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

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster


In a letter sent to Apple's CEO Tim Cook and hardware engineering chief John Ternus this week, nine members of U.S. Congress from Maryland expressed "serious concern" regarding Apple's decision to close its unionized retail store in Towson, Maryland on June 20, without plans to open a replacement store within the Baltimore region.

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

"We recognize that decisions of this scale involve complex business considerations," the lawmakers said. "However, we urge Apple to reconsider whether there are viable paths forward that would preserve jobs and maintain a retail presence in the region. Maryland residents value employers who invest in their workforce and demonstrate a sustained commitment to the communities they serve. We stand ready to engage constructively with Apple to better understand this decision and to explore potential solutions."

The letter was signed by nine of Maryland's lawmakers, including two senators and seven representatives, all from the Democratic Party. They said it was their understanding that Apple's store at the Towson Town Center has been in "a strong-performing location," but several local news reports have stated that the shopping mall is in decline and has lost major retailers like Tommy Bahama, Banana Republic, and Madewell.

In the letter, the lawmakers said the store's closure will "significantly affect" residents and small businesses across the Baltimore region, including approximately 90 employees. As a result, they asked for Apple to provide a clearer understanding of the rationale behind this decision, including whether alternatives such as relocating the store or other operational adjustments were meaningfully considered.

Last month, Apple announced that it will be permanently closing three retail stores in the U.S. in June, with the other two locations set to close beyond Apple Towson Town Center being Apple Trumbull in Trumbull, Connecticut and Apple North County in Escondido, California. Apple said it made this difficult decision following the "departure of several retailers" and declining conditions" at all three of the shopping malls.

Notably, the staff at the Towson store 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.

Apple said employees at the Trumbull and North County stores will "continue their roles" at the company's nearby stores in each area, so transfer eligibility is guaranteed. Meanwhile, Apple said employees at the Towson store will be eligible to apply for open roles at Apple in accordance with their collective bargaining agreement, and it is unclear if everyone who applies will successfully secure a new position at the company.

Last month, the IAM union filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), citing discriminatory treatment against unionized workers at the Towson store. Unlike workers at two other closing stores, Apple has not offered its unionized Towson employees the opportunity to transfer to other stores.

IAM said Apple not offering Towson employees the opportunity to transfer "raises serious concerns that this closure is a cynical attempt to bust the union."

"We praise the Maryland congressional delegation for having these workers' backs and demanding answers from Apple," said IAM Union International President Brian Bryant. "These workers made history by exercising their right to organize for a voice on the job. Walking away from them now sends a dangerous message to working people everywhere."

Apple has said it is simply respecting the terms of the bargaining agreement.

According to Apple, the contract that the union agreed to 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. Apple has no current plans to open a new store in the area, but if it were to do so within the next 18 months, the affected employees would have the right of first refusal.

"We strongly disagree with the claims made, and we will continue to abide by the agreement that was negotiated and agreed with the union," an Apple spokesperson said. "We look forward to presenting all of the facts to the NLRB."

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: Maryland Lawmakers Press Apple Over Decision to Close Unionized Store
 
  • Like
Reactions: maxoakland
I'm sure there will be some interesting comments in this forum. Some making valid points, A LOT not making a point at all and borderline not making sense, but all interesting. 🙂🙃🙂
 
So Apple offered employees at the non-unionized locations to continue their roles at nearby stores, with transfer eligibility guaranteed, but did not offer it to employees at the unionized location. Seems like unfair treatment to me.

Sure, the union agreement stated the employees could be transferred to a new location if Apple opened one up, but that’s not guaranteed. Alternatively, they could accept severance pay. Ok fine. But it seems weird that Apple would rather pay severance than offer to rehire its employees.

Why anyone would take the side of the executives at a trillion-dollar company instead of its employees making considerably less is beyond me. It’s reasons like this that workers continue to get taken advantage of while the rich get richer. Employees came together to try to protect themselves and instead they are criticized and ostracized.
 
Last edited:
The closest Apple store to me is two hours away and it would be nice (and job-supporting!) to have one in my city. I wonder if my representatives will write a open letter to Apple and ask it to open a store in my city?

/These representatives are doing their job and representing their constituents, but it does seem like micromanaging to question why a business closes down a particular store.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CasinoOwl
Kinda surprised that the general sentiment here seems to be so anti-union. Even if you just consider the fact that the union employees are the only ones not guaranteed jobs at other locations, it’s not a good look for Apple. Not surprising that any big company would be anti-union, but come on. Unions are good for workers.
 
"In the letter, the lawmakers said the store's closure will "significantly affect" residents and small businesses across the Baltimore region"

It's an Apple Store in a mall that, from all reporting, has had decreasing traffic for a while now. What are the politicians doing to improve the local economy across the Baltimore region? If the local economy is shrinking and cannot sustain a business why are the owners of the business obligated to keep it open?
 
So Apple offered employees at the non-unionized locations to continue their roles at nearby stores, with transfer eligibility guaranteed, but did not offer it to employees at the unionized location. Seems like unfair treatment to me.

Sure, the union agreement stated the employees could be transferred to a new location if Apple opened one up, but that’s not guaranteed. Alternatively, they could accept severance pay. Ok fine. But it seems weird that Apple would rather pay severance than offer to rehire its employees.

Why anyone would take the side of the executives at a trillion-dollar company instead of its employees making considerably less is beyond me. It’s reasons like this that workers continue to get taken advantage of while the rich get richer.
The bolded text above is the key statement. When you unionize you bring another party in that is responsible for negotiating different terms than non-unionized employees have. If they don't get the proper terms to protect the unionized employees, why are we blaming Apple for following the letter of the forced contract?
 
So Apple offered employees at the non-unionized locations to continue their roles at nearby stores, with transfer eligibility guaranteed, but did not offer it to employees at the unionized location. Seems like unfair treatment to me.

Sure, the union agreement stated the employees could be transferred to a new location if Apple opened one up, but that’s not guaranteed. Alternatively, they could accept severance pay. Ok fine. But it seems weird that Apple would rather pay severance than offer to rehire its employees.

Why anyone would take the side of the executives at a trillion-dollar company instead of its employees making considerably less is beyond me. It’s reasons like this that workers continue to get taken advantage of while the rich get richer.
Instead of just saying "rich people bad" have some reading comprehension:

"...employees at the Towson store will be eligible to apply for open roles at Apple in accordance with their collective bargaining agreement, and it is unclear if everyone who applies will successfully secure a new position at the company."

It's in their own collective bargaining agreement they signed. Additionally, if you did any research you would realize the Towson Mall is rapidly declining and has had numerous violence and robbery issues.
 
As someone who (given everything I currently know) approves of Apple closing the Towson store, I have no issues with this letter. If everything is above board, as I suspect, then Apple should be able to show that. If in fact, the store is actually high performing (and has been high performing), then we should know that.

But what I suspect is the anti-Apple brigade will show data taken out of context showing the store is "profitable" without considering things like trend, what other stores bring in, forecasts, staff salaries/benefits, etc.

So Apple offered employees at the non-unionized locations to continue their roles at nearby stores, with transfer eligibility guaranteed, but did not offer it to employees at the unionized location. Seems like unfair treatment to me.

Apple is saying that the union contract prohibits them from doing so. That the language says "If there is a location < 50 miles away employees will be offered positions at that location; if not then they must be given severance."

I will also point out that I have a very similar commute, just reversed (DC to Baltimore). We're talking a minimum of an hour during non-rush hour times, but could be as much as two depending on traffic. If there is an accident, forget about it. I don't think most at the Towson store actually would WANT a job at Bethesda, Annapolis, or DC.

Checking right now (not rush hour (~1:30pm), no accidents per Apple Maps):
  • 50 minutes from Apple Towson to Apple Annapolis
  • 1 hour 4 minutes from Apple Towson to Apple Montgomery Mall
  • 1 hour 5 minutes from Apple Towson to Apple Bethesda
  • 1 hour 15 minutes from Apple Towson to Apple Downtown DC
  • 1 hour 20 minutes from Apple Towson to Apple Georgetown
 
The bolded text above is the key statement. When you unionize you bring another party in that is responsible for negotiating different terms than non-unionized employees have. If they don't get the proper terms to protect the unionized employees, why are we blaming Apple for following the letter of the forced contract?
Because Apple offered to rehire employees at non-unionized stores. They aren’t required to do that either. Why not extend the same offer to the unionized store? It’s not mutually exclusive. They can still follow the terms of the agreement but still give that same offer to their employees.
 
Drag Apple through court and collect an undisclosed amount, so former employees dont have to work for a decade. It's the American way.
 
It seems like a case of union busting to me. The mall being in decline doesn't have anything to do with the Apple Store. Typically Apple opens a new store in the area when a mall is going out. They should offer guaranteed roles to the affected employees and they must be able to stay unionized.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.