the way through. Or maybe that same party didn’t expect that particular mall to die.

Either way, agreeing with a contract, signing said contract and then not agreeing with it when things turn bad is poor form.
Click to expand...

Yep. I've been following this story for a while. What become clearer and clear when you dig into is that, irrespective of how you feel about Apple's action here, the Union really, really f**ked up in their contract negotiations with Apple - if the unionized staff have a grevience, it should (and is) with eh union reps who failed to effectively represent their interests.

The grandstanding by the union is the distract from their own mistake.
 
DEMinSoCAL said:
Because their contract has a clause that defines relocation options for union workers. You can't have it both ways -- a special, defined and detailed clause for relocation that is different from non-union and then claim you want "equal treatment" to the non-union workers.
Click to expand...
Wrong. You can, in fact, per U.S. labor law, have it both ways. Effectively the contract is saying "Contracted employees get a BETTER deal than you're offering to non-contract employees. If a new store is within # miles, we get an offer to relocate, regardless of if you do not offer non-contract employees relocation. However, if you offer non-contract employees anything, our contracted employees also get that." What Apple is doing is a very common anti-union tactic… they KNOW they will lose, but they have an army of labor lawyers already on the payroll, costs them nothing; OTOH, will cost the IAM and its workers to fight it, exhaust them, and that's what companies like Apple, who want to appear 'liberal' but are really greedy anti-labor jerks, do. It is a story as old as labor organizing itself.
 
ScooterComputer said:
Wrong. You can, in fact, per U.S. labor law, have it both ways. Effectively the contract is saying "Contracted employees get a BETTER deal than you're offering to non-contract employees. If a new store is within # miles, we get an offer to relocate, regardless of if you do not offer non-contract employees relocation. However, if you offer non-contract employees anything, our contracted employees also get that." What Apple is doing is a very common anti-union tactic… they KNOW they will lose, but they have an army of labor lawyers already on the payroll, costs them nothing; OTOH, will cost the IAM and its workers to fight it, exhaust them, and that's what companies like Apple, who want to appear 'liberal' but are really greedy anti-labor jerks, do. It is a story as old as labor organizing itself.
Click to expand...
In practice, it depends on who is on the NLRB just how much you can have it both ways or not.
 
ScooterComputer said:
Wrong. You can, in fact, per U.S. labor law, have it both ways. Effectively the contract is saying "Contracted employees get a BETTER deal than you're offering to non-contract employees. If a new store is within # miles, we get an offer to relocate, regardless of if you do not offer non-contract employees relocation. However, if you offer non-contract employees anything, our contracted employees also get that." What Apple is doing is a very common anti-union tactic… they KNOW they will lose, but they have an army of labor lawyers already on the payroll, costs them nothing; OTOH, will cost the IAM and its workers to fight it, exhaust them, and that's what companies like Apple, who want to appear 'liberal' but are really greedy anti-labor jerks, do. It is a story as old as labor organizing itself.
Click to expand...


Read up on the case. It was the union representatives, not Apple, who waived the guaranteed relocation clause in the Unions collectively-bargained contract with Apple.
 
dblissmn said:
That's not the point -- their argument that they're effectively dealing with dead mall syndrome at these locations is perfectly defensible not least because it's true. It's the part about not offering employees transfers, say to north suburban DC or to Newark, Delaware, that raises questions.
Click to expand...

Apple is following the contract that the union agreed to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dirk Pieters
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back