Apple Store in Oklahoma City Becomes Second in U.S. to Unionize

[mzeb]

I'm a little lost here. The questionnaire response says that they want better wages and improvements to health benefits as the top two. It didn't say anything about managers being terrible, which is what you suggested previously. Which do you believe it is? Do you believe it is bad managers or what the employees actually put as responses to the survey?

Also, be careful about the generalization of of all the unionized employees at these two apple stores. I'll bet there ARE some in that group that simply want better pay for less work (to be fair, who doesn't?). We don't know what each of their situations are, though, and we don't have good data on that. This kind of assumption creates and undo stereotype that can lead to an incorrect solution.

The oversimplistic solution of "go get yourself educated and get a better job" is hard for those working full time while they have kids and even if it is doable it takes time to get an education. Why not push to better your situation in the short term along side making a better situation long term? In short, do BOTH!

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I'm a little lost here. The questionnaire response says that they want better wages and improvements to health benefits as the top two. It didn't say anything about managers being terrible, which is what you suggested previously. Which do you believe it is? Do you believe it is bad managers or what the employees actually put as responses to the survey?

Half of the things in that list of 8
Wage increases
Scheduling issues
Respect from employer
Increase staffing
are things that local management have a lot of say over. A poor manager is one that would not be responding or responding poorly to local realities related to all of the above, respect being a big one (that they have to call that out speaks to a SERIOUS management issue. If Oklahoma says the same, that gives it more credence).

Also, be careful about the generalization of of all the unionized employees at these two apple stores. I'll bet there ARE some in that group that simply want better pay for less work (to be fair, who doesn't?). We don't know what each of their situations are, though, and we don't have good data on that. This kind of assumption creates and undo stereotype that can lead to an incorrect solution.

I think it’s an accurate generalization when one of the requests is essentially “more money” and another request is essentially “more time off”. If they get what they want, they will indeed (in addition to anything else) have more money/benefits and will have to show up to work fewer days in order to earn that money/benefits. What’s clear from the list regardless is that there aren’t any serious problems with their physical working conditions (machinists, for example, may want more safety googles/ear protection available more widely or have processes defined for the use of heavy equipment… there’s none of that here). If these particular employees could just have more vacation and, in addition to that, some additional money and benefits (with managers that treat them better) that’d be great!

The oversimplistic solution of "go get yourself educated and get a better job" is hard for those working full time while they have kids and even if it is doable it takes time to get an education. Why not push to better your situation in the short term along side making a better situation long term? In short, do BOTH!

Getting a better job is harder for ANYONE that wants a better job. However, I think we both can agree that if someone were to approach us and say, “I want to make $100,000 a year, should I try retail or try becoming a programmer?” we’d both say something like, “Go for being a programmer. Not only will it be a WHOLE lot easier to hit $100,000 in that field (because there are more employer’s willing to pay that much), you can educate yourself online from home AND there’s a 100% better chance of being able to work from home (as you don’t have to go to a store), making it easier if you have kids.” I won’t begrudge anyone that can get $100k working a non-management retail job, but, realistically, those opportunities are few to none.

 

[mzeb]

Half of the things in that list of 8
Wage increases
Scheduling issues
Respect from employer
Increase staffing
are things that local management have a lot of say over. A poor manager is one that would not be responding or responding poorly to local realities related to all of the above, respect being a big one (that they have to call that out speaks to a SERIOUS management issue. If Oklahoma says the same, that gives it more credence).


I think it’s an accurate generalization when one of the requests is essentially “more money” and another request is essentially “more time off”. If they get what they want, they will indeed (in addition to anything else) have more money/benefits and will have to show up to work fewer days in order to earn that money/benefits. What’s clear from the list regardless is that there aren’t any serious problems with their physical working conditions (machinists, for example, may want more safety googles/ear protection available more widely or have processes defined for the use of heavy equipment… there’s none of that here). If these particular employees could just have more vacation and, in addition to that, some additional money and benefits (with managers that treat them better) that’d be great!


Getting a better job is harder for ANYONE that wants a better job. However, I think we both can agree that if someone were to approach us and say, “I want to make $100,000 a year, should I try retail or try becoming a programmer?” we’d both say something like, “Go for being a programmer. Not only will it be a WHOLE lot easier to hit $100,000 in that field (because there are more employer’s willing to pay that much), you can educate yourself online from home AND there’s a 100% better chance of being able to work from home (as you don’t have to go to a store), making it easier if you have kids.” I won’t begrudge anyone that can get $100k working a non-management retail job, but, realistically, those opportunities are few to none.

So you think it is both compensation and bad managers then? Also I'm not sure how much control local stores have in terms of wage increases at Apple. Corporate often controls those pay scales pretty tightly with little room within each band to give a pay increase. That's pretty true across the board for corporate retail. I'm additionally curious because the store leads actually signed on with the union in the case of Maryland.

I don't think you're going to convince me with a statement that it is harder for anyone to get a better job. Sure, that's true. It's extra work and time and willpower on top of what you're already doing.
What I'm trying to point out is that there are people out there who do not have the time or are sapped of willpower from all the other things they are doing that they can't. There simply is no way for them to get that education.
And that doesn't account for the money. Yes, there are online courses to learn to code. That costs. We have a catch 22 that these folks are probably just above making ends meet. Where does that money come from?
In our society upward mobility no longer just requires work. It also requires capital. You must be able to invest in yourself. These folks likely do not have that.

 

[johnmacward]

Such fools.

Only brainwashed young communists, leftists, and Democrats — which is the majority of Apple’s college-based workforce — would be stupid enough & brainwashed enough to unionize.

It shows how little economic knowledge they have, because this will hurt BOTH themselves AND customers.

PragerU doesn’t have a 5-minute video about private unions, but this 5-minute video about the teacher’s union will give people enough understanding to see that unions are the most harmful thing for everyone in society:

Teachers Unions vs. Students | PragerU

There is a dilemma in American education. On the one hand, teachers are essential to student achievement. On the other, teachers unions promote…

www.prageru.com

Who are you, Machiavellis son ?

 

[johnmacward]

You got it wrong.

The question is, should a person who works 8 hours per day be homeless?

If a person who works 8 hours per day and is responsible is homeless, then your city/state/country is embarrassing.

If those companies can’t pay living wages, simply shut down the business or buy robots, and be ready to pay more taxes. Do not normalize dehumanization. Human rights are universal values, PER/EPS/ROI values are not.

I disagree, we could raise consciousness to a level that someone who works and finds it difficult to pay the rent, buy food but still just about gets by is an absolute disgrace in a society of not just plenty, but absolute excess for some to the point they earn enough to buy multiple homes, multiple cars just for fun. That should be the limit as it is in a lot of Europe (and Europe is far from a socialist utopia). It’s very relative to the power of business and capitalist propaganda where you live. Europeans have fought this off a lot better than North Americans just due to multiple moments in history that raised consciousness about equality and where wealth is really created. Hint: Tim Cook couldn’t really justify his millions in wages every year if his design teams, manufacturing teams, marketing etc. teams rose up and said “hold on, isn’t us who actually do all the hard graft? How come we’ve never realised it? This guy just kind of owns our contracts and is kind enough to give us jobs now and then”…

 

[Unregistered 4U]

So you think it is both compensation and bad managers then? Also I'm not sure how much control local stores have in terms of wage increases at Apple. Corporate often controls those pay scales pretty tightly with little room within each band to give a pay increase. That's pretty true across the board for corporate retail. I'm additionally curious because the store leads actually signed on with the union in the case of Maryland.

I think it’s anything other than poor physical working conditions and more likely bad managers as good managers can at least make an employees work day pleasant enough to have a feeling being an important part of a bigger whole. Bad managers make employees want more for having to deal with the bad management. In many companies now, the management communicates with HR about an employee getting a raise and HR comes back with what the raise will be. However, if management NEVER communicates with HR about an employee getting a raise, then it doesn’t matter how much room there is for a pay increase, it’s not happening.

I had not heard that the store leads, those folks that were, from the survey, not respecting the employees and were responsible for not championing there requests for raises, had signed on, but it’s not surprising. Not signing on would send a questionable message to the employees.

I don't think you're going to convince me with a statement that it is harder for anyone to get a better job. Sure, that's true. It's extra work and time and willpower on top of what you're already doing.

On that we agree. But, we shouldn’t think that it’s ONLY folks working retail jobs that don’t have time or are sapped of willpower. There’s a wide swath of folks between retail and corporate management who are trying their best just to maintain and can’t find the time to get a better education or even pay for that education (for those higher folks, the education required to improve could be several times that of folks wanting to rise out of retail jobs). Just that.