Second Apple Retail union will be at Penn Square, Oklahoma City store
Workers at Apple's Penn Square Store in Oklahoma have voted to unionize, making it the second store in the US to have done so.
The vote was 56 in favor of unionization, and 32 opposed. The union will be part of the Communications Workers of America.
"I want everyone to realize unions aren't just for those bad and hard workplaces, it is for everyone in America, we have the right to unionize," organizer Patrick Hart from the store said before the vote. "I just want people to realize that, because it can do a lot of good for a lot of people who feel they're stuck in their workplace."
"They don't have to leave their job, they can just make their current one a better place," he continued.
Staff at the store have said that the motivation behind the unionization effort is to "have a seat at the table and negotiate what our experience looks like." Workers also reportedly grew tired of store management repeating "that's just the how it is" to complaints.
Apple has not commented publicly on the vote's results. The National Labor Relations Board executed the election.
The first store to unionize is the Towson, Maryland location.
Read on AppleInsider
The vote was 56 in favor of unionization, and 32 opposed. The union will be part of the Communications Workers of America.
"I want everyone to realize unions aren't just for those bad and hard workplaces, it is for everyone in America, we have the right to unionize," organizer Patrick Hart from the store said before the vote. "I just want people to realize that, because it can do a lot of good for a lot of people who feel they're stuck in their workplace."
"They don't have to leave their job, they can just make their current one a better place," he continued.
Staff at the store have said that the motivation behind the unionization effort is to "have a seat at the table and negotiate what our experience looks like." Workers also reportedly grew tired of store management repeating "that's just the how it is" to complaints.
Apple has not commented publicly on the vote's results. The National Labor Relations Board executed the election.
The first store to unionize is the Towson, Maryland location.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
After writing that, I think I figured it out. It's actually a terrific puzzle and I encourage y'all to figure it out for yourselves before looking for an answer in the comments, below. Feel free to respond to this post by indicating how long it took you to figure it out.
meanwhile, the union people will just pay more and more dues for essentially same terms as their peers.
there is a time and place for unions, but against Apple in a recession is just dumb.
so the 43 people who voted no will continue to be non union in that store correct?
However Canada does have an exception: if you belong to a religion that prohibits unions, you can stay outside the union, but you are required to donate the equivalent of your union dues to some charity. However if you already give money to your religion/charity, there's no way to disprove that you are giving an equivalent amount of money.
A second way to get out of being in the union is to get promoted to management. Curiously, I know one person who refused a promotion to management because he wanted the job protection of his union. Once you are in management, for example, you can be fired on a whim, while it's not so easy to fire someone who is unionized.
they essentially want government to guarantee lifetime employment regardless of performance . That just will not happen in 2022 and I will put my money on Apple Legal team any day.
Unions that are formed for political reasons (i.e. outrage at company policy, prevailing anti-corporate sentiment, etc) typically are less productive, less team oriented (except when protesting), less creative and task-focussed; therefore are less valuable to a modern company as a whole (affecting bottom-line, shareholder value, etc) and will likely affect future work possibilities for those members that are separated from this job. In areas of very low minimum wages, high unemployment, and general disparity for the lower-middle class, this can be a boon and temporary/ mid-term revitalization of some industries/ locations.
However, Unions that are specialized (like many construction trades) typically offer subsidized training, apprenticeships, support at difficult work sites/ locations (unsafe), etc., since they 'know the workers needs' have actually modernized and provided additional value for the workers they represent (auto unions are providing EV repair knowledge) since a company may not be able to pay for the extensive training.
In Apple's case, it is likely political for the retail-focussed members. With a recession coming, en masse layoffs are more likely so separating a localized Union (one store) is easier and will be a prominent target. Too bad. The best way to discourage a Union is to offer lucrative, personalized bonuses and incentives that only a few would likely have the ambition, passion, or commitment for (25%+ sales increase, added responsibility volunteering, etc) - divide and conquer.
Those in Florida expect a 33 billion socialist bailout everything going blue
The bottom line is that the US, Canada, UK, Australia, and to a lesser-degree northern continental Europe, are Individualist societies (getting toward Ayn Rand-style, but not Libertarian per se) with a strong work- and entrepreneurial- ethic that are therefore Great because Unions don't prosper and are not widely embraced. I get it that there are a whole bunch of evil Corporate Overlord-types who pleasure in squeezing every bit of happy energy out of their staff - but in a rich, free country, Choice Rules. So Leave. Peddle your skills elsewhere. We don't hide our mediocrity in the hoard or cower in our lack of ambition within the flock or link-arms in a mad craving for a 24hr-4day week to achieve some kind of Eloi-type life-balance. If you're sick of the rat race, go live off the grid for a bit - regain civilization perspective. Realize that the G7 countries were not built on average people acting averagely or nice people acting nicely - they moved in after. Find a vocation and get toxic about it - excel and conquer.
That all being said, I do like the idea of non-political Guilds. Employment communities that keep skills current, self-reinforce each other, and get newbies up to speed out of school without large parts of a decade on intern-pay. Lack of Apprenticeships are one of the big failings which woulds further allow empowering of the ambitious and driven.
Then you need to look at the commercial landscape: there are fewer employers out there as the smaller operations are getting squeezed out of existence by the companies that achieve the size and scale to be efficient enough to succeed. Mergers and acquisitions play their part too. With fewer prospective employers and an ever-growing number of prospective employees, there's a trend towards standardisation of compensation (it's then cheaper to outsource your HR functions to a specialised service; the more homogenised the HR "products" the easier it is to achieve economies of scale and the cheaper that service can be priced). Overall the employer has a wider range of options than the employee.
Then there's another assumption you're making: "We don't hide our mediocrity in the [horde] or cower in our lack of ambition within the flock" is a fine attitude to take if it meets your personal values, but it's not suitable for all people or all situations. Herd mentality exists for several reasons, and exploiting that mentality is one of the ways that the largest companies get larger: they can improve the efficiency of their sales process. Some people want to take charge in all situations, some people are willing to loose the reins at times, still others only care about a few things enough to impose their will on a situation. Neither extreme is good for society overall, but ignoring the needs of those people is also unacceptable.
What would our world be like if everyone had to run their own company? What would it be like if nobody had ambition? We need to find a balance to get the optimal result, and we need to work on that process constantly.
"Realize that the G7 countries were not built on average people acting averagely [sic] or nice people acting nicely - they moved in after."
I don't think that's entirely true, but even if we accept it as such for the sake of argument, those "non-average" people still existed in a society that contained people unlike them. They were able to harness the power of other people to achieve their goals; that would be unlikely if everyone had the attitude of "I want to stand out in the crowd." And what if the "average" and "nice" people didn't turn up? What would the outcome be? Celebrity Death Match? Because the inhabitants of the countries colonised by the European powers didn't have an enjoyable time and are still suffering from societal inequality - that's not something I view as desirable.
"Lack of Apprenticeships are one of the big failings which woulds [sic] further allow empowering of the ambitious and driven."
Funnily enough, as a general rule unions are active supporters of the Apprenticeships process whereas corporate management don't really care about it. There are a lot of pressures on corporate management to continually generate impressive results; a lot of the time it's easiest to do that by trading long-term pain for short-term gain but eventually the future arrives and the accumulation of pain can be fatal. Unions want the corporations to be successful so that their members continue to be employed; it's "enlightened self-interest," an approach that seems to be a little less prevalent in the corporate world. Even if you view unions as parasites, remember that successful parasites keep the host alive as long as possible to maximise their own benefit.
Another thought: if you're an ambitious individual afraid that joining a union means you'll be held back, why aren't you raising those issues with the union management? You're assuming that you will have no voice in a union (in theory, an organisation devoted to determining and enforcing the collective will of its members) but you will have a voice in the corporation (in theory, an organisation devoted to uniting people behind a goal defined by a select few). Why not make sure the collective bargaining agreement has rules governing exceptional effort and achievement that satisfy your needs to the best possible level? And if you think my suggestion is unrealistic, what do you think "overtime" is?
A lot of the commentary here is, to my eyes, expressing automatic reactions to the term "union" without examining the history or the intentions of either unions, employees or employers. With the strength of the emotions being displayed, may I humbly suggest it's worth examining the thinking behind them to ensure our individual and collective needs are still being met.
Wait until you have one down the block with a different predator every week.