Apple Retail Chief Dissuades Employees From Unionizing in New Video

[mikethemartian]

Did she dress up like Cruella de Vil in the video for the full effect?

 

[4jasontv]

1. Everyone deserves to make a living and have healthcare even if they’re rude

Wait... What? People deserve money and paid services?

2. Maybe they’d be better at their jobs if they didn’t have to worry about paying rent and were happy that they could afford something enjoyable too

Maybe they’d be better at their jobs if they thought doing a good job had the potential for career growth. I wonder what percent of Apple corporate jobs are filled with existing retail employees.

 

[bluespark]

1. Everyone deserves to make a living and have healthcare even if they’re rude
2. Maybe they’d be better at their jobs if they didn’t have to worry about paying rent and were happy that they could afford something enjoyable too

If this were an argument about universal healthcare or universal basic income, you might have a point. But does an employee who is "rude" (to use your example) entitled to those things *from Apple*? I would argue they are not, and should be fired, because "rude" isn't what Apple hired them for.

 

[grjj]

It's interesting that in Apple's technical communications the words may/could/might/etc. usually mean "will". Running over your iPhone with your car may cause the screen to become unresponsive.

But in this context it seems the opposite may/could/might is most likely a "probably wont, but there's a slight chance it could happen"

I've never been affilliated with a union but I'm hard pressed (as an intelligent and pragmatic person) to see Apple saying... "Hey unionized worker's we'd like to give you all a one-time pay increase of 10% regardless of your annual review" and the union or employees saying "naa, we're good." Sure they may ask for 15% to start a negotiation but you can bet few would say 'no' to 10% if the alternative is 0% or striking and possible loosing more.

 

[nebojsak]

If this were an argument about universal healthcare or universal basic income, you might have a point. But does an employee who is "rude" (to use your example) entitled to those things *from Apple*? I would argue they are not, and should be fired, because "rude" isn't what Apple hired them for.

Well, if you put it that way, somebody had to hire those "rude" or whatever employees, and that is Apple HR department. And, if there are (as some posters say) too many underperformers in retail, then entire HR department should be fired. And then, somebody had to put and organize that HR department like it is, and so on to the top of the company.

 

[vipergts2207]

It is definitely a coincidence that high levels of union membership in some ways correlated to the rising of middle class, if we just look over the obvious economic boom during the same time. Retail workers don't like to put up with BS? They are welcome to quit and find another job, just like you and I if we are not satisfied with our current job. Why are retail workers different? Again, they are getting paid with what market can bear. If everyone in retail just quits and no one works in retail, then Apple will be forced to raise pay to attract talent. As of now, seems like Apple is paying above market rate with health benefits, and people still want to go to work for Apple retail. What's the use of union in this case besides getting monthly due from members and paying union reps?

Retail workers aren't different, just like the factory workers in the 30's, 40's, and 50's weren't different. Do you imagine putting nuts and bolts together somehow requires significant amounts of skill and training? Retail and service workers are just now figuring out that they're capable of doing the same thing low-skilled factory workers did decades ago.

Great the forklift drivers are happy in the union. But think this way, if you are the best of the best at whatever you do, wouldn't you want to go where the company that pays the highest compensation? Why do you want to be limited to the scale set out by union. If you are the best, you are leaving money on the table to compensate the mediocre drivers in the union. If you are the top and very best of what you do in your professional, you absolutely do not want to be in an union. That's what makes American tech companies so great because they pay by meritocracy. Companies are forced to pay top dollars in order to retain the best talent. Union promotes the opposite.

If you're the best at what you do and feel like you aren't being paid your worth at your union facility, leave and go somewhere else that will. This is literally no different than what you're telling non-unionized workers to do.

 

[vipergts2207]

Eh, nothing that the chief said in the video is untrue, it's just only certain facets of the discussion.

Unions are in many ways a pretty piss-poor approach to better labor conditions versus state and federal labor reform, but I get why in the absence of the latter people are pushing for the former. But they're absolutely not magic bullets, and while there are the obvious reasons Apple doesn't want a union that are self-serving, many of the people who treat unions as the solution to worker problems I'd wager likely haven't been in one themselves.

Unions can be good—I kept my health insurance while furloughed during the COVID-19 pandemic, for instance. On the other hand, my work environment is made worse by the mediocre to plain incompetent colleagues that cannot be removed because they're in the union, too, and that's going to be a huge reason while I'm likely to leave in the near future. Things do take much longer because of layers of negotiation, and the original union I joined ceased to exist and got merged because the union leadership was corrupt (is the new leadership better? How the hell am I supposed to know?)

I wish unions weren't considered the single axis with which to discuss labor issues in the US right now.

I think most people would like to see reforms that benefit workers, but good luck with that happening while the Senate filibuster is around.

 

[Unami]

I've had crappy service at apple stores before - I once saw my iphone's home-button crack in front of my eyes while the phone was lying flat on a table - and they told me it was drop damage an had me pay €150 for a new display. But that's apple's bad policy towards customers and can only be made worse by underpaid and over-worked retail employes.

They're asking premium prices for their products, imho they should pay premium wages. Dissuading employees from forming a union seems to counter the image of a "good" company they're trying to project.

 

[steve62388]

I feel like some people might benefit from watching this video. Give it a try.

 

[Royksöpp]

Hmmm this seems oddly familiar.

 

[Someyoungguy]

It’s amusing to see arguments here that unions aren’t compatible with capitalism (“go market yourself somewhere else in the mall”, etc), as if corporations don’t work together on things in their mutual interests.

 

[trusso]

Dear Apple,

(…and anyone else arguing against workers unionizing…),

**** off. Keep ****ing off until you come to a sign that says **** off. Then continue to **** off.

 

[Freeangel1]

Stand up for what you believe in..

Just like us PUNK ROCKERS.

OLD SCHOOL NEVER DIES. There is Wisdom there.

 

[Mr. Dee]

Apple exist in a age of excess wealth. Sure, they don’t have to exactly 2.7 trillion cash. But they do have reserves that ensure retail employees who are the ones that sell the devices and services to be able to afford average lifestyle that’s getting very expensive. Many working at an Apple store will never make the hundreds of thousands a developer makes during their career at the Apple Campus. Many want a livable wage and working conditions that allow them to afford an apartment that’s close to work and be able to take care of their families. It’s not too much to ask.

All these tech companies need to end the game of who has the biggest war chest. That money needs to be redistributed to society. But when your founder is a notorious meanie like Steve Jobs I guess it’s just expected.

Steve was well known for not being kind and company has inherited it a lot.

 

[TSE]

Oh no! Your stocks!? Take decent raises, great healthcare, job security, but not this mans stocks!! Can't we all think of the investors?

If you don't care about my well-being, why should I care about yours?

 

[bluespark]

Well, if you put it that way, somebody had to hire those "rude" or whatever employees, and that is Apple HR department. And, if there are (as some posters say) too many underperformers in retail, then entire HR department should be fired. And then, somebody had to put and organize that HR department like it is, and so on to the top of the company.

These issues go to my earlier point, which was that some of the current Apple Store deficiencies relate to management deficiencies. And while I disagree that the "entire HR department" is responsible for underperforming retail employees, I'm a proponent of accountability at all levels.

But none of this gets to the issue I was responding to in your post, which is that it's not Apple's job to provide basic income or healthcare for employees who aren't fulfilling their job responsibilities, even if I agree (and I do) that those people still have value. Put differently, you can support universal healthcare and universal basic income (neither of which should depend on employers, anyway) without supporting unionization of Apple retail employees.

 

[nebojsak]

These issues go to my earlier point, which was that some of the current Apple Store deficiencies relate to management deficiencies. And while I disagree that the "entire HR department" is responsible for underperforming retail employees, I'm a proponent of accountability at all levels.

But none of this gets to the issue I was responding to in your post, which is that it's not Apple's job to provide basic income or healthcare for employees who aren't fulfilling their job responsibilities, even if I agree (and I do) that those people still have value. Put differently, you can support universal healthcare and universal basic income (neither of which should depend on employers, anyway) without supporting unionization of Apple retail employees.

True, but you have to push things sometimes, if corporations don't mind and listen. There are numerous examples (in the past decades) of big companies worldwide, firing thousands of lower-grade employees because of slightly bad business year, while retaining upper management staff, and not cutting their salaries and bonuses. And upper management makes business decisions, not employees in retail and other lower positions, so they should be the first responsible.

Not all people have identical skills but it doesn't mean some of them should be left to starve and die. It's 21th century, and universal healthcare, proper basic education and minimal living wages for everybody should be a civilization norm. Especially in the world's most powerful country.

 

[vipergts2207]

If you don't care about my well-being, why should I care about yours?

Nobody said you had to..

 

[AF_APPLETALK]

The thing that's really not going to work in their favor is that Apple has such a robust online retail operation, imo. It's going to make it a little more tricky to play hardball.

 

[ninethirty]

If you don't care about my well-being, why should I care about yours?

Well first of all, I don't work for Apple. I don't work a retail job, and I don't need help, I'm doing just fine. I too own Apple stock, but I'm not so shallow and selfish that I put my own personal investments ahead of wanting what's best for everyone else. Being represented by a union that will ensure fair wages/raises, argue on behalf of employees for better quality healthcare and provide job security is the very least that folks like you and I could want for our fellow citizens, and especially for people that help make Apple great, because at a the end of the day, I assume that's why we're both here: we love Apple, right?

Building a better society for all means thinking about more than just yourself.

So when it comes to things like my investments, or my taxes, I don't just want what's best for me, I want what's best for everyone, and if I have to sacrifice a little, so someone else can get to where I am, or at the very least be given the same chances and opportunities, that's more than fine.

 

[TSE]

Well first of all, I don't work for Apple. I don't work a retail job, and I don't need help, I'm doing just fine. I too own Apple stock, but I'm not so shallow and selfish that I put my own personal investments ahead of wanting what's best for everyone else. Being represented by a union that will ensure fair wages/raises, argue on behalf of employees for better quality healthcare and provide job security is the very least that folks like you and I could want for our fellow citizens, and especially for people that help make Apple great, because at a the end of the day, I assume that's why we're both here: we love Apple, right?

Building a better society for all means thinking about more than just yourself.

So when it comes to things like my investments, or my taxes, I don't just want what's best for me, I want what's best for everyone, and if I have to sacrifice a little, so someone else can get to where I am, or at the very least be given the same chances and opportunities, that's more than fine.

I agree with that. Moral economy!

 

[bluespark]

True, but you have to push things sometimes, if corporations don't mind and listen. There are numerous examples (in the past decades) of big companies worldwide, firing thousands of lower-grade employees because of slightly bad business year, while retaining upper management staff, and not cutting their salaries and bonuses. And upper management makes business decisions, not employees in retail and other lower positions, so they should be the first responsible.

Not all people have identical skills but it doesn't mean some of them should be left to starve and die. It's 21th century, and universal healthcare, proper basic education and minimal living wages for everybody should be a civilization norm. Especially in the world's most powerful country.

I agree completely with your second paragraph, and I'm all for universal healthcare (although I would limit this to necessary healthcare), basic education, and minimal wages for everyone. All of this, in my view, should be paid by the government from money raised through taxation. The social compact should be that all will pay to ensure that none starve completely. That's obviously a liberal concept (both in the classical and current political sense), but is fully consistent with competition (the big advantage of capitalism). Everyone who wants more than the most basic wages and essential healthcare has to work and compete. And we all know from studies that they will do so.

But companies should be able to fire employees because of a bad business year, or for many other reasons. If anything, universal healthcare/wages/etc. would make it easier and better for companies to have that ability, which would increase competition without destroying people's lives. Either way, though, it isn't up to companies to provide what the government fails to provide.

 

[vipergts2207]

I agree completely with your second paragraph, and I'm all for universal healthcare (although I would limit this to necessary healthcare), basic education, and minimal wages for everyone. All of this, in my view, should be paid by the government from money raised through taxation. The social compact should be that all will pay to ensure that none starve completely. That's obviously a liberal concept (both in the classical and current political sense), but is fully consistent with competition (the big advantage of capitalism). Everyone who wants more than the most basic wages and essential healthcare has to work and compete. And we all know from studies that they will do so.

But companies should be able to fire employees because of a bad business year, or for many other reasons. If anything, universal healthcare/wages/etc. would make it easier and better for companies to have that ability, which would increase competition without destroying people's lives. Either way, though, it isn't up to companies to provide what the government fails to provide.

The problem is that right now we live in a worst of both worlds scenario. Companies can fire you for almost anything, and even among the things they're not allowed to fire you for, they can make up something giving them plausible deniability. Look at the people trying to organize unions being fired, which is not allowed, but which is obviously the actual reason they're being fired. And after you're fired, the government "safety net" provides hilariously little in return.

 

[bluespark]

The problem is that right now we live in a worst of both worlds scenario. Companies can fire you for almost anything, and even among the things they're not allowed to fire you for, they can make up something giving them plausible deniability. Look at the people trying to organize unions being fired, which is not allowed, but which is obviously the actual reason they're being fired. And after you're fired, the government "safety net" provides hilariously little in return.

I'm with you there. I typically focus on the "safety net" because it would save lives and would allow corporations to be more competitive rather than less competitive -- the best of all worlds, IMO. But I don't think we get to an optimal outcome by taking what I consider a backwards step economically.

We may still differ on unionizing Apple, but I appreciate the good discussion. Cheers.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

But they do have reserves that ensure retail employees who are the ones that sell the devices and services to be able to afford average lifestyle that’s getting very expensive.

Apple as a public corporation is beholden to shareholders. If they were a private company, they could easily just make a decision to pay everyone $70,000 a year. But, as a public company, if they’re paying well over the regional average for retail employees (which would be true to afford an average lifestyle), the shareholders would have something to say even before it’s implemented.