Originally Posted by DKWalsh4
Management getting bonuses for the normal employees hard work? Welcome to the real world
That's what I was thinking too. I worked for Gap, if we made our sales goal and our credit card goals, management got a bonus. We got nothing. I worked for both Borders and Barnes and Noble. Management definitely got a bonus at Borders cause I was a supervisor there and got it. and if I got it for that I know the higher ups did.
it is just part of retail.
NOW if the management of said store was openly giving hours according to an individuals performance and enforcing or not rules by that performance that is different. It is certainly not fair, but it might not be against the rules or if it is provable. Because there might not be a paper trail to back up, for example, that it is ignored when someone who gets 60-75% of those 3 items takes a 12-15 minute on the clock break (that is supposed to be 10 minutes) every freaking break, but someone who gets only 20% gets a tongue lashing for stepping off the floor to go to the bathroom and is watched like a hawk for their break time so they don't go out one second late.
Originally Posted by myapplelove
PLEASE, don't be quick to judge or dismiss the working personel at the apple stores. Besides it being tasteless to do so, it's also harsh to not offer support to people who really need it in this day and age. And that is more often than not, not the management but the work force.
yes but by the flip, don't be so quick to judge the management when you lack all the details. this whole 'we are required to sell' thing is NOTHING new to any company. everyone has their thing. Gap has their credit cards, Barnes and Noble the reader card, Borders the same. Some Best Buy stores were accused of lying about stock status on high priced items because the customer didn't want to buy the extended warranty. and so on. so to say 'we are required to sell' is nada in terms of a good reason to complain or walk out.
there has to be something more to the game and we don't know what that is. until we do we can't really bash the management for being abusive. Being bitchy perhaps, but there's no law against being a bitch to your staff. Nor is HR going to care so long as that bitch isn't racist, sexist etc and gets sales results. it sucks but it is a fact of life when you work retail, assume your boss is going to be a bitch and deal.
Originally Posted by DKWalsh4
No, I'm not management. I work for a large construction company, and we have had two people protesting outside of our headquarters for approximately six months. They were never employees of ours; they are protesting because we hired non-union workers in a job down in Missouri. Now I personally have overseen the high wages and benefits the union workers receive. It is well above
For our non-union workers we're required to pay a comparable amount as union workers. So do they deserve the job less than the union workers?
Maybe. Was the hiring of non- union workers in that circumstance within and handed according to the union rules and bylaws. if yes, then they have nothing. if not, then it's on the company.
Again a case of needing all the facts before one can have a truly valid opinion on the matter.
Originally Posted by mitchelljd
Actually Apple has over the last year been cutting back on the higher saleried store staff, instead choosing to have store mgmt be enabled to push staff's hard and lower expenses at same time.
how is that different than any other company, including perhaps even this new Microsoft. We don't know how much higher those higher wages are. We don't know that they won't be as nasty to their staff as Apple and every other retail company. We don't know that they won't have minimums, pay on sales etc.
Apple Corporate would never admit to this and alot of this is dressed up to look like the manager of a particular store or group of stores. but... it isn't that. It is a deliberate campaign to lower Apple retail employee costs.
again, how is this different than any other company. I know 2 supervisors and 2 managers at a single Borders store that were laid off because the company cut their positions across the board to save money. And yes at the same time they did send out a memo saying that stores could no longer hire in anyone at full time. all new hires would start at part time (which comes with a lower pay scale, lower max hours for the week and lower benefits). they also cut back the contributions to the full timers retirement, dropped back the employee discount program etc. All to save costs.
Combine that with the fact that Microsoft is launching their own major market store initiative... it is no small reason why so many Apple Store staff that are unhappy with the state of affairs at Apple Retail are willing to accept generous salary packages and jump ship to Microsoft.
again a case of not knowing all the facts. We don't know that Microsoft is going after and gotten active Apple employees. or if it is all ex employees that could be out of Apple for other reasons. We don't know what if any other companies were 'head hunted'. We don't know the salaries, the benefits. We can't say that their management is going to be angels. for all we know, the folks they 'stole' from Apple were total asswipes that Apple was happy to be done with because they had no cause legally to fire them. so now this gang of Apple folks that are jumping ship thinking they are getting away from the bitch they had to work for is going to get the bigger bitch that ran the store the next town over. oops.
Originally Posted by unferth
The measures taken by unions to ensure their self-preservation may seem off-putting, but it's beyond question that the fairness of the labor market is increased when workers act collectively.
yes but again, many if not all unions do have rules about the 'legal' hiring of non union workers under particular conditions. I work in film and I know that SAG has rules about filming in Right to Work states where you can't force someone to join the union to work on a job. If the production does everything they can, and can back up the claim, to hire only union, then they aren't dinged for the nons they do hire for what should be technically a 'union' slot. however they do have to pay the same wages etc as a union would get. on the flip, there's no penalty payment and the person doesn't get a taft into the union.
if the union in the given example has such rules and they were followed then no one can speak against what happened. if they didn't follow the rules, they got what they deserved. we don't have the fact to know which side the coin is on in the case. just like we don't about this Apple thing. However I will say this. The fact that not all employees were going to walk makes it sound like the situation isn't as clear cut as it seems