Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-05/apple-s-anti-union-tactics-in-atlanta-were-illegal-us-officials-say

by dc1rjj • 4 years ago

324 143 4 years ago

danuker2• 4 years ago

I believe unions are necessary in a world of humongous companies.

That is because, in case of disagreements, an employee's prospect (losing 100% of their income) is a much worse negotiating position than a large company losing <1% of its workforce.

wahnfrieden6• 4 years ago

Why not with SMB? Often employees at these have an even harder time calling attention to abuse or exploitation.

danuker2• 4 years ago

In a small business, maybe you're the only person doing <critical task X>. This is a more level playing field, but maybe a union is still useful here also.

wccrawford2• 4 years ago

As much as I don't want to be part of one, I absolutely agree that they're necessary as a check on corporations.

nickpp5• 4 years ago

Corporations are kept in check by competition from other corporation. Uniting is called cartel and is illegal.

Unions on the other hand are allowed to join indefinitely, until they become multinational humongous forces like Teamsters.

So the balance of power is slanted in favor of Unions.

purple_ferret• 4 years ago

Why wouldn't you want to be part of a union?

I am a recent member of the UAW (a more white collar local), and it's been insightful. I think unions are much weaker than people perceive. Their strengths are mostly superficial. Striking is something members don't want to resort to. Other than that all you can really do is rally and file NLRB complaints. The NLRB is a slow moving bureaucracy that any competent employer can usually effectively dance around. Rallying and building public support comes with all the pitfalls of politics, media, etc.

The worst part is actually my employer hates the union for no other reason than its an organization they can't control, so it makes the situation of being unionized a bit toxic unfortunately.

refurb• 4 years ago

I think the challenge is the way unions are set up in the US. It's very different than Europe. I recall some HNer mentioning in the UK (I think) your work place can have multiple unions, you can join whichever one you want.

Macha• 4 years ago

Yeah, the whole concept of employers recognizing a union or employees being required to join a union which is raised in US union discussions are kind of weird.

Employers don't have to recognize a union in Europe, employees can still join and avail of legal support or group actions by those employees that did join.

Similarly, if the majority of your workplace is in a union, you don't have to join, just don't be surprised they don't bother defending your case if you end up a victim of unfair dismissal. Your employer may be unwilling to offer you employment terms different to what the union employees get because of the overhead for them, but if you had that little leverage you probably didn't have the imaginary invididual negotiating power the anti-union crowd imagines anyway.

pjc50• 4 years ago

The practice is called a "closed shop", and it was ended in the UK by Thatcher and Labour gave up on trying to reinstate it because it was unpopular. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/18/labour-aban...

ajsnigrutin5• 4 years ago

Many unions soon get corrupted and get in bed with the government (or atleast one side of it).

Here in slovenia, many worker unions were against the lowering the taxes on paychecks (higher net with same gross pay), because their political parties were against those, even if the workers themselves would benefit from those.

We also have some areas (eg. a government rail company), where you cannot even get a job, if you don't get approved by one of the two unions, which mostly means that you have to pay off someone in the union to get an approval (for a very cozy job).

LeanderK• 4 years ago

This is not a law of nature, many unions just do their job. Many companies also treat their workers unfairly, so there's that. Workers need a way to organise.

What's worse, a company churning through employee after employee or a company captured by its union? Both can happen.

noelherrick• 4 years ago

Unions that are run like a business eventually become a business. Unions need to be democratically-controlled, where regular workers can propose new contract terms and vote on them, as well as voting to call a strike.

blackbear_• 4 years ago

So just like lobbying, just from the other side?

frippertronics• 4 years ago

I don't think it's valid to write off all unions based on anecdotal evidence. For every example of bad unionisation one can probably provide one or more counter-examples of good unionisation (e.g. the Scandinavian countries).

dccoolgai• 4 years ago

Many companies also do things that are a lot worse, like taking massive profits and then laying off the people that gave up time with their families and other opportunities to create those profits. I heard they also do things like give executives that don't do a great job millions while stiffing the individual contributors. Unions can help companies run better by forcing them to take a "longer than 2 year" view on decisions.

eastbound• 4 years ago

Unions or union managers are sometimes paid by the company to provide a business-friendly outcome.

brchn• 4 years ago

Voting against a tax decrease could still be in the workers’ best interest, no? I think some context is needed

cmh892• 4 years ago

Here in slovenia, many worker unions were against the lowering the taxes on paychecks (higher net with same gross pay), because their political parties were against those, even if the workers themselves would benefit from those.

You can't lower taxes without some sort of tradeoff, which is usually a cut to services. I don't know the context here but it stands to reason that you are not giving the whole situation.

We also have some areas (eg. a government rail company), where you cannot even get a job, if you don't get approved by one of the two unions, which mostly means that you have to pay off someone in the union to get an approval (for a very cozy job).

Corruption is going to exist without strict governance regardless of unions. I'm a unionized worker in the USA and no one needs to bribe their way into a job here. We have robust oversight and documentation of the hiring process.

yardie• 4 years ago

any worker unions were against the lowering the taxes on paychecks (higher net with same gross pay),

Seems to be quite a lot of context missing. I think nearly everyone agrees they want to pay less taxes and take home more money. Now if lowering taxes does not result in more money then you don't need politicians and unions to make that case.

I'm guessing lowering taxes would result in more expensive, privatized services and voters figured that wouldn't work.

j33zusjuice2• 4 years ago

Problematically, it was made exceptionally difficult—-potentially illegal, depending on the circumstances—-to hold a representative position in a union, and also hold the sociopolitical ideologies that led to the creation of unions in the first place: i.e. communism/socialism/Marxism (Communist Control Act of 1954, and the Internal Control Act of 1950).

That isn’t to say it’s impossible for an ideologue to corrupt and seek out power for themselves (it happens often enough). It’s just to say that a capitalist is not driven to act by a deeply seeded belief. They’re only interested in winning the competition. You’re all but inviting corruption.

e12e• 4 years ago

One point I've seen little or no discussion about on hn, is that employers are often (at least in Norway) organized. So they will have access to legal aid, standard contracts, training on negotiating etc - this in addition to the skewed bargaining power between a single employee and the company as a whole.

Is this not common in the US (illegal collusion on wages aside)?

It's always seemed strange to me that people will be reluctant to join unions, while employers are eager to join organizations.

Ftr at the moment I'm not a member of a union - as there's isn't really one that feels applicable to my current situation, and I have relativly good bargaining position.

eesmith8• 4 years ago

Also, anti-poaching agreements - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipoaching :

Research has found that 58 percent of major franchisors' contracts in 2016, including those of McDonald's, Burger King, Jiffy Lube, and H&R Block, contained agreements not to hire the workers of other franchisees

You mentioned "standard contracts".

I had a possible customer want me to toss my contract in favor of one they wanted. It said that I "will defend or settle any action brought against Customer" - basically, if they were sued for their use of my software then I would have to pay the court costs.

This is very unusual. I DDG-ed it, and found it likely came from a "subscription based contract database and resource center that helps over 300,000 lawyers and business owners draft and negotiate contracts more effectively", found at https://www.lawinsider.com/clause/ptcs-obligation-to-indemni..., with the example has "PTC, at its own expense, will defend any action brought against Customer based on a claim that any Licensed Product infringes a United States patent, copyright or trademark and ..."

So, along the lines of what you said, though from a vendor perspective.

BTW, I said "fuck off", though in polite terms. "This clause will require renegotiation of the price as I have not included litigation in the pricing. I can identify an appropriate insurance company and pass the costs to you."

ars2• 4 years ago

Keep in mind that unions in Europe are not the same thing as US unions, despite the same name.

In Europe there are multiple unions you can join for an employer. This competition keeps them working well.

In the US it's a single union per employer, and if the employer has one, you are forced to join it (and in some states you can decline to join, but still be required to pay fees). This causes lots of problems with corruption, and the union is more interested in their goals, than yours.

diob• 4 years ago

Exactly, and companies can stand to starve folks out. Strikes aren't as big a deal as they used to be even.

andrepd3• 4 years ago

I feel like this is such an obvious fact that I don't know how people say "contract of free association" with a straight face when it comes to the employment market.

WeylandYutani• 4 years ago

It's heart warming to see the US rediscover labour unions Republicans wrote American socialists out of the history books but you can't keep the people down!

You'll see increased lobbying from companies for increased migration to keep wages down.

winReInstall• 4 years ago

Or, hear me out, they could ditch the lipservice to democracy entirely and push some ursurper on a throne.

After all strong hierarchys controlled by a godking are closer to a company anyway.

What has democracy ever done for us?

wahnfrieden6• 4 years ago

That's a paradox of the left - is the fight to keep people laboring, or to do away with it (through automation etc.)

thr0wawayf00• 4 years ago

What has democracy ever done for us?

The labor movement gave us the 40 hour workweek, weekends off and the minimum wage. They're the reason you have time to opine online right now instead of working.

https://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-the-40-hour-workw... https://exhibitions.lib.umd.edu/unions/labor/living-wage

fundad2• 4 years ago

What has democracy done for whomst?

ajsnigrutin5• 4 years ago

You'll see increased lobbying from companies for increased migration to keep wages down.

I find it funny, that here (my country, slovenia), we have right(ish) parties against immigration but more liberal workforce rules, and on the other side, we have both leftish and pure "communist" parties (even with a red star in the logo), supposedly "fighting for the workers" and at the same time supporting more immigration.

martimarkov• 4 years ago

You fight for more votes. Get more workers to fight for and more ppl vote for you. ;)

peterjmag• 4 years ago

https://archive.ph/ld0KF

halpmeh• 4 years ago

The agency can require remedies, such as posting of notices and reversals of policies or punishments, but it has no authority to impose punitive damages on companies.

So, in essence, there is zero incentive for Apple to change its behavior.

phone86753092• 4 years ago

It just works

aesh2Xa1• 4 years ago

Or else it gets the hose again

phone86753092• 4 years ago

Anti-union tactics aren't illegal so long as the company that employs them isn't completely ruined as a result of the punishment they get.

jimbob45• 4 years ago

While the NLRB has previously held that companies can require employees to attend anti-union meetings, the agency’s current general counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, views such “captive audience” gatherings as inherently coercive and illegal. Her office is pursuing cases that could change the precedent, including at Amazon.com Inc. and Starbucks Corp., both of which have denied wrongdoing.

So it sounds like Apple's tactics weren't illegal but this new counsel wants to reverse precedent to make sure they are now illegal. Seems bizarre to try and change precedent from the side of the lawyers rather than the judges. Paired with the PR-tone of this article, it looks like an upstart lawyer trying to win the court of public opinion rather than a legal court.

mikeyouse• 4 years ago

That Starbucks, Apple, Amazon, Walmart and basically every extraordinarily profitable company in America are so stridently anti-union that they're willing to break the law to prevent them, is probably the biggest selling point for workers to join them.

fundad2• 4 years ago

There is no authority to enforce these laws so it doesn't take much will to break them.

Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

Related Stories