Apple Store union workers claim foul over labor audit

AppleInsider

Workers at unionized Apple Stores are raising questions about an independent audit of the company's U.S. labor practices, suggesting it excluded them.

Towson Apple Store

In January, Apple agreed to a labor practices audit requested by several prominent investors ahead of its annual shareholder's meeting.

That audit is focusing on whether Apple complies with its own official human rights policy "regarding workers' freedom of association and collective bargaining rights in the United States."

Workers representing the Penn Square store in Oklahoma City and Towson Town Center store in Towson, Maryland say that the clock is running out on the audit, which is expected to be completed in December, and they have yet to be contacted for feedback.

"While we are pleased that Apple has agreed to undergo this assessment, we are concerned that Apple's unionized workers have yet to be consulted in the auditing process. With less than three months left before the audit concludes in December 2023, we are worried that our voices and experiences will be left out of the third-party assessment," they wrote.

The workers assert that despite their labor organization efforts, Apple continues to engage in "a vicious anti-union campaign."

"In less than one year, we have had to file six unfair labor practice (ULP) charges on behalf of our two stores alone. In June 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint against Apple for labor violations at the Penn Square Apple store in Oklahoma City," they noted.

The company has repeatedly drawn criticism for its retail store labor practices: earlier this year, the NLRB ruled that Apple "coercively interrogated" World Trade Center store employees and violated their rights.

The Coalition of Organized Retail Employees (CORE) alleged in July that Apple has refused to bargain in good faith, violating several laws under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in the process.

IAM CORE

Apple's retail store labor troubles have also drawn the attention of Congress. In May, two members of Congress wrote to the NLRB to express concern over Apple's treatment of retail employees in Kansas City, Missouri and Houston, Texas.

Despite the organization efforts of the Penn Square and Towson Town Center stores, the vast majority of Apple Stores remain un-unionized. Unionization efforts are expanding abroad, however.

In September, workers at Apple's Glasgow, Scotland store reached an agreement with the company over pay raises. The store became the first unionized location in the UK in February.

Staff at Apple's Southampton, UK store notified management in September of their intention to unionize, requesting "voluntary recognition" of their status. The group criticized Apple's "treatment of disabled, neurodivergent and chronically ill staff as well as fears around job security, particularly associated with changes being made to Genius Bar."

The UK's United Tech and Allied Workers (UTAW) group allege that Apple has orchestrated anti-union measures at its UK stores, using veiled language and implied threats to chill union organization efforts.

Read on AppleInsider

22july2013

If the audit is intended to be a random/scientific survey, then that could explain why nobody in Podunk was contacted.

Podunk: noun, informal, US: a hypothetical small town regarded as typically dull or insignificant.

chasm

22july2013 said:

If the audit is intended to be a random/scientific survey, then that could explain why nobody in Podunk was contacted.

]

There are very few unionized Apple Stores, so one would think that all such stores would be critical to include in any meaningful survey.

dewme

chasm said:

22july2013 said:

If the audit is intended to be a random/scientific survey, then that could explain why nobody in Podunk was contacted.

]

There are very few unionized Apple Stores, so one would think that all such stores would be critical to include in any meaningful survey.

Why? There are 271 Apple stores in the US. Including the tiny number of unionized stores in a random survey would give a tiny majority an outsized influence over the sampling. 

Which is exactly what those stores want. 

MplsP

dewme said:

chasm said:

22july2013 said:

If the audit is intended to be a random/scientific survey, then that could explain why nobody in Podunk was contacted.

]

There are very few unionized Apple Stores, so one would think that all such stores would be critical to include in any meaningful survey.

Why? There are 271 Apple stores in the US. Including the tiny number of unionized stores in a random survey would give a tiny majority an outsized influence over the sampling. 

Which is exactly what those stores want. 

except there have been clear issues at some of the union stores with the NLRB upholding complaints so failing to look at those stores is like ignoring the wells you know are contaminated when evaluating water quality.

dewme

MplsP said:

dewme said:

chasm said:

22july2013 said:

If the audit is intended to be a random/scientific survey, then that could explain why nobody in Podunk was contacted.

]

There are very few unionized Apple Stores, so one would think that all such stores would be critical to include in any meaningful survey.

Why? There are 271 Apple stores in the US. Including the tiny number of unionized stores in a random survey would give a tiny majority an outsized influence over the sampling. 

Which is exactly what those stores want. 

except there have been clear issues at some of the union stores with the NLRB upholding complaints so failing to look at those stores is like ignoring the wells you know are contaminated when evaluating water quality.

If you already know that you have wells that are contaminated then you would address the root cause of the contamination at those wells and try to correct the issue, including possibly closing them down. You’d then do an audit of your other wells to detect possible contamination of your other wells. 

I think Apple is intensely aware that they have a small number of stores that are not at all happy with the status quo. Those stores should be the focus of additional scrutiny that goes well beyond a survey or audit if the goal is to discover whether the discontent of the few stores is more widespread than Apple believes it to be. 

I’m not discounting the grievances of the tiny number of stores that have publicly expressed their discontent. They’ve moved way beyond the discovery phase and their votes have already been counted. Including them in the audit would not add anything additional and would potentially exclude a different store from providing additional insights into issues that have not already been discovered. 

This discussion could go back and forth indefinitely because it all comes down to whether you believe that Apple is conducting the audit to discover a systemic problem or if you believe Apple is conducting the audit to mute or gloss over the grievances that have already been expressed at the tiny number of unionized stores. 

My point is directed at the audit process and questioning why you’d want to ask someone a question when you already know their answer. The unionized stores have already spoken and Apple needs to address and acknowledge what they are saying independently of determining whether they (Apple) has a much bigger problem to contend with. Hopefully, giving those who haven’t spoken the opportunity to do so seems fair to me.