Cunninghams_right t1_iujclai wrote
uhh, the whole point of bargaining agreements is to sign a contract to lock in pay and benefits (and whatever else is agreed to between the union and the owner). if there is some new benefit to other stores, the unionized one will have to re-bargain their agreement to get it if they want it.
if the union didn't get sufficient pay/benefits, then they need to fire the union leadership because they fucked up the bargaining.
if the union DID get sufficient pay/benefits but the company is raising wages or benefits across many stores just to try to reduce the likelihood that others stores won't unionize, then congrats, not only did you get sufficient pay/benefits, but you also helped out many others by raising worker compensation in a wider area.
you can't expect to get the benefits of both a locked-in agreement AND the benefits from corporate that are given to other locations.
lifteatteach t1_iujlzqt wrote
Apple has so far failed to negotiate with the leadership of the new union to set a contract. Members can’t vote on a contract until there is agreement between the union and employer.
Cunninghams_right t1_iujyucb wrote
The whole point of a union is to be able to force unemployer to negotiate in order to avoid a strike. If the union can't get a contract and they're not willing to strike then they're not really a union, or at least their leadership is failing them because they're not using any of the power that they have
therbler t1_iuk2p5g wrote
> If the union can't get a contract
The election was in June. The vote was about 2:1 in favor of unionizing. A vote to strike at this point is a vote for no union at all.
Cunninghams_right t1_iuk5r2t wrote
but if the employer is able to successfully dodge any bargaining agreement and the union isn't willing to strike, then what is the point of complaining that some other conditions are better elsewhere? either stick to the negotiating process, in which of course the company isn't going to give away benefits before they negotiate benefit, or strike. I'm not sure why employees would assume that they're automatically going to get the best compensation right before they bargain for compensation.
this whole thing seems like a big ado about a pretty mundane process.
therbler t1_iujfa0f wrote
> uhh, the whole point of bargaining agreements is to sign a contract to lock in pay and benefits (and whatever else is agreed to between the union and the owner).
uhh, this requires a bargaining agreement. This store unionized by election because Apple wouldn't voluntarily recognize them, and they don't have a contract because Apple won't voluntarily negotiate with them.
Cunninghams_right t1_iujgpv1 wrote
then they strike. if they aren't willing to unite to bargain, then are they even a union or are they just employees paying some con-artist dues to call them a union?
therbler t1_iujl7vn wrote
As always, you can tell a lot about a person by which laws they think are worth enforcing and which aren't.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments