Apple Store Managers Being Trained On "Union Awareness"

[mingoglia]

Have you ever noticed that people who tend to identify themselves as liberal seem to be more likely to fire back with personal insults more than a conservative leaning person? They tend to more often questions ones intelligence (suggesting they're a basement dweller living off their parents), be called a racist, intolerant, homophobic, anti-immigrant, etc. What's with the personal attacks?

I too am extremely anti-union. I believe historically they had their place and if I could go back in time I'd likely (even definitely) take their side. As others have said, we now have laws that protect workers from the harsh work conditions the unions of years ago worked so hard for. I read through this entire thread and someone mentioned how work conditions are WORSE than they were years ago, as a result of the decline of unions. Tell that to the steel workers, coal workers, and factory workers who died in their early 20's from unsafe conditions. Tell that to the minorities that were treated as slaves.

Unions now are almost exclusively about making money/benefits and job security regardless of performance. Both of these should be dictated by the market, regardless of skill level. All other reasons are protected by other laws.

Discrimination: Not a union deal, we have laws these days.
Knowingly unsafe conditions: Laws
Underage labor: Laws.
Minimum wage: We have laws.
Sexual harassment: You guessed it, laws.

The higher the education/skill set the more the market will secure a good standard of living itself. Get rid of all the unions (and vastly shrink the DOE while you're at it) and the best teachers/professors will magically be rewarded appropriately for their performance. I want the best grade school teachers making 6 figures... but on the other side of the coin I want the worst grade school teachers making so little they decide on another profession. I much rather have the best teachers making $75k and the worst teachers making $20k than ALL teachers making say $50k (just throwing out numbers here). Without the union dictating salaries this will force the $20k teachers to get their act together, to strive to be the $75k teacher. I want the $75k teacher to see no limit and keep educating her/himself to do even better. College level is a completely different story. You have prima donnas walking around thinking they're untouchable making boat loads of cash. Yes, they may have been great at one point... but "what have you done for me lately"? This dead weight can't drive DOWN the cost of education, that's for sure.

 

[theBB]

And why the use of the word "paradise"? Oh wait I know why, to create an irrelevant association like this..

(if not unioned then not paradise )

Relax man, I took your "union free places" comment as the countries where unions were not allowed and I am fairly certain you would not want to live in one of those. If all you meant was to say north vs. south, sorry...

Just look at the different areas of our country. The areas with the highest union "mentality" are the ones with depressed cities facing economic downturn. Meanwhile the South has less of a tradition of manufacturing,

You just provided a good chunk of the reason. Manufacturing has moved to much lower cost countries, as there is no way companies can get away with paying as little to workers here, with or without unions. As manufacturing was a big part of the economy in the north, its economy naturally got into bigger problems.

For example, when Toyota was looking to build a large facility in the United States, Michigan's governor basically rolled out the red carpet and bragged about the number of skilled workers in the state ready to work. Toyota assessed the situation and determined that there was no way they were going to open a plant in a union State.

Most, if not all, of the states that got the new factories provided substantial financial incentives, so the decision was not completely free market based. Besides, I don't think Toyota dislikes unions, as its workforce back in Japan is unionized and that does not seem to hold them back. Toyota would rather pay its employees less though. You can argue that the union up north was asking for too high a salary, while the workers in the south got the better deal, but that does not mean unions are useless or evil. It is how capitalism works. Companies are free to price their goods and services as they see fit and the union workers are free to negotiate the price for their labor. I don't understand the vilification of unions for their "greed", while greed is what makes capitalism run. If it is OK for corporations to be greedy, it is OK for unions as well.

 

[JoeG4]

Here's my question for you:

Suppose you work in a job that compensates, but tends to cover only necessities and emergency expenses. In the future, after many years of hard work - do you consider it unfair to expect (err.. be entitled to) a retirement that does not entail being the greeter at Wal-Mart?

That is a legitimate question. Social security generally does not provide the kind of money you'd need to NOT work at Wal-Mart as a retirement job.

 

[SeaFox]

I don't understand the vilification of unions for their "greed", while greed is what makes capitalism run. If it is OK for corporations to be greedy, it is OK for unions as well.

From my understanding, union contracts sometimes created situations were it was difficult to get a job in a certain industry without being part of the union. Plus, the people managing the union got a cut of the action so the result was you created a new layer of "management" in the labor chain that, like many layers of management in large companies today, seem to be made up of people who do little actual work but made as much or more than the rank-and-file employees they were representing, because they in effect controlled a large enough percentage of a businesses workforce they could shut down a company's ability to operate literally on a whim. Putting these two points together is almost a form of extortion to the worker ("if you want a job in this town I'm gonna have to get my cut").

Also, some union labor contracts had terms that made it difficult for employers to terminate union employees. So the result was in a mixed-labor shop you could have a lazy union employee on the payroll and non-union employees who made less. This would cause animosity in the workplace.

It's not that people felt the corporate greed was "okay" and that the union greed was not, it's that to some people the unions, despite portraying themselves as protectors for the common man, were really just another subset of people exploiting the worker for their own gain.

 

[itdepotonline]

I really learn so many things from all of you you all are professional's.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[themd99]

I know someone who works as a museum educator for a city museum. She has a graduate degree yet earns less than $40k and hasn't seen any sort of pay increase in over 3 years. This is living in an area where monthly rent for a single bedroom apartment is easily between $1000-1200 (that's $12,000-14,400 per year just on rent!) Meanwhile, healthcare costs continue to rise, and the city keeps passing them to the employee.

Maybe she should have thought about it when she became a museum educator What does that even mean?

 

[Dcr2k]

I have all of those benefits without a union at my job. Unions are not required for benefits and treating employees right. Know what you are talking about before you spout off.

<- All of those luxuries you have exists because unions started those. You think companies starting offering them out of the kindness of their hearts. You need to learn about what working conditions were like in America before reforms. Your false sense of empowerment and typical entitlement without regards to where the luxuries you enjoy came from is typical of the feeble minded. Typical of those who never even knew first world struggle, let alone third. I pray for those of you who never grow. Word to Tebow.

 

[Dcr2k]

@mingoglia the fact that you attempted to apply the theory of market correction to occupations in public service that are paid by tax bases shows why we need am aptitude test before commenting on subjects over some of our heads.

In public service, pay is not necessarily commensurate with the responsibility & importance of the tasks assigned. If it was, taxes would really be off the chain.

 

[jackc]

<- All of those luxuries you have exists because unions started those.

That sounds nice, but where is the evidence that better working conditions are even correlated with unionization, much less caused by it?

Why do the vast majority of companies pay more than minimum wage?

 

[phillipdoug]

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. Know your history, get educated before you spout off.

Just because a good thing can be abused does not void its existence.

You look at the benefits prior to getting the job and pick the job according to your needs. Don't blame the employer for trying to make a profit. Unions suck the life out of capitalism. If you don't like the benefits after you get the job you are quite free to try for a better job elsewhere. If you want complete protection, start your own business. Then see how fast you'll agree that unions aren't a good thing for business.

 

[CalWizrd]

I'm a little late to the party, having just started reading this thread recently.

Here's my question for you:

Suppose you work in a job that compensates, but tends to cover only necessities and emergency expenses. In the future, after many years of hard work - do you consider it unfair to expect (err.. be entitled to) a retirement that does not entail being the greeter at Wal-Mart?

That is a legitimate question. Social security generally does not provide the kind of money you'd need to NOT work at Wal-Mart as a retirement job.

Where is it written that it is the responsibility of the company you work for to provide for your retirement? Is the concept of personal responsibility totally dead and buried?

 

[AlekNovy]

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. Know your history, get educated before you spout off.

Just because a good thing can be abused does not void its existence.

The victors write history. The "education" you got was itself influenced by education unions... So you're basically being educated by unions on how much you need unions.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they have no place - but history books themselves are written to fit the needs of different interests.

A lot of different special interests have filled the books with "If it weren't for us, you'd still live in 12th century conditions" --> a lot of the time that's either an exaggeration or a lie.

The truth is, technology has done more to liberate and give more freedoms and benefits to more people than all groups, unions and movements combined... Yet politicians, special interests and groups will take all the credit they can get away with claiming.

 

[donnaw]

That sounds nice, but where is the evidence that better working conditions are even correlated with unionization, much less caused by it?

Why do the vast majority of companies pay more than minimum wage?

You must be very young and or not well versed in US history. I'm 60 years old. My grandfather worked in the coal mines of West Virginia. My father told me what it was like. They worked 10 hours a day, 6 days a week. They were given Christmas and Thanksgiving day off. No other holidays. No vacations. No health benefits. If you got sick or hurt not only did you lose your 'pay' you might lose your job and since you lived in 'company' housing for which you had to pay rent you were also homeless. Salaries were paid in 'company' script (not dollars) and that script was only good at the company store. Working conditions were very unsafe and the company did nothing to make them safer. This was the norm in the early 20th century.

Unions were formed to force the companies to give workers a fair salary, safe working conditions, benefits, days off, etc. Without those unions you would not have 40 hour work weeks, holidays, safe working conditions, vacations, all those things you now take for granted.

Yes, in more recent times unions have gotten out of control but since they have gone out of favor please note how working conditions have been slowly reverting. People are losing benefits, wages are stagnant, and far too many people are willing to work under these conditions because they are afraid they will be fired. Just why do you think corporations are making record profits now but middle class wages are stagnant? Because the workers are putting in longer hours for the same pay. Why do so many working people have no health insurance?

The demise of the unions have allowed corporations to revert to their old ways. And it has decimated the middle class in this country.

As for the laws on the books now. Such as OSHA, etc, why do you think we even have them. Because unions pushed for them.

As I said, I'm pretty old. Looking back on the last 50 or so years I can see both the good and the bad of unions and I can say that our country became stronger when unions worked correctly and now that they don't the younger generations are suffering.

But most anti-union people won't believe me. That's ok. You're the ones who will suffer for the loss of having a 'voice' to protect you.

 

[jackc]

You must be very young and or not well versed in US history. I'm 60 years old. My grandfather worked in the coal mines of West Virginia. My father told me what it was like. ...

Unions were formed to force the companies to give workers a fair salary, safe working conditions, benefits, days off, etc. Without those unions you would not have 40 hour work weeks, holidays, safe working conditions, vacations, all those things you now take for granted.

No doubt, working in the coal mines in the early 20th century was not fun. But granddad's story doesn't show that the union fairy tale is true. Improved conditions are not even correlated with unionization. Didn't it peak in the 1950s? You don't believe in the myth that people were better off in the 1950s, do you?

As countries get rich, companies have to compete for labor. Again, that's why most have to pay more than minimum wage.

 

[dernhelm]

No doubt, working in the coal mines in the early 20th century was not fun. But granddad's story doesn't show that the union fairy tale is true. Improved conditions are not even correlated with unionization. Didn't it peak in the 1950s? You don't believe in the myth that people were better off in the 1950s, do you?

As countries get rich, companies have to compete for labor. Again, that's why most have to pay more than minimum wage.

Minimum wage is actually deplorably low. Paying more than minimum wage would be a requirement to keep good workers with or without unions. Because if everyone just got minimum wage, no one would be able to feed their families. But that doesn't make union successes a "fairy tale". Obviously, you cannot be convinced, so I won't even try - but there is plenty of evidence from the manufacturing sector that workers were heavily abused before unions but much less so after.

Then the pendulum swung the other way, and some unions became a safe haven for people with poor work ethics and a tendency towards corruption. But don't confuse where some unions ended up with how they began. They began for good reason - whether you believe that or not.