Comments
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.
todareistobmore t1_iuij2tg wrote
Disappointing, but it's the same thing Starbucks and a lot of other big companies are doin. The NLRB doesn't have the money to investigate all unfair labor practices currently, and if they can wait until Republicans have control of any part of the government again, they won't be investigated at all.
Mr_Fraunces t1_iuj1e3f wrote
It's a divide and conquer tactic.
AutoModerator t1_iui172n wrote
Links from the domain present in your post are known to present a soft paywall to users. As a result, some users may have difficulty reading the linked content.
It may be helpful to provide a comment containing a synopsis or a snippet of the major points of the article in order to help those who may not be able to see it.
In accordance with the subreddit rules, please do not post the entirety of the article's contents as a comment.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
EfficiencySuch6361 t1_iuiy9ir wrote
If the union doesn’t have enough leverage, this is the result. I know it’s popular to think Starbucks and Apple should be unionizing but the truth is that they compensate way better and more fairly than other fast food places, wal mart, and so many other big companies. Which IMO should really be the places that the general public ought to advocate unionization
todareistobmore t1_iuj8ubv wrote
> If the union doesn’t have enough leverage, this is the result.
This is illegal. It's illegal for an employer to reward nonunion employees, and it's illegal for an employer to participate in a union election (by, for instance, bragging about how they're denying benefits to unionized employees).
Also, this store didn't unionize because of general public advocacy, they did so because they employees chose to. You don't have to support that, but if you don't, it says a lot more about your labor politics than who you think should have a union instead.
EfficiencySuch6361 t1_iuka1rr wrote
If the union can’t negotiate better than what is already the baseline for non-union employees… whose fault is that? It’s not mandated by law for the union to get preferential treatment during negotiations, either.
More union members = more leverage. If working at Apple or Starbucks was more horrible then they would probably have more union members and therefore more leverage. But this is Reddit where no one can bother to think critically when they could be complaining about the wages of Starbucks and Apple employees who are better compensated than just about any other retail or food service job. If the lowest paid of us were better off, we would all be better off. Why it makes sense to ppl here to not focus on the groups with the lowest wages and least benefits with the most stolen wages etc etc but hey why think rationally about something when we could emotionally downvote the trendy things to hate and promote the poorly developed hivemind ideas that prolly aren’t going to work
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.