Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Lynwood, Washington Apple Retail Store Employees May Stage Walk-Out
- Thread starter samcraig
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Where to start...
First off, your comment "It's pretty clear that the poster has a strong anti union bias" shows your strong bias towards union/socialist attitudes. In reality, I would counter that I have a strong proclivity favoring capitalism and the ability of individuals to chart their own course and make of themselves what every they wish as long as they are willing to do what it takes to achieve it.
You assume that workers and employers are alway at odds in purpose. This is not correct and in-fact, in every successful, long-lived, profitable corporation they are rarely at odds; unless a union is involved in my experience. The first corporation that I owned was an engineering consulting firm. The average employee made several times the salary of the average worker in the U.S. It was hardly a sweat-shop. Only one group of employees, the draftsmen (this is before the days of computer based drafting) were unionized. The union that represented this one group (15 people out of approximately 100 total) was able to cause sufficient difficulties for the company and all the other employees that it was all but impossible to operate the company profitably. The reason the firm left the northeast and moved to the south was to avoid this constant petty bickering with the union that had such a negative effect on the company and all the employees. The sad part was had we decided to pay moving expenses and make arrangements for the good productive employees (non-union) so they could move with us to the new location, we would have had to do the same for the union employees which were the source of the problem. Therefore, we had no choice but to leave everyone behind. This was not a decision that I was happy to make since many of the employees were friends and well as co-workers. After the move was made, it was out good fortune to learn that many of our good employees decided to move to the area where we were now located on their own (with no assistance from the company and no promise of a job when they arrived) and were hired at the new location. However, none of the union employees made the move which was fine with me.
You made the comment; "it's a shame that modern economics has been enslaved to a certain type of ideology." It is my position that MODERN ECONOMIC theory suffers from a lack of traditional capitalist ideology, not because it embraces it as you infer. I have one simple question about your view of MODERN ECONOMICS; is the overall economy of our Country better now that modern economic theory as taken root? Are American families better off now then they were 30, 40 or 50 years ago? MODERN ECONOMICS (progressive socialism) has been the downfall of every nation where it has been embraced. It is precisely MODERN ECONOMIC thought and liberal, progressive politics that have moved this country from the envy of every other country on this earth to what it is today. There is not space here to debate this properly so I won't try. However, all one needs to do is skip all the rhetoric and just ask the question: Am I better off then my grandparents and parents? If the answer is no, then something that changed over the last 30 or 40 years has caused a problem and its easy to see what that was if you are willing to look with your eyes open.
You insinuated that I considered myself a patron with slaves to do my bidding and that when the slaves decided to balk, I just moved and left them behind (the "because "his" people" comment). Well your partly correct and mostly wrong. I did always consider all employees of my companies to be "my" people in the sense. You see, I always considered myself to be a "worker" just like all the other workers. The task I was assigned was to manage the company so that it made a profit for the stock holders AND so that it was a safe, pleasant and profitable place for every employee to invest his/her most valuable possession, his/her time (part of the only lifetime we get). You see when an employee understands that his/her contribution to the success of the company is directly linked to the success of his/her family, then there is no management-worker conflict and everyone understands that in reality they are all working for a common goal. In order for this to work however, there must be a rewards system that compensates each employee (from management to janitor) fairly based on the contribution they make. The worker that is willing to make a huge contribution needs to be compensated at a higher level and given more responsibility and authority then one that just "does the minimum." Also, those that do not contribute at the minimum level, and are therefore a burden for all the rest of the workers, need to be removed. Unfortunately, unions prevent this type of system from working.
I have either owned, been a partner of or managed (as a direct employee for others) 11 corporations during my long career. I am proud to say that these corporations were profitable, provided quality products and services to its customers, and that ALL productive workers were compensated fairly commensurate with their contributions and at levels far greater then the average across the US. All my co-workers always understood that they were part of a team, not a cog in a wheel. I have hundreds of people that I still keep in contact with (past co-workers that held all types of positions with the companies I managed) and have warm friendships with to this day. None of these accomplishments required a union to make them happen, and in fact, I claim that they happened because there was no union.
Your comment: "He also went on a rant questioning the qualities and personal attributes of people who choose to be members of unions that are frankly quite derogatory and insulting." does not correctly reflect what my point was. I will try to clarify; IN MY EXPERIENCE, those that would try to bring a union into a well run company that was fairly treating and compensating all its workers, were doing so because they were the ones who feared that there were going be be dismissed for not meeting the minimum productivity levels (that all other workers did meet) and/or were not meeting minimum standards regarding work attendance, adherence to safety rules, avoidance of alcohol and/or drugs. It was their hope that by bringing in a union that they would be elevated to a position of power and would be able to "pay the company back" for some imagined wrong they were suffering (choosing not to see all their problems were self-inflicted). That is the basis for my comment you highlighted. In over 40 years of managing companies in Right-To-Work states I have never seen the workers choose to unionize any of the companies I was associated with; in fact, there was normally great opposition to unionization by the existing workers themselves.
Reading the statements concerning the wrongs these Apple employees believe they have been subjected to falls right in line with my experience as I have reported it above.
I hope that clarifies my position.
My BS alarms have been sounding. After several days of no news about this, I call this story FALSE.
1. This was either a press release or it was merely repeated off one blog and picked up. Every news story has the same wording.
2. No specificity regarding the complaints.
3. No facts about the alleged violations.
4. Proximity to Redmond.
5. Timing follows the startup of MS retail stores.
I realize that Apple employees are contractually prohibited from posting on these sites, but I dont believe for a minute that no one does. So, I believe that, out of all the employees at Lynnwood, someone with an ego would post something specific.
There are some whiners here recounting their Apple retail experiences, but their complaints do NOT differ from some retail workers everywhere.
I read the Washington State Labor Laws and they seem sufficiently ambiguous to cover Apple Corporate.
So what is it? Why now?
I want someone in the Seattle area to sniff around and get back to us.
1. This was either a press release or it was merely repeated off one blog and picked up. Every news story has the same wording.
2. No specificity regarding the complaints.
3. No facts about the alleged violations.
4. Proximity to Redmond.
5. Timing follows the startup of MS retail stores.
I realize that Apple employees are contractually prohibited from posting on these sites, but I dont believe for a minute that no one does. So, I believe that, out of all the employees at Lynnwood, someone with an ego would post something specific.
There are some whiners here recounting their Apple retail experiences, but their complaints do NOT differ from some retail workers everywhere.
I read the Washington State Labor Laws and they seem sufficiently ambiguous to cover Apple Corporate.
So what is it? Why now?
I want someone in the Seattle area to sniff around and get back to us.
Your comments do put a different spin on the debate and puts petty whining into perspective.
Few truly understand what the meaning of a "bad day at the office" can mean. However, those in dangerous professions (military, police, firemen, etc.) well understand that a bad day can be your last day. Thanks for doing the job you do, the vast majority of Americans appreciate what you have done! So, does Apple by the way...don't forget to ask for your military discount when you purchase anything from Apple.
Note that I'm not dealing with everything as there's simply too much in your to deal with fully.
And btw, Cuba still exists, as does most of Europe who would seemingly be socialist in your view. They are hardly ruined.
You caught me
And where did I say that? In fact I'm a union representative of my works Partnership Committee, which has been responsible for some major initiatives increasing productivity while at the same time protecting workers rights.
I completely agree.
Note that you're talking about your experience. In Europe, unions and management CAN co-exist. Since you are so trenchant that they can't, is it possible that you are entering dealings with unions on the presumption that they are a nuisance, and by doing so, souring relations (i.e. are you the one souring relationships as soon as workers try to organise?) I don't mean this to be argumentative, merely asking the question whether your apparently tainted view of unions makes realistic negotiations possible.
Traditional capitalist ideology recognises that bargaining power can be unequal, and that steps can be taken to address this. There is unequal bargaining power between the worker and the employer, and the worker is usually presented with a take ot or leave it proposition. Organised labour merely tries to address that imbalance. Any capitalist who truly believes in the principles underpinning it will recognise that the coalition of groups to address such imbalances is a valid form of economic expression, and in fact is a natural operation of the free market. Therefore resisting it is attempting to pervert the free market. You either believe in the free market or you don't - you don't just select the bits that suit your ends and discard the rest.
Actually I read an article a couple of years back that the quality of life (i.e. looking at more than just wealth) in the USA was at it's peak in the 1950's. I'm not bothered trying to dig up the article though.
Sorry, bar Stiglitz and Sen, I'm finding it hard to think of any significant economists out there at the moment who could be considered to be more than a few inches left of the far right. If you're thinking of Keynesians, be advised that Keynesian economics served the USA well, and really it doesn't appear to be in fashion at the moment. The economists that are generally labelled as neo-liberal, or neo-conservative seem to be in fashion in recent years.
And btw, Cuba still exists, as does most of Europe who would seemingly be socialist in your view. They are hardly ruined.
Thank you.
What on earth is that other than an veiled threat that if your contribution isn't "high" enough that your family will starve? It begs the question, who judges what is "high enough"?
I have no dispute with this, but the criteria for determining this needs to be fair, and without unions, the workers are at the mercy of the employers whim.
I disagree
I will accept your clarification, although I don't really agree with your viewpoint. In Europe it is more likely to be considered normal to join a union, and the type of person that joins is not generally in keeping with your view.
Note that I'm not dealing with everything as there's simply too much in your to deal with fully.
You caught me
And where did I say that? In fact I'm a union representative of my works Partnership Committee, which has been responsible for some major initiatives increasing productivity while at the same time protecting workers rights.
I completely agree.
Note that you're talking about your experience. In Europe, unions and management CAN co-exist. Since you are so trenchant that they can't, is it possible that you are entering dealings with unions on the presumption that they are a nuisance, and by doing so, souring relations (i.e. are you the one souring relationships as soon as workers try to organise?) I don't mean this to be argumentative, merely asking the question whether your apparently tainted view of unions makes realistic negotiations possible.
Traditional capitalist ideology recognises that bargaining power can be unequal, and that steps can be taken to address this. There is unequal bargaining power between the worker and the employer, and the worker is usually presented with a take ot or leave it proposition. Organised labour merely tries to address that imbalance. Any capitalist who truly believes in the principles underpinning it will recognise that the coalition of groups to address such imbalances is a valid form of economic expression, and in fact is a natural operation of the free market. Therefore resisting it is attempting to pervert the free market. You either believe in the free market or you don't - you don't just select the bits that suit your ends and discard the rest.
Actually I read an article a couple of years back that the quality of life (i.e. looking at more than just wealth) in the USA was at it's peak in the 1950's. I'm not bothered trying to dig up the article though.
Sorry, bar Stiglitz and Sen, I'm finding it hard to think of any significant economists out there at the moment who could be considered to be more than a few inches left of the far right. If you're thinking of Keynesians, be advised that Keynesian economics served the USA well, and really it doesn't appear to be in fashion at the moment. The economists that are generally labelled as neo-liberal, or neo-conservative seem to be in fashion in recent years.
And btw, Cuba still exists, as does most of Europe who would seemingly be socialist in your view. They are hardly ruined.
Thank you.
What on earth is that other than an veiled threat that if your contribution isn't "high" enough that your family will starve? It begs the question, who judges what is "high enough"?
I have no dispute with this, but the criteria for determining this needs to be fair, and without unions, the workers are at the mercy of the employers whim.
I disagree
I will accept your clarification, although I don't really agree with your viewpoint. In Europe it is more likely to be considered normal to join a union, and the type of person that joins is not generally in keeping with your view.
Well, I have put forth my position and you have put forth yours. I'm afraid that we will have to agree to disagree on the value and necessity of unions. I would love to continue this debate, however, it has reached the point where it no longer represents the intent of this thread (and I'm sure we are boring many viewers) and we should end it here.
I thank you for the interesting debate, I enjoyed it. It is getting very difficult these days to find someone that is willing to enter into intelligent debate and has the knowledge, experience and capability to do so.
Have a great weekend.
I have no idea who you are, but I worked there for 3 years and walked out because of management as well - this was in 2005, and to my knowledge, they still have the same management that believes more in appearances than the actual company.
I worry that we're still under some sort of non-disclosure contract, or simply that I will be googled for this, or I'd go into some of the nonsense that happened off that floor. Shiny Happy Apple Land is a joke.
That's my local Apple store! It's were I bought my iPhone, and to tell the truth I haven't seen anything bad the whole five times I've been there. But they are ALWAYS busy only guy that isn't is the iPhone rep that calls aLight Blue over, can't say the word they are or even spell it right now... And I was hoping to get some good programs for my new mac
Maybe they'll hire me! Believe me it's always go higher up, even you gotta talk to Steve talk to Steve.
Maybe they'll hire me! Believe me it's always go higher up, even you gotta talk to Steve talk to Steve.
After 14 years of punching holes in the ocean (submariner) my worst day at work as a civilian was far better than the best day under the water.
Very interesting debate between daveporter and j26. I have to say, while I didn't like how you put your point across initially Dave, the post where you went into great detail was a very interesting read. Though I'm not sure I could work for you! Lol.
As you said, it's getting increasingly rare to see intelligent debate. Sadly.
As you said, it's getting increasingly rare to see intelligent debate. Sadly.
Apple is no better or worse then any other company whose main goal is to make money for their stockholders.
I worked retail for 7 years. Each computer salesman was given a sales goal for the month, which included selling peripherals, (hardware), and software. We were also required to sell extended service plans, (like Applecare). On extended service plans that sold for $300.00 plus, I received $1.00 for each plan sold!
Management 'allowed' you to miss your sales goal for one month, after which you were put on notice of being fired. If you missed your goal the second month, you were terminated at the end of that month.
Company policy, or whatever the management of the store dictates, is what you have to deal with if you want to work at that store. And we all know every manager treats their employees differently, regardless of what the company policy is!
Condescending ***HOLE
Ron Johnson is a condescending A**HOLE!
I had a brand new MBP 15 and the screen was definitely a manufacturing flaw which a tech center refused to replace. I called Johnson and he was absolutely condescending and belittling. He refused to override the techs call and would not address the issue but would constantly ask if there was anything he could do to help me! The cost to fix the screen was $1700!! I had it sent back to the Apple Store and THEY agreed that there was no void of warranty and they replaced it onsite. I now do ALL of my business at the Apple Store in Southlake, TX.
Did I mention that Ron Johnson is am A**HOLE?
Ron Johnson is a condescending A**HOLE!
I had a brand new MBP 15 and the screen was definitely a manufacturing flaw which a tech center refused to replace. I called Johnson and he was absolutely condescending and belittling. He refused to override the techs call and would not address the issue but would constantly ask if there was anything he could do to help me! The cost to fix the screen was $1700!! I had it sent back to the Apple Store and THEY agreed that there was no void of warranty and they replaced it onsite. I now do ALL of my business at the Apple Store in Southlake, TX.
Did I mention that Ron Johnson is am A**HOLE?
Apple Loves Capitalism When It Makes Them Rich
This is coming from the state of Washington! You can't get more crunchy!
Steve Jobs is a liberal who has AlGore the BOD and owes all of his success to CAPITALISM! If there is any factual evidence of abuse then Apple will settle. Otherwise, I would send in the Obama Black Panthers and have them beat them to submission!
This is coming from the state of Washington! You can't get more crunchy!
Steve Jobs is a liberal who has AlGore the BOD and owes all of his success to CAPITALISM! If there is any factual evidence of abuse then Apple will settle. Otherwise, I would send in the Obama Black Panthers and have them beat them to submission!
When the working class is virtually enslaved to the cause of their survival, it makes it very difficult for them to find free time to debate on internet message boards, let alone do so with the intellectualism demanded by the bourgeoisie.
Perhaps if those workers had access to higher education and medical care without enslaving themselves to debt, were paid adequate wages that enable them to avoid debt, and were not living in fear of losing their jobs (often because of their debt), they may be more inclined to get involved in the debate.
I've heard that Apple is quite selective about who works at the retail stores.
To bring the media into something like this is absolutely inexcusable and I hope that the employees who had nothing to do with this action aren't fired. To the whining crybabies who sought to bring attention to their cause I would say "Good luck and don't expect a referral!"
I'm not sure it's been said what the main issue is, therefore it's hard to make judgements, except that Apple handled it, which is the right thing to do.
Sorry, did not notice that thread was closed and further discussion was impossible, Sorry my english is bad.