This is the nature of all government agencies. Once they're created they have to find ways to justify their existence. Administrators / bureaucrats always seek more power and more funding. Unfortunately, it's human nature.
Even if apple doesn't close the unionized store(s) there, the existence of the union will limit / discourage the opening of more stores in the future.
Apple has different management in different countries.
Might just be a case of bad law being enforced badly. Sorta depends on the "techniques" apple used. Back in the early 1900s I'm sure physical violence was used on both sides of the union debate. I highly doubt physical violence was even threatened in this case.
"Unions are only valuable to bad employees and the union bosses", you got that right. It's a workers mafia terrorising business owners with coercion and force. Karl Marx knew what he was doing when he invented it as part of the Communist manifesto, along with Central Banking and other things. Destroy the economy as much as possible, undermine the free market, so eventually there will be a workers revolution and Communism can be installed.
After initial offerings, shareholders who subsequently buy stock are wholly irrelevant to progressing the work of a company. The company gets money directly when first selling shares, but, after that, the company no longer benefits from what amounts to legalised gambling on its shares. Moreover, arguably manoeuvres meant to mollify stockholders, like stock buy-backs, starve companies of investment. So, explain to me why such shareholders' interests should take precedence over the workers responsible for the productivity of the company? The 'fiduciary responsibility to stockholders' that people keep citing is actually an urban myth not enshrined in law.
Not completely urban myth. There are lots of large stock holders that do have say on the Board et al. Apple is owned by someone(s). And those someone(s), depending on how many shares are owned, do have some say.
Sure, but there is no law that says Apple must prioritise stockholders over employees (or customers). This is about power, not law, which is why unions are necessary IMO. Any company that breaks union-busting laws should get heavily penalised. If Apple did break the law, I hope the company gets the book thrown against them so that maybe the people who made the decisions get fired.
Not one of those employees had to stay and “endure” this psychological warfare you speak on. If you feel you aren’t being treated well, leave. And if something seems unlawful, report it. It’s quite simple.
