But “tipping” is not what the employer is paying the employee. The employer wasn’t paying six figures for those jobs and I’d be VERY surprised if any retail company was paying their baggers six figures. By that example, anyone not making six figures today isn’t being curtailed by the employer, it’d be by the folks doing the tipping.
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 Retail Chief Dissuades Employees From Unionizing in New Video
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A great point if tips were not used to justify sub-minimum wage pay rates.
Your statement is an example of justifying underpaying employees, not a reflection of their value or historical pay.
If unions decimate companies and entire industries, why are they so popular in countries like France?
In fact, the middle class has disappeared as unions went out of fashion in America in the 80s and 90s
We need unions back. They’re good for everyone, including companies because a rising tide lifts all boats. More people making money means they’ll buy more things. That’s what made Ford such a successful company
Last edited:
Yeah those extremely wealthy union workers we always hear about on Forbes lists. Oh way, no... that was the executives of the company you gladly worked for a pittance for. Why do you have an issue with the union, who gets a ton less?
Last edited:
My own personal experience with Apple retail stores has been positive. When I've needed work done on my devices, it's been done quickly with little fuss. I definitely support their right to unionize and demand better. I think it should go beyond retail to be honest. It's important to remember that HR is part of the company and looks out for the interests of the company. Unions are necessary to look out for the interests of workers. I hope more workers in the US realize this and start banding together.
No, my statement was more just adjusting my understanding of your statement. I had thought that “In 2000 you could make six figures in retail with a high school diploma.” meant that’s what employers were paying in 2000. They weren’t, they were paying below minimum wage which means that while SOME made six figures, many with the same job were making the low 5 figures. And, since you’re saying that 2000 was better than today, to me, it seems that you’re justifying the common practices in 2000 of paying employees less than minimum wage. I’ve never been in favor of having an employee’s wage depend on random strangers tossing them a few bucks here and there.
For example, as 2010 approached, since employer’s weren’t paying six figures for baggers to start with they wouldn’t have factored into the reduction in pay… did folks just stop tipping?
This actually reinforces what I was saying about “employers pay what the employee is worth to them”, it simply adds that “customers pay what an employee is worth to them”, too. Baggers weren’t worth six figures to that company in 2000. Baggers weren’t even worth minimun wage to them.
Last edited:
Employers have changed how they pay employees both directly and indirectly. In the case of baggers, increased prices lead to lower funds available for tips. By taking more money from customers they remove the customer's ability to pay the employee. It's strategic and based on the idea that the product they offer has more value than their employees.
Your idea is that all employers strategically got together with the goal to artificially raise prices specifically to target tips? I say “got together” because if one store raises the prices of tomatoes and orange juice and the other doesn’t, folks will just go where they can get those cheaper and continue tipping if that’s their nature.
To me, with the way a lot of people view tipping today, I’d lean more towards thinking that folks just stopped tipping. BUT, maybe I should pay more attention the next time I get groceries (I don’t think I’ve seen anyone in the parking lot unless they were collecting carts).
No. I am saying the raised prices without offering additional pay to offset the decreased tips. They acted on their own without regard for their employee's total compensation.
That's not how this works. Many places in the US, especially 10 to 20 years ago, only had one grocery store. Where I grew up the closest 'supermarket' was a 70-minute drive. Many, if not most towns, have as much of a choice for which grocery store they go to as they do their high school.
People didn't just stop tipping. Something motivated that change. Nor would you likely see it as I said, it's occurred over the past 20 or so years. It used to be the cashier rang up your groceries and a bagger would bag them and take them to the car for you. Some businesses stopped letting baggers go to the car, some got rid of the baggers and asked the cashiers to do bag and the customer was forced to ask for help and wait or take them themselves. Increased prices, a cultural shift that you carry your own bags, and a general sense of entitlement that when someone helps you it's covered in the price of the purchase have led to decreased tips.
Look at full-service gas stations. Prices have gone up, but people are tipping less. If you spend $30 to $50 on fuel it shouldn't be an issue to give the person who filled your tank an extra $5 or $10.
Common sense and the law of supply and demand show that when the price of something goes up, in this case labor, buyers, in this case employers including Apple, will buy less of it. So for example, when Apple looks at adding retail stores in medium or smaller cities it has to factor in the cost to do so and the potential stores' profitability. The higher the cost of labor the less potential profit and less likelihood Apple will open new stores in those cities. This means fewer jobs and fewer places for consumers to choose from. It means Apple will only continue to operate stores in the biggest most profitable locations and not open stores in more marginal areas. In the most extreme cases, it could even force Apple to close some existing stores, meaning both workers and consumers lose out.
But, if the prices went up because the company making the bread and the company making the milk and the company boxing the cereal all raised their prices, etc., that’s not the grocery store just raising their prices in order to prevent the baggers from getting tips.
Understandable, but is that really what grocery stores did? Supplier prices between 2000 and 2010 stayed the same while grocery stores raised their prices? I have nothing to indicate otherwise, just seems that there could have been myriad other plausible reasons why grocery store prices rose.
I do believe this plays heavily into it, especially as fewer and fewer people are exposed to tipping (from when they may have had a job that they accepted them).
From what I have seen in my country regarding unions, wages are variable for the same position, and part of that is determined by region.
That’s not what a citation looks like. That’s management 101 speak, not the real world. Here: I’ll show you.
Why Unions Matter
In this new edition of Why Unions Matter, Michael D. Yates shows why unions still matter. Unions mean better pay, benefits, and working conditions for their ...
nyupress.org
There is voluminous data that shows a direct correlation between union membership, higher wages, more workplace safety, and greater benefits. A couple links above. Read the history of unionism in the United States. The 8 hour work day, weekends, health insurance benefits — all the result of unions. If you have data that proves otherwise, please post it. Otherwise it’s a straw man argument at best, riddled with conjecture.
With apple’s budget, and it’s reliance on the US for customer and labor base, the idea that apple would leave vast swaths of the us is ludicrous, and is actually illegal if they do so in retaliation for union organizing.
I don’t know if this is still true, but at the time, Apple Stores were located in areas where there were enough people with a median income of $150,000. That’s why some places have a number of Apple Stores just a few miles from each other and others have just one.
They definitely didn't do anything to protect tips. Which is functionally equivalent to cutting their pay. I would say if something contributed to their employee's income they had an obligation to consider if that contribution has/is/will change.
This, however, does not explain why Apple Retail employees do not receive compensation when selling devices.
Do employees have no agency? You act as people have no choice but to accept a job at Walmart for x pay. An employee deserves what they’ve agreed to when they accepted the job. Period.
And where is Walmart going to get all this money to pay its workers this big fat raise that you think they deserve (for stocking shelves and scanning products at checkout)? Do you know how much Walmart makes in profit? And how many employees do they have? Do the math and you’ll see that it wouldn’t take much for them to go bankrupt. They operate on razor think margins which ironically helps the kind of people you’re saying they hurt.
Who said unions were responsible for all the problems in this country? But they certainly didn’t help the big 3 stay competitive, did they?
Nice, just completely ignore the fact that you and I are subsidizing Walmart’s wages.
The ability to quit is next to zero leverage over an employer. That’s why employees also have the agency to form a union if they so wish.
Walmart made $13.5 billion in profits last year. Maybe they could use a few billion of that money that to give their employees below store manager level a raise. If Walmart gave $5 billion of that profit to their lowest paid 2 million employees (out of their 2.3 million total employees) that would be a $2500/year raise for them.
The statement was that unions caused GM and Chrysler to go bankrupt, which is laughable.
Haha, there's plenty of data to support what I said. You just have to look for it, read it, understand it, and look around at what's happening in the real world to confirm it. I know I'm not going to change your mind and I know I'm in the minority, but that doesn't make me wrong. So go ahead and keep citing your studies from academia and I'll keep listening to people who own and run businesses and actually employ people.That’s not what a citation looks like. That’s management 101 speak, not the real world. Here: I’ll show you.
Why Unions Matter
In this new edition of Why Unions Matter, Michael D. Yates shows why unions still matter. Unions mean better pay, benefits, and working conditions for their ...
There is voluminous data that shows a direct correlation between union membership, higher wages, more workplace safety, and greater benefits. A couple links above. Read the history of unionism in the United States. The 8 hour work day, weekends, health insurance benefits — all the result of unions. If you have data that proves otherwise, please post it. Otherwise it’s a straw man argument at best, riddled with conjecture.
With apple’s budget, and it’s reliance on the US for customer and labor base, the idea that apple would leave vast swaths of the us is ludicrous, and is actually illegal if they do so in retaliation for union organizing.
I admit, your side will ultimately "win" with voters and we'll all be worse off because of it. It's because the vast majority think policy intentions are more important than policy results. It's unfortunate most people only see the immediate surface of things and don't take the long term consequences of their votes into consideration. I guess it's just how we're wired.
So you think giving their employees a $1/hr raise and artificially capping their profit to 8 billion is the answer?? The company’s revenues were $560 billion last year! That would make them one little mistake away from losing billions.
Instead of telling rich people and corporations to help the needy what are you doing to help? Why are you here? If you can afford a Mac or iPhone, clearly, you could have purchased something comparable for half the price and donated the rest? And if you can afford luxury products, clearly you can afford to tithe and give 10% of your paycheck to a non-profit?
As for GM and Chrysler, I didn’t say that, but unions certainly didn’t help them stay competitive, that’s for sure.
I really hate to repeat myself, but… CITATION NEEDED. I give you solid sources of data, and you provide a “gut feeling.” If people finally wake up and support unions, it’s not because there’s some conspiracy of academics falsifying economic data, it’s because the income gap is so horrendous in this country that union organizing is the only way to slow down the downward trend. Saying you’re going to listen to CEOs is saying you’re listening to foxes talking about how best to keep the hens safe. Even executives know that they need to pay people enough to live and to buy their products, otherwise its a losing proposition.
I guess you think BF Goodrich and The United Steelworkers Union is your example of a poorly run union. I guess we agree that all unions are trash.
How is that “artificially capping”? It’s no different than any other company choosing how much to pay their employees?
I’m not telling rich people and corporations to help the needy. I’m telling companies to pay their employees enough to not need food stamps. And you and I already are giving some of our money to them since Walmart’s employees aren’t paid enough to not need assistance with our tax dollars, a situation you seem to be weirdly ok with.
I didn’t say you said that and I was responding to someone else’s comment…
The only thing you’re illustrating is that it’s possible to sometimes make a poor decision. You don’t define something or someone by one action among many.
You’re capping profits by saying Walmart made x amount, and that’s too much... They need to give a chunk of that to their employees. You realize that’s also shareholder money? People in retirement who count on dividends, 401k investments, IRA’s, etc.? It’s as if I looked at your paycheck and said, you’re making too much. 20% should go to someone making less at your company. It’s Marxist thinking, which unfortunately, western universities have been pushing on inncocent young minds for the past few decades.
”I’m not telling [companies] to help the needy”… “I’m telling companies to [pay employees more]”. You don’t see the contradiction in your thinking/logic? So Walmart should pay every employee a “living wage” including jobs that can, and are done, by 16 year olds, part-time? I think you’re putting too much stock in that Walmart/McDonald’s food stamp propaganda.
Again, no one is forcing people to work at Walmart. Believe it or not, many people make poor choices in life, and that’s why they don’t earn as much as others. But if they work hard and make some sacrifices, they can make a better life for themselves. America truly is the land of opportunity which is why immigrants who come here with nothing and can barely speak the language, but work their butts off, are generally more successful than multi-generational Americans.