Now that I think of it, the union would actually FIRST have to vote to see if the union even wants tuition reimbursement or Coursera or no co-pay. If most don’t want tuition reimbursement because they’d prefer the no co-pay, then what the collective union wants is what they take to management to negotiate. We can’t assume that EVERY union employee is even interested in each of these new benefits especially when what they’d RATHER the union negotiate for is more money. Which union employee wouldn’t quickly swap free Coursera for $33 bucks a month (or more) added to their check?
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 Employees at Unionized Maryland Store Denied Latest Benefits Provided to Non-Union Workers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I arguably am part of one of the bigger union, the BMA, which protects doctors working in the UK NHS. They fight on our behalf against the government. Without our union we literally have no protection at all. There is no way an individual can stand up to big corporations or in my case the government.
You’ve kind of made my point. 65mil sounds like a lot but it’s not a lot for a company like apple. Apples gross profit for last year was 165 billion!!! We need to level up the planet a bit. I’m all for hard work but the wealth divide is getting bigger. It makes no sense that a large proportion live close to the poverty line and a few individuals have more wealth than the entire population of a country!
I’m kinda of the opinion, and this is ONLY from looking at a leaked list of “demands” they wanted their union members to weigh in on, that the store just had REALLY bad management and they were effective at keeping the national org in the dark for a LOOOONG time. This is because a few of the top demands on the list (I don’t know if they were listed in order of importance or not) were things that the local leadership is 100% responsible for. Things like scheduling changes and being respected.
No, you see, they FORCE people to buy it… by putting an Apple logo on it.
I’m a union member and this seems like totally normal behaviour.
Once you enter in to an enterprise agreement I wouldn’t expect anything else.
Once you enter in to an enterprise agreement I wouldn’t expect anything else.
Um, why is this news? I don't think Apple is being "punitive" to unionized employees. This is how unions work. They weren't "denied" anything. When Apple and the union renegotiate contracts on behalf of all the employees, if Apple withholds benefits at that time, then it would be considered foul play. Not to mention, the union would be doing a terrible job representing the employees interests.
No matter how much an employer does for the employee, it will NEVER be good enough short of giving them the entire ship. Even then, that still wouldn't be good enough. You give them an inch, and they take a mile.
Speaking from experience as an employer. No matter how lenient you are with policies and rules, no matter how generous you are with pay and raises occurring like clockwork for every employee, no matter how generous benefits are with no strings attached, no matter how pleasant the working environment is...a vocal minority will always find room for grievances short of squeezing the employer for everything they have.
Sure, Apple has deep pockets, but that's beside the point. What should matter is what's FAIR, not how deep Apple's pockets are. What is a fair compensation for the job? What is a fair expectation for job performance? Does Apple offer competitive compensation? Anything more than what's FAIR turns into the pot calling the kettle black, with the employees being unfair to the employer due to factors that are irrelevant to the job being offered.
No matter how much an employer does for the employee, it will NEVER be good enough short of giving them the entire ship. Even then, that still wouldn't be good enough. You give them an inch, and they take a mile.
Speaking from experience as an employer. No matter how lenient you are with policies and rules, no matter how generous you are with pay and raises occurring like clockwork for every employee, no matter how generous benefits are with no strings attached, no matter how pleasant the working environment is...a vocal minority will always find room for grievances short of squeezing the employer for everything they have.
Sure, Apple has deep pockets, but that's beside the point. What should matter is what's FAIR, not how deep Apple's pockets are. What is a fair compensation for the job? What is a fair expectation for job performance? Does Apple offer competitive compensation? Anything more than what's FAIR turns into the pot calling the kettle black, with the employees being unfair to the employer due to factors that are irrelevant to the job being offered.
I suspect this is just the next step in Apples fight against widespread unionisation. Longer term if more people do join the Union it will be better overall for the members. If you don’t want the burden of Unions as a country then get your politicians to legislate for decent minimums in terms of pay and benefits.
His point was there are some really good examples of BAD unions: police, government, teachers, etc. I 100% agree. I'm 50+ years old and it really burns me that there are TONS of examples of bad unions every few weeks in the paper (yes I still read the paper
- Cops earning $70k "salary" yet rake in $200k+ in "overtime"
- Bad teachers that simply cannot be fired
- Government employees (US Postal Service for example) that "retire" in their 50's AND collect a great pension for the rest of their 40+ years on this earth.
- Unions that demand a yearly salary increase of at least 5%
- Teachers unions that promote walking off the job for days or weeks because they can't negotiate
- Unions that allow you to retire, collect a pension, and then go work somewhere else while collecting said pension (see basically any government job especially in law enforcement).
Hypothetical examples. There aren't nearly as many in real-life as right-wing echo chambers would have us all believe. I've worked in several different union jobs and across the board, the employees tend to be better workers because they're happy with the environment, the pay and the respect they get. And sure, there will always be a few bad ones, but there's no shortage of that in non-union work places too. And often times, those people are protected by other things: nepotism, being buddy-buddy with the right managers, etc. You seriously think the same can't-fire-bad-employees dynamic doesn't happen in the private sector? I've been there too and have seen it for myself. And what happens more often in the private sector? Lousy management who can't be fired because the company protects their own at all costs.
Spare me the scare tactics and made-up examples. It's literally no different than the garbage that happens at non-union jobs except in the union positions, the good employees have a chance of being treated well.
On balance, unions do far more good than bad. I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater because the alternative is way worse.
Always interesting read from the other side of the Atlantic.
Unions would not be needed if there was not a institutionalised unemployment to suppress market economy driven wage development. This institutionalised unemployment is endorsed by governments and private sector alike and put the employed at a great disadvantage during negotiations.
A few, like the creative class and IT personnel (over represented here) work in a field with chronic need for workers and then it is easier to be without a Union.
Unions would not be needed if there was not a institutionalised unemployment to suppress market economy driven wage development. This institutionalised unemployment is endorsed by governments and private sector alike and put the employed at a great disadvantage during negotiations.
A few, like the creative class and IT personnel (over represented here) work in a field with chronic need for workers and then it is easier to be without a Union.
Well that works both ways. Presumably Apple is happy to offer benefits and pay to union stores it would not be prepared to offer to non union as they are after all different in their negotiation strategies.
For goodness sake Apple treat your people better, your business is not at risk. I buy your products because of the thought that goes into them - please put the same attention into the welfare of those that give you their time. It feels so unnecessary for Apple to cause this friction!
Technically Apple cannot go around he Union. The employees voted for this themselves.
If it’s a step, it’s a VERRY weak step. As far as value…
reimbursement - until you finish the classes, zero (so, net INTO pocket in the short term, zero)
Coursera - $33 a month. (so, yay, extra $33 of pay… but it goes into someone else’s pocket. Would prefer the pay.)
zero co-pay - not even an option that’s offered for non-union employees in Maryland (so, again, zero)
Net benefit being discussed here in the short term (that doesn’t require the employee to pay anything first).
$33 a month… but they’re forced to spend it on Coursera.
This is their… “fight” against unionization?
“See? If you were non-union Towson, you’d get COURSERA! Hah? How ya like them… Apples?” Anyone in the union tempted by this isn’t paying attention.
How disrespectful.
Can we have a normal conversation here?
I believe we all agree we have a homeless problem.
Let’s look at root cause. Ronald Reagan and the decommissioning of mental health institutions would be a start.
The decommissioning of mental health institutions had begun long before Reagan; it was just finalized by him. There was, and still is, a real discussion about these institutions. They were considered dehumanizing and placements could often be manipulated. The funds that supported those institutions was given back to the states for the creation of state-specific support programs. However, those funds were likely diluted and diverted.
You see similar challenges in public education between having dedicated special ed classes vs special ed students being main-streamed into a "regular" classroom. There are good arguments on both sides. But often the driving factor is cost (one teacher with aides in a single classroom vs an aide per student in a mainstream class), parental pressure, and legal factors.
Agreed. Too many here are arguing that they had to offer the increased benefits. I don't believe that is the case. Union employees work under an agreed upon contract that was negotiated by the union.
Disclaimer: I am not an employment lawyer.
We don't know if these benefits will be offered to union employees. Negotiations haven't started yet.
And yet, Apple has added benefits before the unionization effort. You're begging the question here.
**** APPLE!
They just lost a die hard user.
They just lost a die hard user.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bye! Don’t let the door hit you on your way out!
Why? The union asked to be able to negotiate their benefits with Apple. According to the article, negotiations will begin soon. Seems like things are working how they are supposed to.
