FileMakerFeller

40domi said:

Apple should make an example of them, let them strike, bring in staff from other stores (or shut it down) we'll see how they feel after a couple of months without pay (probably too stupid to realise they won't get paid)
As far as retail is concerned, probably the best job going and they get 40% discounts, so can make money on the side, by buying and selling stuff!
100 years ago, even 50 years ago, workers generally were poorly paid and treated, now with all the laws, Unions just scam workers 😡

I'm not 100% certain that it's the same in the US, but I would be surprised if there is any substantial difference to the benefits I'm aware of for Apple employees in Australia: the maximum discount for a hardware product is 25% and only one product from each category (e.g. Mac, iPad, headphones) may be purchased with that discount in a given calendar year - plus, the device cannot be sold for a minimum of 12 months (difficult to police, but not impossible). Note that there is zero discount available on iPhones. A limited number of 10% discounts on hardware are also available, with the same caveat on resale.

Employees also have the opportunity to purchase Apple stock at a small discount; I am unaware of any resale caveats there.

Labour laws differ between countries but I'm pretty sure that firing a unionised employee for going on strike is illegal no matter where you are. So is bringing in replacement workers, except in clearly defined situations that form part of the agreement between the union and the employer.

Apple is powerful enough and has the money to pay the penalty for any illegal activity it might engage in relating to its employees, and the company has certainly been found guilty of illegal behaviour in the past (e.g. Steve Jobs' wage-fixing and anti-poaching agreements with other tech giants back in the day), so I think the collective strength of a union is a justifiable consideration for all employees of the company.

But the company also goes to great lengths to treat employees well. Nobody in retail was laid off during COVID despite the stores being closed, there is ongoing training and, yes, the employee discounts. In return it wants maximum effort and maximum obedience from its workforce.

This is going to be a long and protracted fight and we may never know the full truth. But I'm willing to bet that both sides are asking for more than is reasonable and that the courts are going to get involved.

dewme said:

Without picking a side on this the only thing I can say is that once the store employees in question joined the Union they handed over personal control and negotiating power from themselves to their Union. If they have a beef with Apple they need to take their grievances to their union representatives. Their union representatives are the ones who need to be actively negotiating with Apple to secure a better deal for union members, e.g., cost of living adjustments, more flexible work schedules, opportunity for advancement, etc. 

It sounds like Apple is living up to their side of the deal and funneling all of their negotiations through the union representatives. They are holding up their end of the deal.

At the same time those who have "hired" the Union to represent their own best interests are voicing their grievances to the public and at Apple directly, i.e., the "letter to Santa" analogy. Apple isn't Santa, and more so, Apple is no longer authorized to respond directly to union members.

The article does not make it clear, but from earlier AI posts the "letter to Santa" comment was a description of what it's like being a regular employee at the Apple Store and was a reason for voting to unionise, not a description of post-unionisation conditions.

michael madsen said:

Even at 1500$ it’s still useless

For you.

Kind of like how, even at $0 cost, your comment is useless to me but may have value to someone else.

AppleInsider said:

Earlier in 2024, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) Coalition of Organized Retail Employees (CORE) conducted an independent survey.

JFC_PA said:

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM)  really know retail, so excellent.

As per the article, there is a group within IAM that is dedicated to retail employees. Amalgamation and consolidation usually leads to smaller organisations becoming subgroups of the larger brand.

Remember that everyone who works for Apple goes through some fairly rigorous training. There's always a mismatch between employee expectations of what the job entails and the reality of the position, but I don't think it's credible to assert that the employees who want to unionise (or have unionised) are a bunch of ungrateful misfits with unrealistic expectations. For that to be true, the training would have to be very poorly matched to the company's requirements AND to have been that way for a long time AND senior management would have to be oblivious to the situation - that certainly doesn't sound like Apple.

Apple has high standards, which I admire. When the business practices that arise from those standards run contrary to the law it is clearly the company's duty to adjust - but what happens when the company's practices raise the ire of employees but have yet to be tested legally (or are found to be legal)?

In that situation it comes down to who has the greater need - if the company is willing to let go employees and keep training new ones until it finds sufficient compliant personnel then the company is in the more powerful position, and at the end of the day will win. The battle will, however, cost time, reputation and resources and it will need to be conducted with scrupulous adherence to the law.

I hope Apple is doing the right thing. Right now all the allegations are that the company is not, and if the allegations prove true then the company needs to change.