Glasgow Apple Store Employees to Become First UK Branch to Unionize

[NightFox]

Me neither. As a Norwegian I'm quite frankly baffled when employees are arguing against unions. When I see what unions have done here in Norway to keep regular jobs up-to-speed with inflation ++ it really is a non-brainer. We don't even have a minimum wage, but still we have one of the lowest wage inequalities in the world.

I think in the UK there's still a collective memory of the damage [some] unions did in the '70s and '80s. I've no doubt unions are a positive thing, but when their power becomes so great (and often driven by the crusade of a single personality) that it stifles industry then I think there needs to be a balance.

 

[Karma*Police]

I can’t believe there are 1st world countries without unions. In Australia we have the "miscellaneous workers union" to cover those without. No matter who it is, or as altruistic any employer maybe, the worker should be able to have rights to question behaviours of their employer.

I can’t believe 1st word countries have unions. 3rd world countries where laws are lax, maybe. It’s almost as if these employees are automatons who can’t make decisions for themselves and just leave for another job if they’re unhappy with their current employer.

 

[icanhazmac]

Apple is lowballing their retail staff

Please provide citation for this showing that Apple's retail staff makes significantly less (to justify your "lowball" description) than regional/national averages for retail employees. I'll wait.

and discipline them for discussing salaries. This is because once they do discuss it, they realise how there is no continuity in the pay levels and some new staff are being paid more than those with years of service.

Most employers discourage employees discussing wage / rate for two very good reasons:

1) Meritocracy: if employee A works really hard and excels they deserve a higher wage than employee B who puts in no extra effort. Or if employee B had no specific skill set for the job and was trained over 3 years at company expense to get to X level but employee A had those skills coming in and is hired at the same or higher rate than employee B that is perfectly justified.

2) Changes in "base rates": as unemployment rates change employers may need to offer equal or higher starting rates to fill positions than other staff received who have been there for X years. They are under no obligation to immediately boost the rate of existing employees to match though it might be in their interest to do so to prevent turnover.

 

[SirAnthonyHopkins]

They know how much these workers are worth.

They know how much they can get away with paying them before it becomes a problem. Not the same as "worth." There are two parties involved here: why should it be that Apple is the party that knows what it's employees are worth, not the employees who know their own worth? That value comes out of a compromise between the two competing ideas, and the entire point of unionising is that your "worth" goes up when you bargain as a collective, not as individuals. An employee's worth isn't a set static price to begin with, and surprise surprise, it's lower when workers aren't unionised. Doesn't mean the unionised worth is any less accurate, even by "free market" standards. The free market continues to be free even when workers unite to better represent their rights.

 

[SirAnthonyHopkins]

It’s almost as if these employees are automatons who can’t make decisions for themselves and just leave for another job if they’re unhappy with their current employer.

Can they, though? Have you ever been in insecure employment, or in precarious living conditions, living pay cheque to pay cheque? I don't think life is ever just as simple as "leave and get another job." Plus, there's a kudos and a sense of satisfaction in working for Apple as a company, but employees shouldn't pay for that in actual cash. You shouldn't be expected to accept lower than you're worth just because you're working for a prestigious employer.

 

[icanhazmac]

that value comes out of a compromise between the two competing ideas,

Agreed, as @ajfahey posted in #38. No need for unions in this equation.

and the entire point of unionising is that your "worth" goes up when you bargain as a collective, not as individuals.

I disagree, unionizing does not improve an individuals "worth" or power to negotiate for themselves, it empowers the employee base as a whole, regardless of the individuals worth. This harms the individuals ability to market themselves and empowers the least common denominator employee.

 

[SirAnthonyHopkins]

anyway, I'm out. nothing fruitful's going to come of this debate. maybe the naysayers could just say 'well done' to the Apple staff taking action they clearly felt they needed to take. or maybe they could keep waffling about the market. both are cool.

 

[vipergts2207]

They are worth the intersection of the price that an employer is willing to pay an employee and the price that an employee is willing to work for. I presume that you are neither the employee nor the employee. If so, you have no defined role in the worker/employer agreement, the free market price for their employment. Assuming you are one of the employees in question, negotiate a higher price to stay and, if you can’t, leave. You aren’t a slave that is being compelled to remain with your employer.

Or they can utilize their right to form a union.

 

[vipergts2207]

I can’t believe 1st word countries have unions. 3rd world countries where laws are lax, maybe. It’s almost as if these employees are automatons who can’t make decisions for themselves and just leave for another job if they’re unhappy with their current employer.

They made the decision to form a union. You clearly have a problem with that decision, but unfortunately for you that's not your decision to make.

 

[Karma*Police]

Can they, though? Have you ever been in insecure employment, or in precarious living conditions, living pay cheque to pay cheque? I don't think life is ever just as simple as "leave and get another job." Plus, there's a kudos and a sense of satisfaction in working for Apple as a company, but employees shouldn't pay for that in actual cash. You shouldn't be expected to accept lower than you're worth just because you're working for a prestigious employer.

Everyone is in insecure employment, including Tim Cook. It’s a competitive world. Have you ever observed nature?

The problem is an entire generation (or two) have been taught the opposite with ridiculous things like participation medals for losing. In nature, losing means you lose your life.

That doesn’t mean people shouldn’t be compassionate. But in order to win, companies need to hire and retain the best talent, just like in sports. Market forces will determine their worth. As the Joker said, “if you’re good at something, never do it for free”… cos somebody will always pay. That’s why Warren Buffet and other successful people always tell others to invest in themselves. But let’s face it, most people would rather shut down their brains and watch stupid TV shows or hang out at the pub on weekends.

 

[Karma*Police]

They made the decision to form a union. You clearly have a problem with that decision, but unfortunately for you that's not your decision to make.

Yes it is. It’s unfortunate for Apple and all its customers… and the employees once they realize what a scam unions really are.

 

[icanhazmac]

Or they can utilize their right to form a union.

Yes they can and they did. What they also did was lose any ability to market themselves as individuals. Those that have better skills or work harder are at the mercy of what the union negotiates for the whole.

anyway, I'm out. nothing fruitful's going to come of this debate. maybe the naysayers could just say 'well done' to the Apple staff taking action they clearly felt they needed to take. or maybe they could keep waffling about the market. both are cool.

Well done on exercising your right to unionize and therefore be compensated not on the basis of your own personal strengths and unique values but as a herd of cattle.

Personally, given the choice, I have and will always market myself.

 

[scubachap]

I disagree, unionizing does not improve an individuals "worth" or power to negotiate for themselves, it empowers the employee base as a whole, regardless of the individuals worth. This harms the individuals ability to market themselves and empowers the least common denominator employee.

And yet modern companies seem increasingly disinterested in the worth or contribution of individual employees. Most roles that I see being offered to my daughters generation seem to be being increasingly commoditised and managed by algorithms rather than people. Individuality and initiative seems to be viewed as a wholly negative attribute. Mind you there does seem to be an increasing realisation how the odds (negative interest rates, inflation of asset values, QE, the ponzi scheme that is modern university education etc) are stacked against most people. It will all blow up at some point and I'm surprised that in the meantime the unions aren't making a stronger come back but there you are...

If anyone is interested its worth googling the story of the Tolpuddle* martyrs.

* A little village in Dorset

 

[WhiteHawk]

Staff at Apple Glasgow are earning £12 an hour, well short of the UK average and a pathetic rate considering Apple is the richest tech company in the world. A private cleaner in the UK will charge more than that.

What the heck does the UK average got to do with it? Nothing. Seriously, for what they do that’s good pay, I’m in retail and get £2 less than that for working harder, they have nothing to complain about there.

 

[Herrpod]

Good. Unions are a net positive. Imagine defending corporations.

 

[Unggoy Murderer]

Well, yes, but the money they make is for supporting their members, not for generating profit. It's a shame they weren't able to help with you situation, but without more information it's difficult to pass much comment; if it's a situation where they're legitimately unable to help, there isn't much that can be done. A union isn't a catch-all solution for any workplace issue, but it's better to have the support of one in the case of a conflict between yourself and your employer than not.

Yeah, it was a shame at the time. I was looking for legal assistance in forcing a damaging / dangerous policy to change. The problem for the union was there wasn't any money to be made there, so I was able to get assistance elsewhere and it led to a positive conclusion, which is all I wanted.

If unions truly cared about supporting their members, then why are union management periodically [1] taking salaries and compensation totalling well over £100k, some as high as £162k? Most of public-sector union leaders earn 5-8x the salary of the people they claim to represent. Total hypocrites.

[1] Source for anyone interested (Tax Payers' Alliance), and another source (UK Government)

 

[icanhazmac]

Good. Unions are a net positive. Imagine defending corporations.

You do realize that not all union shops are mega-corporations right? Some union shops are MUCH smaller companies or cities that are now saddled by a larger, powerful union that their workers decided to join.

 

[Karma*Police]

Yes they can and they did. What they also did was lose any ability to market themselves as individuals. Those that have better skills or work harder are at the mercy of what the union negotiates for the whole.



Well done on exercising your right to unionize and therefore be compensated not on the basis of your own personal strengths and unique values but as a herd of cattle.

Personally, given the choice, I have and will always market myself.

There are 2 types of people… those that value liberty more than security and those that value security more than liberty. Obviously, everyone wants some of both, but while everyone says they love freedom, the truth of the matter is, they really don’t. Many fear it, because that means making decisions for themselves and being responsible for their own actions.

Those that value security would gladly give up their freedoms in exchange for security which is why ruthless dictators like Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. have been able to strip entire nation of peoples of their freedoms in the name of equity, social justice, etc… all the unicorns that represent eternal safety which have never been observed in nature. But despite the atrocities that have been committed in the name of those ideals, those phantom ideals continue to seduce so many people because they innately prize security above all else.

 

[vipergts2207]

Yes it is. It’s unfortunate for Apple and all its customers… and the employees once they realize what a scam unions really are.

If the employees don’t like the union then they can disband it. Or they can vote in new leadership. Again, it’s their decision.

Yes they can and they did. What they also did was lose any ability to market themselves as individuals. Those that have better skills or work harder are at the mercy of what the union negotiates for the whole.

How does being in a union eliminate your ability to market yourself? Not only can you find employment outside of Apple, but if an Apple retail employee is simply that amazing and successful at outperforming their cohorts then Apple should have no issue promoting them into a non-union management position.

What the heck does the UK average got to do with it? Nothing. Seriously, for what they do that’s good pay, I’m in retail and get £2 less than that for working harder, they have nothing to complain about there.

Sounds like you need a union. Or maybe you just need to “market yourself” to your manager for a £2 pay increase.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Good. Unions are a net positive. Imagine defending corporations.

No kidding...and boy are there are a lot of folks around here doing it.

I don't get it -- at all

MegaCorps don't care one lick about you.
Why anyone defends them is beyond me.

 

[Karma*Police]

If the employees don’t like the union then they can disband it. Or they can vote in new leadership. Again, it’s their decision.

Tell that to the teachers in America who are suing to NOT be part of the union. Tell that to the non-Union plumbers whose works are constantly sabotaged by unionized plumbers. It’s not as easy fighting the collective as you think.

The collective would rather slowly erode the business until many of them are forced out, rather than go against the tide. It’s the collective mindset that put them in that position in the first place, after all.

 

[hans1972]

I can’t believe there are 1st world countries without unions. In Australia we have the "miscellaneous workers union" to cover those without. No matter who it is, or as altruistic any employer maybe, the worker should be able to have rights to question behaviours of their employer.

Are you forced to be in a union if you are a worker?

 

[hans1972]

Ask them, dear. I don't work for Apple. But I would hazard a guess they wouldn't be seeking to unionise so much if they were paid properly and treated right.

But if they are paid better and treated better as private cleaners, why not change jobs immediately?
You are guaranteed to better your situation but unionising has no such guarantee and it takes time.

I'm pretty sure they think being an underpaid Apple retail worker is better than being a well paid cleaner.

 

[nebojsak]

No kidding...and boy are there are a lot of folks around here doing it.

I don't get it -- at all

MegaCorps don't care one lick about you.
Why anyone defends them is beyond me.

Average Joe worldwide has a strong bootlicking mentality. Be it towards money, power, or both.

 

[Thebrochure]

It's too bad Jobs isn't alive and still in charge. It would have been interesting to see him go at these guys (EU). Tim is too soft. Too worried about investors.