Apple Store Managers Being Trained On "Union Awareness"

[jmcrutch]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Two words ...

General .... Motors.

That pretty much sums up my opinion on the true effect unions have on businesses and this nation as a whole.

 

[jlc1978]

Unions were once needed to prevent worker abuse, but now they prevent you from getting rid of bad teachers and bad employees, and underprivileged kids and the consumer are paying for it. They force a company to take the good with the bad, so it no longer pays to work hard.

While I agree unions are far from perfect they are also not the evil anti-business entity you claim they are. companies will abuse there power whenever it suits them - since they are in it to make money - as will public sector leaders (I use the arm loosely) when it suits their political ends. I know school districts that say "Oh, sorry about your contract but we've decided to cut your pay. And that day you came in - we've decided to call it a furlough day and not pay you as well. Too bad." "Not a coach, sorry but we're laying you off." "Opps - laid off too many teachers so now we're going to violate the law and increase classroom size beyond what is legal." Yea, unions can protect bad employees but they also act as a counter balance to bad management.

I've worked with a lot of union members (even though I never was one) - teamsters, IBEW, etc - and 99% of them simply wanted to do a good job and have a reasonable work environment. Yes, there are always a few jerks but even the union members I knew didn't particular like that the jerks could hang around and were glad to see them get theirs (as long as management properly documented the problems and followed the contract rules).

A union, in a sense is no different than a company - they supply a product (labor) in exchange for money - a simple contractual agreement.

Businesses make them a bad guy because they fear a shift in the power structure from them to the workers.

Don't like the customer service you get at other companies? Check if they have an union. If Apple wants to maintain good customer service, they have to be able to get rid of bad employees.

NASA seemed to do alright putting a man on the moon despite their unions, and the airlines did great until we decided to deregulate them. Even today, I wouldn't necessarily say non-unionized airlines automatically provide a better customer experience than unionized ones.

You focus on bad employees when the real issue is providing a work environment where people don't feel they need a union.

----------

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Two words ...

General .... Motors.

That pretty much sums up my opinion on the true effect unions have on businesses and this nation as a whole.

I'll see your two and raise you three:

Triangle ... Shirtwaist ... Factory

That pretty much sums up the true effect of companies on powerless employees

 

[thekev]

I seem to be confused by unionizing in the states - it seems to be very negatively viewed over there, whereas in the UK it's generally viewed as a must have in certain work sectors.

They associate unions with the Teamsters and organized crime of the 20th century without reading up on the working conditions that led to unionization in the first place .

Businesses are in the game to make money. If they can get away with something, then they will. Some businesses think it is a good model to get as much work out of people as possible. Other businesses take a longer term view and may treat their employees better. It's good if good will is the modus operandi but when your employer or it's managers are bullies, it is good to have a strong union on your side.

A longer term view can promote a better workplace culture, which is something that's both difficult to cultivate and invaluable. If the staff as a whole hate being there, you end up with the type of people that work just hard enough not to be fired.

What?! Protected from what? A union will just cost the employees more money. I really can't understand why people say to put a union in just for the heck of it. Stuff like this is why the US is falling apart.

I'd say it's more lack of infrastructure. We have other countries making our products in an inferior manner to what can be made here. The people who manage factories in these third world countries are very good at matching a look and basic functionality. Reliability on a lot of engineered products has gone down as the goal has become cost cutting. Fewer jobs here = less spending power which necessitates further cost cutting to maintain sales volume. That's just a small portion of the problem though.

 

[Gumby4136]

I just want to chime in hear if I may. I worked for Apple for a LONG time. When i first got hired they said to me that with in 90 days we figure out the path you will take and then start you on that path. Promotions in that store I worked were all about favortisum. The managers really only promoted you after you have given your life, and soul to the store, and also every social aspect to then. Don't get me wrong I learned ALOT from the store that know helps in my current job, but as far as getting promoted or benefits. If you dont get hired full-time which is very rare you are screwed to play the yes I work for apple game but I will always be there b*tch along with it.

 

[RRNYC]

--
[/COLOR]

I'll see your two and raise you three:

Triangle ... Shirtwaist ... Factory

That pretty much sums up the true effect of companies on powerless employees

I think you just helped most of the countering arguments as well. Almost all said that unions had a place in time. 1911 was certainly one of them.

 

[johnmacward]

Yes, it is actually possible for these things to exist without a union. Unions are for when management becomes so complex that the people at the top only see what their balance is and can't see the employees at the bottom. The employees have to form a union to be able to get management's ear. With Steve Jobs being such a perfectionist and micro manger (and encouraging the same traits in the rest of his management,) I'd imagine the bottom employees tend to be heard at the top without needing to form unions.

Maybe I'm wrong.

Unions are for the very existence of capitalism at it's least dangerous, not just when a company gets bad or management gets complex - your history points to this very succinctly, especially the late 1800's, 1920's and 30's. A slight dip in corporate profits one day can result in a complete shift for what upper management think of how to treat staff the next day.

The lack of unions in the US for the past 30 years have resulted in the some of the worst labour standards in the developed world, stagnating and declining wages even where profits have sky-rocketed beyond the wildest dreams of investors, lack of decent infrastructure, health care, education and a really vicious "eat or be eaten" mentality. To some extent there are similar strains in Europe but nowhere near the losses that happened in the US.

I know I wouldn't be pushed to work in the US unless I got a really good contract with a lot of exceptional guarantees. Same with a lot of people I know.

 

[cms2]

The problem with all that is when any profession makes good money you get a large number of people doing it just for the paycheck. Having a bunch of teachers that don't really want to teach and aren't doing their jobs is just as bad as having too few just scraping by. It's same with doctors.

A good example would be nurses. It's a easy education to get and pays decently so a lot of people do it. The problem is turnover with them is so high because most of them don't really want to do it. It's not easy work and a takes a certain skill set to be able to deal with people.

If I may offer a counterpoint: when a profession is high paying, it attracts a large applicant pool. Generally more applicants than positions. Which means that a discerning employer can choose the best person for the job, not just whatever person is willing to do a difficult job for very little pay.

My sister-in-law is a nurse. I think part of the reason why that profession has a high turnover rate is because of the many stages of advancement available for nurses. Many start out at as an LVN or CNA, which pays ok but requires one to do many of the less appealing aspects of the job. A little more training, and one can move up the ladder. Better paying positions and less changing adult diapers. Then someone else has to move in to the starting position.

Very true and well said.

Thanks!

 

[jlc1978]

I think you just helped most of the countering arguments as well. Almost all said that unions had a place in time. 1911 was certainly one of them.

Ok, so let me show card #4:

Massey’s ... Upper ... Big ... Branch

Seems that "place in time" is still today as well...

 

[TMar]

So because you do what you love, you shouldn't get a decent pay? Maybe the next step should be to make people pay to teach because it's a vocation.

My good we bring up teaching and all the sudden everyone's reading comprehension goes far far away. I said they be able to make a decent living, get over it.

If I may offer a counterpoint: when a profession is high paying, it attracts a large applicant pool. Generally more applicants than positions. Which means that a discerning employer can choose the best person for the job, not just whatever person is willing to do a difficult job for very little pay.

My sister-in-law is a nurse. I think part of the reason why that profession has a high turnover rate is because of the many stages of advancement available for nurses. Many start out at as an LVN or CNA, which pays ok but requires one to do many of the less appealing aspects of the job. A little more training, and one can move up the ladder. Better paying positions and less changing adult diapers. Then someone else has to move in to the starting position.



Thanks!

True, it goes both ways.

I have a lot of close friends that are nurses and it's might just be this area but they have a hard time keeping people longer then a few weeks/months. They are always short handed and constantly hiring nurses around here. It is a messy job starting out and many more drop because they don't want to do it then advancement.

 

[TMar]

Ok, so let me show card #4:

Massey’s ... Upper ... Big ... Branch

Seems that "place in time" is still today as well...

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[RRNYC]

Ok, so let me show card #4:

Massey’s ... Upper ... Big ... Branch

Seems that "place in time" is still today as well...

A mine disregarded labor laws and safety standards so you suggest that if they were union, it would have never happened? Here in NYC, We've had cranes operated by union workers fall and kill construction workers and passersby. Using your logic, the union should have prevented it, right? So how can this happened with the unions there? Did you ever think it might be a set of bad circumstances or coincidences? Masseys is an unfortunate yet preventable accident. Union or not

Heres a legitimate correlation - Union memberships have fallen steadily by 500k+ each year since 1973. I haven't heard of any benefits ending or an upswing of people dying because of unsafe work conditions and those companies continue to thrive. All this while the remaining unions continue to drag down and bully those companies that continue to allow them.

So what union do you belong to?

 

[hayden535]

History

Yes, it is actually possible for these things to exist without a union. Unions are for when management becomes so complex that the people at the top only see what their balance is and can't see the employees at the bottom. The employees have to form a union to be able to get management's ear. With Steve Jobs being such a perfectionist and micro manger (and encouraging the same traits in the rest of his management,) I'd imagine the bottom employees tend to be heard at the top without needing to form unions.

Maybe I'm wrong.

You are wrong. The post you are replying to says that workers would not have these things without the unions that fought for them originally. You've conveniently ignored the central fact in the post you quoted. The owners/managers you are referring to actively resisted giving these things to their employees in the early 20th century. Therefore, without the unions you so ironically bash, you would not have the things that you now, ignorantly, take for granted.

It is no coincidence that the decline in unions that has occurred over the past 30 years has corresponded directly with the sharp decline of the middle class and resulted in historic wealth inequality.

I'm not sure why I even wrote this, it's clear that you're not too fond of history or facts, but rather prefer to regurgitate every talking point the wonderful and fantastic "job-creators" have spoon-fed you through our corporate media.

 

[firewood]

The post you are replying to says that workers would not have these things without the unions that fought for them originally. You've conveniently ignored the central fact in the post you quoted. The owners/managers you are referring to actively resisted giving these things to their employees in the early 20th century. Therefore, without the unions you so ironically bash, you would not have the things that you now, ignorantly, take for granted.

What unions did a century or more ago, and what they do now are two completely different things.

Today, instead of improving things for workers, unions kill off local factories, and the workers end up with no jobs at all.

The near century ago worker's parties of Germany, Russia and China are no longer considered good things to have in power in those regions by most people.

 

[jlc1978]

A mine disregarded labor laws and safety standards so you suggest that if they were union, it would have never happened? Here in NYC, We've had cranes operated by union workers fall and kill construction workers and passersby. Using your logic, the union should have prevented it, right? So how can this happened with the unions there? Did you ever think it might be a set of bad circumstances or coincidences? Masseys is an unfortunate yet preventable accident. Union or not

One challenge at non-union facilities is reporting problems is likely to result in retaliation. A union can help prevent that; as borne out by statistics about mine fatalities.

Unions aren't perfect, but it isn't all love and kindness in non-union shops. I happen to think unions still have a place in the workplace. Corporations agree, BTW - as long as it's their union, err trade association, that can fight for what they perceive as their rights.

While the source has an agenda, here's some data:
It would be ideal to compare fatalities per thousand hours worked in union and non-union mines, but those data appear to be unavailable. The United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) has tallied fatalities–noting whether they occurred in underground, surface, open pit, preparation plant or other facilities and whether the workers were UMWA members, non-UMWA workers, non-UMWA contractors, or "company personnel."

And Unionstats.com–maintained by Barry Hirsch of Georgia State University and David Macpherson of Trinity University–uses Census data to determine annually the share of each industry that is unionized.

Looking at these data, only in 2001 were there disproportionately more fatalities (39 percent) in union mines (unions represented 30 percent of coal miners that year) than in non-union mines. Recent figures are more typical. In 2006 through 2009 union mines accounted for 10, 6, 10 and 5 percent, respectively, of all coal mine deaths, but over that period unions represented 15 to 22 percent of coal miners. For those years unionized miners appear to have been one-fourth to one-half as likely to be killed in mine incidents as their non-union peers.

Heres a legitimate correlation - Union memberships have fallen steadily by 500k+ each year since 1973. I haven't heard of any benefits ending or an upswing of people dying because of unsafe work conditions and those companies continue to thrive. All this while the remaining unions continue to drag down and bully those companies that continue to allow them.

You have't "heard of any benefits ending or an upswing of people dying because of unsafe work conditions and those companies continue to thrive?" Benefit's haven't been ending? I don't know about your world (maybe NYC is really different from the rest of the country, but where I live plenty of companies are reducing benefits.

So what union do you belong to?

I repeat - I've never been a union member. But thanks for the ad-homenim anyway...

 

[hayden535]

Unicorns

What unions did a century or more ago, and what they do now are two completely different things.

Today, instead of improving things for workers, unions kill off local factories, and the workers end up with no jobs at all.

The near century ago worker's parties of Germany, Russia and China are no longer considered good things to have in power in those regions by most people.

I agree that unions in Europe and the US have changed and not for the better. In fact, many unions in the US irrationally demand ever escalating compensation that is unreasonable and unsustainable based on company profits. However, the recent trend of union mismanagement does not prove that unions are inherently bad.

The US auto companies have been terribly mismanaged over the past 30 years. No one argues that we should get rid of domestic auto-manufacturing. The country was at its strongest when unions were well-managed. The result was agrowing middle class which spent heavily, making the economy even stronger.

Unions have become a convenient scapegoat for inept and greedy management to present to an embittered and undereducated populus. US auto companies began shipping jobs overseas when they were still vastly profitable. Subsequently, they claimed that the greedy unions left them with no choice. How can unions continue to be responsible for our contry's economic woes when unions have been successfully eviscerated over the past 20 years?

There is simply too much empircal economic evidence in favor of unions. The most successful economy in the world, Germany, has over 25% of its labor represented by unions. In the US, we currently have less than 10%. The rich have gotten exactly what they want; unions have crumbled, yet the economy continues to decline... You are getting what you want. I'm still waiting for the job-creators to ride in on their unicorns sprinkinling good jobs everywhere now that the unions they're so terrified of have disappeared.

 

[Will69]

The empirical evidence does not state at all that the unions are the reason for success or failure. If you want to state that Germany is successful because of its high union memberships, then make a claim of what the effect would be if that percentage were different from the 25 that you state.

Do you really think that with less unionization they would be less successful? You are fooling yourself if you do.

Another misleading statement you make is that of shipping jobs overseas when profits are still being made. It's not about letting your profits go to zero before you find cheaper sources outside, it's about maximizing the money that you can return so that investment, research, and indeed improvements of standard of living can be achieved.
I mean just think about what can be inferred from that statement, it's as if you're saying do not ship jobs overseas if you make a profit, but if you take a loss, then oh well yeah it's okay to ship the jobs outside.

The unions weren't scapegoated by the American automakers, everyone in the world was avoiding the northern United States because of its unions. All the Japanese brands that build factories here avoided the Rust Belt like the plague.

Workers conditions should be set by both the markets and civil law. Just like contracts. It is essentially wrong to tell a worker not to work because others in his "group" order him to. Imagine if companies could legally get together and make agreements among themselves to not hire a specific person? That would be companies acting together in their own best interest. That's wrong. Same with workers.

 

[vitzr]

At some point Apple will cave...

 

[dampsquid]

At least you get a choice...

Unions are a way of an individual having more power. It's a basic contract. You swap individual choice for the power of the union and collective choice. In the UK some jobs tend to be very unionised. For instance I am a teacher and most teachers tend to be in a union. My union as well as negotiating on pay and conditions also employ lawyers to protect members against legal claims by employers and students. They also arbitrate in complex situations where the relationship between employer and employee has broken down or become strained.

Businesses are in the game to make money. If they can get away with something, then they will. Some businesses think it is a good model to get as much work out of people as possible. Other businesses take a longer term view and may treat their employees better. It's good if good will is the modus operandi but when your employer or it's managers are bullies, it is good to have a strong union on your side.

At least a teacher in the UK has a choice as to whether to join a union. In the US that may not the the case. There are plenty of states where the closed shop is alive and well, including the one I happen to live in. At my spouse's workplace there was recently a move to unionize (now caught in litigation limbo, go figure)... Anyway, I about fell of my chair when I discovered that should the vote ultimately be in favor, every employee must join whether they want to or not. There is no opt out. Each must pay their dues, the union can and will compel the employer to deduct the dues from their pay cheque. The union cannot be voted out of the workplace for a minimum of two years either. So much for 'the land of the free'. Oh, and the litigation limbo... while a disputed ballot is resolved the company cannot change any existing aspect of it's legal relationship between itself and employees. They cannot even change a job description when replacing someone departed. They're completely hamstrung. Now at around six months and counting... Oh, one last thing - this company is a 'not for profit' working to help the downtrodden in life.

My take - the union is there first and foremost to favor the aims of the union (it's own self-preservation). The individual employees are totally secondary to that.

 

[RRNYC]

One challenge at non-union facilities is reporting problems is likely to result in retaliation. A union can help prevent that; as borne out by statistics about mine fatalities.

Today, most if not all, companies have anti-retaliation policies in place. There are a host of whistleblowers protection an employee can pursue if they feel that they've been retaliated against. By the way, there is a slightly higher rate of retaliation complaints from union employees (21%) compared to non-union employees (15%) according to a 2009 business ethics survey conducted by the Ethics Resource Center.

Unions aren't perfect, but it isn't all love and kindness in non-union shops. I happen to think unions still have a place in the workplace. Corporations agree, BTW - as long as it's their union, err trade association, that can fight for what they perceive as their rights.

I never said unions are the root of all evil nor did I say that non-union employers are perfect. One things for sure; I certainly wouldn't blame a tragic event on a company being non-union or not union. In principle, I do agree that there is a place for unions... Even today but not in it's present form. We currently have a free market where companies pay to recruit and retain good employees. We get competitive wages and benefits. However, if you're not carrying your weight, you should be fired. Unfortunately, that does not happen in most ( every one I know but I won't say all) unionized companies.

I repeat - I've never been a union member. But thanks for the ad-homenim anyway...

Its not an ad hominem if I'm curious about your affiliation. I've never seen a non-union person defend it as much as you have.

 

[RRNYC]

At some point Apple will cave...

Don't hold your breath

 

[carlgo]

Apple is afraid they could spread to China.

 

[Herdfan]

You have health benefits at your job? You have personal days or sick days? Protection on getting fired if as a female you become pregnant or bedridden while pregnant? Vacation time? All of those things do not exist without unions.

And there is nothing a union can do to force an employer to provide those things. Yes, they can threaten to strike and things like that, but in the end, the company will still provide what it wants.

 

[Herdfan]

You focus on bad employees when the real issue is providing a work environment where people don't feel they need a union.

Actually, I think if unions were more responsive to getting rid of bad workers, business would not fight them so hard. My SIL works at a company who gets labor from the Boilermakers. They don't mind the union, because all their labor comes out of the shop. They get a worker they don't like, they just send them back and get another one. The workers like it there because the work is steady and so they don't tolerate slackers.

On the other hand, a good friend whose family has a company in the natural gas industry which is unionized had an experience that I would probably have gone ballistic on. There was a large pipeline emergency and in the process of getting it fixed, his son climbed on a piece of heavy equipment to move it to help out. A grievance was filed against the company because that is a union job, not a management job. It was the owner's son who will end up owning the business. They settle the grievance, but stopped doing lots of things they used to do like free pizza lunches once a month.

So they can work both ways.

----------

They associate unions with the Teamsters and organized crime of the 20th century without reading up on the working conditions that led to unionization in the first place .

There is a very good movie with James Earl Jones called Matewan. It is about unionizing the coal industry in the early 20th century. Does a lot to explain why unions were needed back then. But now there are laws in place that protect workers from a lot of that behavior.

 

[charlituna]

Should be interesting if Apple employees begin to feel left behind as the Apple success-train speeds down profit boulevard. I guess giving 8 top execs a couple million shares (in total) is not considered trickle-down?

Too bad I know nothing about Apple's pay and promotion structure.

Many, perhaps even most, employees may not feel the same as the few dozen that are behind the attempts to force unionization. They may be happy with their jobs, with their pay, with getting very generous pay, health benefits after only 90 days of part time work when many companies don't give part time any benefits, stock purchasing discounts and so on.

the attempt to unionize has been going on for years by different groups and it hasn't happened. Very possibly because most folks don't have any issues or because they found solutions via company or local legal systems without having to pay a union a big chunk of their checks to do the same things.

----------

Yes, it is actually possible for these things to exist without a union. Unions are for when management becomes so complex that the people at the top only see what their balance is and can't see the employees at the bottom.

That's not the only time that Unions can be useful.

There are some industries where you don't really stay with one employer due to the nature of the work. So a union and union rules can make sure that all employers are giving all employees a fair shake. The film industry is one such group. I might work for Paramount this week, next week I'm working for Michael Bay Productions, next month I"m going over to Universal to work for six months bouncing between six different 'employers'. Thanks to union rules I know that I'll be making a certain minimum pay, i'll have a certain set of scheduling rules on all jobs, etc. Even things like what tasks I can't be asked to do because that is someone else's job. and I don't have to feel like a dick for saying no because my union already said no on my behalf when they made the job descriptions. For example, I know a lot of young ladies that have been saved from doing unwanted nude/half nude scenes due to SAGs rule that such things, even just as a possibility, must be stated at the casting call level or they can't be done.



----------

You want Joe the garbageman teaching your kids or do you want a qualified teacher with a Masters Degree?

Depends on what they are being taught. If you are talking about a college level class, sure a Masters Degree is called for

But if you are insisting on a Master's Degree to teach PE, that's a bit much. Frankly the necessary skills could probably be obtained with merely a BA/BS and the saved money to go to restoring the equally important arts and music classes the school is claiming there is no money in the budget to support.

 

[RUGERMAN]

Huh?

WHOA! Sounds like a "Liberal" parental basement dweller. LOL


Sadly I suspect macrumors, like much of teh internets, is overcrowded with "conservative" parental basement dwellers.

When we get rid of all the bosses' unions (chambers of commerce, the National Restaurant and Pizzaman Sexual Predator Association, etc.), then we can get rid of the workers' unions. Not before.


============
EDIT: Pleased to see that the post I was quoting is no longer "in the negative". Not that I have time to keep score, but I hope it stays that way. Maybe macrumors isn't as bad as some corners of the intertubes after all! I saw this story on cnet, and it was just one hateful, vicious union-bashing comment after another. Glad to see this forum hasn't degenerated to that level.[/QUOTE]