Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Agrees to Improve Working Conditions for Retail Employees Amid Unionization Efforts
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oh I know, but the motivation would be low.
Even though I am a pro-union person, if I was paid similarly with same benefits, etc as an union shop and trust management to not be vindictive, not sure if I would be for joining a union.
If I’m treated right, there is not much incentive for a union.
Last edited:
Please show us what particular restrictions (laws?) prohibit Apple from improving pay and conditions for their retail employees. Especially considering they’ve already done it somewhat.
I think that’s what happened in Georgia. Seeing as how these are individual stores unionizing rather than the entire company, if there’s only 40 people on payroll and 11 are fine with how things are and 11 are ambivalent, then “intimidation” isn’t needed.
That’s just the long way of saying, no the SEC has not done that. And considering that there are no examples of companies being investigated for giving their employees fair wages, it’s also pretty far-fetched to believe the SEC would punish Apple for such a thing. Again, this seems like such a nonsensical thing to worry about. It’s not as if Apple is defrauding shareholders in such a case. Apple can very truthfully justify such a move by explaining that in order to retain the best talent and get the most out of their workforce, that offering fair and decent wages is the best way to do that.
No, it’s a very specific way of saying “Apple cannot do what Gravity Payments did as easily as Gravity Payments did it”.
And yet, public companies worry about LOTS of things that private companies don’t have to worry about. Many of them likely seem nonsensical to those not in a position to NEED to worry about them.
BUT, Apple would have to justify it!
That’s the point and it’s not a controversial statement. A private company would need no justification. And, it’s this need to justify it that restricts/constrains/impedes their ability to just DO it.
First of all, I don’t believe they would have to officially justify it. However, if they did end up having to justify it, they could do so in a statement of a paragraph or less. You’re manufacturing an issue from near whole cloth.No, it’s a very specific way of saying “Apple cannot do what Gravity Payments did as easily as Gravity Payments did it”.
And yet, public companies worry about LOTS of things that private companies don’t have to worry about. Many of them likely seem nonsensical to those not in a position to NEED to worry about them.
BUT, Apple would have to justify it!
And, it’s this need to justify it that restricts/constrains/impedes their ability to just DO it.
It’s your opinion that public companies have the same permissions as private companies. I disagree.
What public companies can do vs private is not a matter of opinion.....
Laws dictate that.
What is opinion is whether a public company actions is something their shareholders would approve of. A public company can raise their employees salaries. There is no restrictions. They would have to explain to the shareholders how that increases the value of their investment.
Whether they approve or disapprove is opinion.
A private company is not restricted in raising salaries as it does not have to explain to shareholders.
That’s not what I said. You’re acting like there would be some grand inquisition if Apple raised wages. Where’s this investigation for the minimum 10% increase in wages for retail workers they’re already implementing? That’s got to be costing Apple at least $200 million per year on just pay alone, without even accounting for the other benefits they’re implementing as well. What’s the amount that supposedly causes the SEC to get involved on stopping a company from increasing wages?
While I must have missed where $4.5bn came from, you explicitly said there are "restrictions on what they're able to do in this area". Restrictions generally mean laws/regulations. Apple is restricted from murdering it's retail employees if they want to unionise. It is not restricted when it comes to choosing to pay them more, as evidenced by how they have already done this and nobody has stopped them or announced something bad is now going to happen in response. Also, private companies have various ownership structures, often with investors, and if you think their actions are never influenced by what they think, you're very wrong.
And yet, public companies worry about LOTS of things that private companies don’t have to worry about. Many of them likely seem nonsensical to those not in a position to NEED to worry about them.
BUT, Apple would have to justify it!
And, it’s this need to justify it that restricts/constrains/impedes their ability to just DO it.
So, what you actually mean isn't "restrictions" or "permissions", but that publicly traded companies can face pressure from shareholders and the market in response to their actions, which is:
- A completely different thing.
- Something where you've provided nothing to suggest that shareholders oppose the company doing so, and/or are going to try to do anything about it. As before, I'm one myself, and I'm strongly in favour of them doing so.
As someone who worked at Apple Retail during its "glory years" under Ron Johnson before Ahrendts gutted everything good about it I have a couple of thoughts:
But... on the other hand... While things have gone downhill at Apple retail of late (I still know several), it is still MILES ahead of other retail employees in terms of pay and benefits. Many Apple retail employees have never experienced working at Target or Best Buy, and comparative education would focus their efforts at improvements significantly to things that matter.
- Bring back defined roles and differentiated shirts. Most people KNEW that the orange shirt couldn't help you fix a computer, but they could point you in the right direction.
- Bring back 1-to-1, but probably with a per-lesson cost as well as the membership. A huge reason people felt comfortable moving to Apple was this level of education. It also offered a solid promotional route for people who were passionately creative, but not Geniuses. Not everyone wants to repair iPhones.
- Fire a lot of the managers. Every time I go in now it seems like there are more managers standing around managing... nothing... than employees helping customers.
But... on the other hand... While things have gone downhill at Apple retail of late (I still know several), it is still MILES ahead of other retail employees in terms of pay and benefits. Many Apple retail employees have never experienced working at Target or Best Buy, and comparative education would focus their efforts at improvements significantly to things that matter.
You're thinking of large corporations that treat employees like they're lucky to work there, while the corp makes money off of them and gives them none of the profit sharing. Unless you're an exec or management, of course.
Why as a employee would one put up with that.
- find a job with a company that values you
- find a job with a company that lets you invest into the profit sharing
Also, which companies specifically are you referring to.
Unions were directly responsible for a lot of the gains labor made in the 20th century. A livable wage, health benefits, retirement benefits, reasonable hours worked. It helped pave the way to middle class for most of American in the 20th century.
And then in the late 70s there was a very effective campaign to demonize unionization. The PATCO strike was the tipping point. Since 1980 real wages have stagnated. Retirements benefits were phased out from being an employer benefit to an employee paid. (The joke being that employees were expected to fund this it with those stagnant wages). Right to work laws were quickly enacted.
Throughout this period employee productivity has continued to grow. The economy has expanded. And the top 1% have gotten wealthy. But that success is no longer shared with employees. I'm old enough to remember when 'profit sharing' was a real thing. Or employees feeling like they financially benefitted from the company doing well.
Are unions universally great? No, the human character defects that tend to corrupt anybody with power in an organization occurs in unions. But most American works have greatly benefitted when there is a check/balance to the power of business in a capitalist sociiety.
because they operate in countries where labor laws are non-existent and/or oppressive.
Yes they should be addressing it; no they won't be doing it.
I just want to reinforce almost everything you said. I worked at Apple retail when the iPhone came out. It was actually a really positive experience and a well-organized company to work for. That being said, I didn't need the job financially at the time as I had full-time work also..was mostly just for the chance to have done it. Because of that, I didn't care as much that my pay wasn't spectacular.
The clarity on roles was super helpful.
The 1-1 lessons were well received and positive but not super frequent I think. Wondering if my memory serves but I think they were pretty new and maybe not super publicized at the time.
I had pretty positive experiences with the managers. That might have changed since I was there or I didn't work there long enough to really have any concerns.
That all being said - the economics of the company suggest to me that Apple could afford to invest in retaining their staff through higher pay, and it share some of the company's success. This would feed into more satisfied employees who are more experienced, and thus a better customer experience.