Apple Store employees trying to unionize

http://www.itworld.com/mobile-wireless/166763/some-apple-store-workers-are-talking-u-word-thats-union

by jfruh • 15 years ago

46 84 15 years ago

itworld.com

rospaya• 15 years ago

> It's certainly not an optimum time for unionizing. The economy is stalling

So, the employees are un-American?

MaxGabriel• 15 years ago

Given the context of the paragraph, I think its more likely the author is coming from a PR standpoint. I think they probably meant: the public isn't really behind unions because they've been demonized and are shrinking, and that problem is exacerbated because the economy is stalling.

"It's certainly not an optimum time for unionizing. The economy is stalling, and the percentage of private-industry, non-farm workers belonging to unions was slightly less than 7 percent in 2010 (versus 34 percent in the late 1940s), according to the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. And, of course, unions have been demonized ever since the Reagan Administration.

Still, I'm a big believer in the rights of workers to attempt to form unions, so good luck to the folks behind the ARWU. They're going to need it."

brown9-22• 15 years ago

It's a very odd point for the author to be making in the first place - the Apple Store employees would have been better off attempting to unionize 30 years ago?

zachrose• 15 years ago

Yes, if by 'stalling' the article is referring to Apple's 400% growth since the bubble collapse.

iamdave• 15 years ago

Angry members of generation Y acting like angry members of generation Y?

omouse8• 15 years ago

What does that even mean? Are you trying to say they're acting as if they're privileged?

Brett_Anderson• 15 years ago

Speaking as a "convert"... Apple deserves a union.

te_chris• 15 years ago

Good on them. I think the demonising of unions has been one of the stupidest things to come out of the neo-liberal era.

EDIT: Knew I'd get downvoted. Seriously though, why is it a bad thing for employees to bargain collectively in order to get the best deal? To me it just demonstrates the market working. i.e. people achieving "economies of scale" (to bastardise the term) in negotiations with powerful employers.

nupark22• 15 years ago

While I agree with the sentiment, unions breed enormous inefficiencies -- modern unions are worthy of scorn.

I'm not convinced that there's anything a union does that a co-operative corporation couldn't do better. Instead of battering your head against Management, you can align your interests with Management.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative

quandrum• 15 years ago

While I agree with your sentiment that cooperatives would be better, reality for many of these places are that management has no desire or will to cooperate.

Sadly, in the modern world, sometimes it seem labor is a throwaway commodity, and one that can increasingly be replaced by capital.

ericd3• 15 years ago

Why should management give up the control of a company they founded/own/etc?

muhfuhkuh• 15 years ago

A large contingent (here and in general) are "supply-side", pro-management, laissez faire, no/low/fair/flat tax supporting, anti-socialist types.

It comes with the territory that they'd also be almost certifiably Libertarian, which as a system would work perfectly if it weren't for the people.

Joakal2• 15 years ago

I've downvoted him because it's a one-comment opinion post that wasn't constructive to the thread.

Same as the other post examples (negative ones disappear fast so here's a loose example): "unions are bad." "wow, Apple employees are so self-entitled." "Speaking as a "convert"... Apple deserves a union."

Grinding axes is fine, but not when it purposely hijacks the thread.

cheez3• 15 years ago

It's funny how laissez faire is considered as solely good for producers by you.

In my country, nearly all price increases in the last 3-4 years are related to direct government involvement or regulations preventing competition. I have yet to see how this corporatism is going to benefit me.

I'll take my chances with laissez faire, thanks.

ryanisinallofus• 15 years ago

There is nothing anti laissez-faire about unions. In a free society people should be allowed to organize however they want. As long as the government stays out of such situations a union is as capitalist an idea as a corporation.

omouse8• 15 years ago

The sad part is that the word "Libertarian" used to mean someone that was in favour of equality and socialism. Someone who was actually liberal.

wisty2• 15 years ago

I just can't stand the whole "scarecrow Libertarian vs. scarecrow Red Taper" debacle that happens every time the word "union" crops up.

ramanujan3• 15 years ago

Well, those who considered themselves to be "building socialism" killed 100 million people and drove their nations into poverty. Would you agree that China only emerged from this situation by embracing a fairly strong pro-business ideology?

dantheman• 15 years ago

If it was voluntary no one would have a problem, but unions demand special rights. Also unions poison the relationship, they turn what should be a mutually beneficial exchange into one that is antagonistic. Most people don't have a problem with the concept of a union, but the reality leaves much to be desired.

Here's a good example: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/n...

bandushrew• 15 years ago

Some Unions can demand special rights. A union may poison the relationship.

Mike Rowe nails it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs61lfhqeNg&feature=playe...

arohner3• 15 years ago

The market working is a great thing. The issue is when the market doesn't work. There are many laws granting unions more power than they would otherwise have if the market worked.

For example, in some states, if 51% of the employees decide to form a union, the other 49% are forced to become members. Then the union can extract union dues from their paycheck, even if they don't want to.

Unions also destroy meritocracy, replacing raises based on merit with raises based on seniority.

Unions can increase wages far above what would happen if the market worked. At commercial airlines, you'll see some pilots making $200,000, and some making $30,000, for the same job, on the same route, with the same safety. Increasing wages above market prices causes unemployment, because the company is less likely to hire new employees. Without the union, in general you'll see lower wages, but also lower unemployment.

What'd I'd like to see is all laws mentioning the word union to be abolished. No laws protecting unions, and no laws preventing them either. If you can form a club, and raise your wages or working conditions, more power to you.

jcampbell12• 15 years ago

I agree with your sentiments, but in the US, there are also many laws that restrict the power of unions, particularly government employee unions. There are laws that prevent government employees from striking which drastically limits their bargaining power.

Are you sure you want French style transportation strikes in the US, and government employees organizing strikes to get more vacation?

omouse8• 15 years ago

There are many laws granting unions more power than they would otherwise have if the market worked.

THe employer still has a lot of power. You can be fired at a moment's notice and be forced into poverty. That's waaaaaay more power than a union has!

edit: I forgot to mention that a meritocracy doesn't exist. People come from different backgrounds and some have had more (or less) opportunities to improve their skills. Rewarding very skilled people is great, but you should also be rewarding less skilled people by giving them more training (which many companies skimp on...).

cma2• 15 years ago

Unions aren't allowed to perform secondary strikes in the US.

ramanujan3• 15 years ago

Because unions don't let the market work. They physically attack "scabs" who would do the job for less without the bad attitude. They force all workers to pay them dues once a site is unionized (something that right-to-work laws are intended to redress). The union bosses like Andy Stern rake in the bucks for contributing negative productivity. And in the mid to long term they cause the demise, migration, or automation of an entire industry. That's why Boeing moved its plant out of Washington State, and one of the reasons Japanese car companies invest so heavily in robotics. Talk about killing the golden goose.

From the standpoint of the consumer and employer, who must deal with their strikes and surly attitude, unions are a disaster. From the standpoint of the above average and exceptional workers, they are also a disaster as unions exert peer pressure to stop people from working hard and "showing up" the unproductive workers. In a union workplace, all promotions are based on seniority rather than merit. And unions have a history of racist targeting of "outsiders".

You could not think of a culture less compatible with the tech industry, let alone a Silicon Valley startup.

byw• 15 years ago

Not directly related to this, but I made my first ever visit to an Apple Store last Sunday.

For some reason I was expecting a quiet boutique shop, but ended up wading through a sea of people. The vast majority were waiting around to fidget with demo units and kill time, while the few store employees were literally working non-stop.

I'm not a crowd person, just walking around for a few minutes was stressful enough for me - I can't even imagine what it's like to actually work there all day while wearing a smile.

texel• 15 years ago

It's... really stressful. I had coworkers who still have dreams about it, years later.

mcritz• 15 years ago

Are you talking about your experience during the Falluja campaign or working at a retail store?

leviathant• 15 years ago

Depends on the locale, probably. When I went to the Apple store in Philly to get an iphone4 a couple of months ago, it was quiet and the staff were too bust hanging out with each other to help me out - even after I asked to buy an iPhone. I was told someone would be right with me, and after watching the staff dawdle for 10 minutes, I interrupted a conversation and finally started the process.

Nice enough people, and I understand (and appreciate) they do not use high pressure sales tactics, but it took way too long for me to buy a phone in a nearly empty store. If in 2+ years my next phone is by Apple, I'm definitely ordering online.

wallflower2• 15 years ago

The standard tactic employed by McDonald's is that if employees ever manage to actually get past the hurdles and get the official vote to unionize, the location of the unionized McDonald's is instantly and permanently shut down.

Joakal2• 15 years ago

Source? This sounds like a potential exploit for other businesses.

wallflower2• 15 years ago

I read it originally in "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser

http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/toronto_13feb98.html

Starbucks employs other strategies:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/are-starbucks-and-wh...

Other companies do less obscene variations like instead of a layoff of unionized workers: move the factory just beyond the 2 hour commute so most entrenched employees will be forced to make their own decision.

brudgers• 15 years ago

I don't know about McDonalds, but Walmart has taken action consistent with this approach.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/09/news/international/walmart_c...

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2009/11/27/Wal-Mart-Canada-...

daimyoyo2• 15 years ago

This will never happen. Apple retail has one of the most selective hiring processes of any company on the planet. Would you endure 4 interviews across 6 months to sell shirts? Neither would most people but thats SOP at Apple. Yes, they probably aren't paid as well as others in their industry(especially given the $7,000/ft^2 the stores average) but it would take a lot more abuse than they put up with now before the Apple store is unionized.

brown9-22• 15 years ago

Do you have a source on the interviewing process for the retail store? Sounds interesting.

daimyoyo2• 15 years ago

I just wrote up my experience in trying to get a job with the Apple store: http://1every.blogspot.com/2011/05/employment-process-at-app...

mahyarm• 15 years ago

Store employees go through such a process?

scottmp10• 15 years ago

Modern unions seem to be worried more about "fair wages" (where fair is determined by the union) than preventing employee abuse. The fact of the matter is that there is choice in employment, especially if you are employable enough to be hired by Apple Retail. What is happening here is effectively the same as if Apple Retail, Best Buy, etc banded together to demand "fair wages" (as determined by them). In free markets (i.e. not what unions were initially designed for), unions provide excess leverage to employees that force companies into unfairly paying employees more than they are worth (and I feel this is a large cause of the U.S. auto market crash).

codex• 15 years ago

I've often wondered why, if corporations are subject to antitrust/anticollusion regulations, why unions aren't too. In both cases an entity or entities seek to gain sufficient clout such that the market no longer functions efficiently. Why should, say, the Boeing Machinist's Union or the UAE be allowed to monopolize the labor market of their respective corporations? Is it because there's a subtle difference between these instances?

omouse8• 15 years ago

Because unions protect the worker from being abused. The power balance is heavily in favour of management who can fire workers on a whim.

Also, the market isn't efficient. If you look at any large corporation, the amount of bureaucracy is crippling sometimes (of course some unions turn into bureaucracies which also hurts).

smokeyj2• 15 years ago

If the large corporation is such a bureaucracy, a start-up somewhere will come eat their lunch. The theory of natural market monopolies is a historical fallacy. Only with the government's assistance does a monopoly exist (such as a union, central bank, regulatory rights, etc). http://mises.org/daily/5266/The-Myth-of-Natural-Monopoly

cma2• 15 years ago

They are; under Taft Hartley, they can't perform secondary strikes.

pnathan• 15 years ago

As someone who's worked retail and fast food, I think those types of locations are past-due for some serious labor effort. Those kinds of jobs have atrocious pay and - from what I could tell - required working overtime to pay one's bills (supposing you were living on under 12K/year) if you weren't a supervisor.

Personally, I think if you work (around) 40 hours per week, you should be paid a living wage. That's going to vary based on location, but you shouldn't have to work more than 50 hours per week just to pay your (uber-frugal) bills.

Well, that's my opinion on the matter.

Apple Store employees trying to unionize

Related Stories