Workers at a Second Apple Store Just Voted to Unionize (cnn.com) 51
"Apple workers in Oklahoma City have voted to form the second-ever labor union at one of the company's US stores," reports CNN, "in the latest sign that organizing efforts are gaining traction inside and outside the tech and retail industries."
In a preliminary tally by the National Labor Relations Board on Friday evening, 56 workers, or 64% of those casting ballots at the Penn Square Mall Apple store, voted to be represented the Communication Workers of America, and 32 voted against it. Turnout was strong, with 88 of a potential 95 workers participating in the vote.
The union victory comes four months after Apple store workers in Towson, Maryland, made history by voting to form Apple's first US unionized location.... Workers at both locations have said they're looking to unionize in an effort to have more of a say in how their stores are run. Some also said they were inspired by union pushes this year at Amazon and Starbucks.
Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment after the late night vote count Friday....
Between January and July of this year there were 826 union elections, up 45% from the number held in the same period of 2021, according to a CNN analysis of data from the NLRB. And the 70% success rate by unions in those votes is far better than the 42% success rate in the first seven months of 2021.
The union victory comes four months after Apple store workers in Towson, Maryland, made history by voting to form Apple's first US unionized location.... Workers at both locations have said they're looking to unionize in an effort to have more of a say in how their stores are run. Some also said they were inspired by union pushes this year at Amazon and Starbucks.
Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment after the late night vote count Friday....
Between January and July of this year there were 826 union elections, up 45% from the number held in the same period of 2021, according to a CNN analysis of data from the NLRB. And the 70% success rate by unions in those votes is far better than the 42% success rate in the first seven months of 2021.
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC they have to be on a break, or allowed to talk about non-work things, to be able to talk whilst on the job about unionizing.
Re: Fire them all (Score:2)
Re:Fire them all (Score:5, Informative)
It's difficult to just close the store (Score:1, Troll)
And if they could offshore you they would already have done so. If you have a job it's because your boss couldn't ship it overseas. Period.
The real problem is the recession they're enginee
Re: It's difficult to just close the store (Score:2)
Interesting. And what else do the Bilderberguminati World Order 4th Empire have planned for us?
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. And what else do the Bilderberguminati World Order 4th Empire have planned for us?
Plan? Ha! They're not that smart. They were lucky, and it got them rich, and under capitalism all you have to do to get richer is just not fuck up too horribly badly. But also under capitalism, which is literally a negative-sum game as long as we use resources unsustainably, the system is self-destroying so it has to be intentionally regulated to persist. It's in the process of strangling itself now — when the masses can't afford to buy things, the system doesn't work. Once the train derails, it takes
Re: (Score:1)
Starbucks is systematically closing stores that voted to unionize. All retailers do the same. Even fucking Ben and Jerry's took action against unionization efforts.
Retail unions are not viable. Retail is not profitable enough to sustain unions bleeding them dry. Apple will soon announce a wave of store closures, which will line up very closely with stores that have or will unionize.
In the end they might pay a small fine to the NLRB as a cost of doing business. Then life will go on.
Re: Fire them all (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, great - they voted to unionize. Now the fun starts...
The workers & their union will need to agree to a new contract, the union can't force Apple to accept whatever the unions put forth, Apple can just stonewall and minimize the impact of the union.
I wonder if any negotiated pay raise will make up for the union dues deducted from their paychecks going forward?
I wonder if the workers will actually see greater ease in scheduling working hours, or will having the unions in the middle of scheduling will make things harder for the worker?
I'm pretty certain the majority of the Apple employees that voted for the union have never actually worked under a union before, it may not be as great as the union representatives (who are paid a commission based on the number of workers they sign up) try and make it out to be.
It will be fun to watch this play out - interesting that these workers chose to vote BEFORE the first Apple Store to unionize had even a settled contract to see how the negotiations will play out...
Re: (Score:1)
Apple can just stonewall and minimize the impact of the union.
When a labor contract negotiation is stalled that's called a "strike"
I wonder if any negotiated pay raise will make up for the union dues deducted from their paychecks going forward?
People out ehre really thinking union dues are like 20%+ of income. Also salary is only one of the things people are looking to improve when forming a union. If everything but salary was great there probably wouldnt be a drive to unionize.
I wonder if the workers will actually see greater ease in scheduling working hours, or will having the unions in the middle of scheduling will make things harder for the worker?
That's not how any of this works. The whole point of a contract is to define rules about what each side can and should expect from the other. The union lead isn't there to micromanage a schedule but c
Re: Fire them all (Score:2)
People out ehre really thinking union dues are like 20%+ of income. Also salary is only one of the things people are looking to improve when forming a union. If everything but salary was great there probably wouldnt be a drive to unionize.
Nah, it's that if you significantly outperform your peers, that doesn't matter, you're still capped at whatever pay the union negotiated on your behalf. You'll also be denied a promotion in favor of somebody who has been working there and/or a union member longer, even if they suck at their job. I'm paid within the top 10% of other people in my field of work, but because I've only been doing it for three years, a union would cap me easily at the bottom 20%, and I'm expected to love that because...solidarity
Re: (Score:2)
Unions aren't for the people getting the top 10% pay bracket.
Managers, Executives and usually even salespeople are not part of a union. Unions are for the workers. If the majority of people were paradoxially gettin the pay and benefits of being in that 10% class obviously they would have little desire to join a union, they are getting the things they want from their labor. Bringing this up is effective argumentation that hit's emotions but past to surface this argument makes little sense.
The entire histo
Re: Fire them all (Score:2)
I'm not a manager, I'm not a salesperson, and sure as shit I'm not an executive. I'm an engineer, emphasis on lowercase 'e'. I'm not in any kind of leadership position, I don't get commissions or even bonuses. I'm as rank and file as you get. I get paid a lot because apparently I'm good at what I do. But that means fuck all to a union.
Re: (Score:2)
Engineers are professional salaried white-collar workers.
Unions are primarily for employees working for hourly wages.
Salaried white-collar workers are usually only unionized if they are government employees. But that's a different situation because unions can use campaign contributions and voter drives to control both sides of the negotiation. Corporations have an incentive to control costs. Politicians do not. Most union members in America are government employees.
Re: Fire them all (Score:2)
That's not the refrain you get from here "we need to unionize tech workers!" Or the other tired old shit where they insist that, if only you worked for a union, you're guaranteed to be making more or having better benefits. Back when I was a network engineer, they swore CWA would do me tons of favors, nevermind that I was already making more than the average network engineer represented by the CWA, and had better benefits. They act like it's a bed of roses and don't ever acknowledge the fact that you're not
Re: (Score:2)
Not every union is the CWA and none of that addressed the point that professional, salaried, white collar workers generally have never had or really needed a desire for unions, thus why something like the CWA isn't for you, the CWA was originally and still also prety stronly is for people like the telcom workers out in the field.
nevermind that I was already making more than the average network engineer represented by the CWA, and had better benefits
Again, no need to state this like it's some sort of magic argument bullet, you answered your own question, you're doing fine so I think we all understand your reticence to join a un
Re: (Score:2)
"The CWA wasn't a good fit for me but i'm going to act like they fucked my mother about it"
No, rather the fucking idjits here (and elsewhere) who insist that those who say they don't need a union somehow "really do" need a union. One even saying something to the effect of "keep licking boots" when he almost certainly earns about a third or less of what I do if he's wanting to be or is in a union.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple historically pays their employees well, in this case I agree the issue likely wasn't money, because they are likely already maxed out for their job & the area, so if wages don't go up, what happens when you subtract (even minimal) union dues? Wages go down, not up. Yay Unions!
As another poster noted, the union now get to "help" employers decide who can get promotions, this type of arrangement inevitably leads to the better workers leaving out of frustration/lack of advancement.
As for the schedulin
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if any negotiated pay raise will make up for the union dues deducted from their paychecks going forward?
As a unionized public sector worker for 30+ years I can assure you that my annual pay raises far exceeded what I paid in union dues over those years. Not enough to keep up with inflation mind you, still needed to take on better positions over the years for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple employees are typically well-paid, they won't likely see a pay raise at first, but they will see union dues be subtracted from thier paycheck.
Don't confuse public sector union benefits with those of a retail store worker. Public sector workers get pay raises when politicians increase taxes to give you more money, so you'll keep them in office. There is no similar "feedback loop" in the Apple Store ecosystem, so a parade of pay increases is unlikely for union workers in a neighborhood Apple Store that
Re: (Score:2)
This is the classic anti-union talking point and it's objectively wrong. Unions bring more money than the dues ever cost. If not for unions whatever you do for a living would be paying about 1/3 what it pays now. Even if you're posting and the union talking points to slashdot for a living.
That's why Amazon t
Re: Fire them all (Score:1)
It's a single store. Union dues are likely to be next to nothing. It's not like they're going to hire a world-famous lawyer or negotiator. Which if we're being honest is what union dues are for.
You mean like negotiators giving you an offer that you can't refuse? Or like all of the money they spend lobbying politicians?
Oh remember how Obama famously wanted to make so called "Cadillac health insurance plans" illegal because they only benefit the support rich, but he didn't? Remember why he didn't?
That's your union dues at work. Enjoy :)
Re: (Score:2)
The union will likely "swing for the fences" in an attempt to attract other stores to unionize. Apple has HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS in cash, the union leaders want their share, despite doing nothing to help Apple accumulate that money...
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind there's often the official rules and then there's the crappy things the manager actually does that they would never want to admit to in writing. The union can make them stick to what they are willing to cop to in writing.
Re: (Score:3)
ultimately employers are in a tough spot economically because the cost of living crisis has erased their leverage, otherwise that strategy would work just fine, the way it did the past 30 years.
you can threaten to fire someone, but if you aren't offering a wage at rent-replacement levels that's not actually going to be sufficient leverage to change behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair we've got about 10 years before the baby boomers cease to be a politi
Re: (Score:3)
Go for it. In this economy, you won't find new workers, so I dare you, fire them.
Welcome to the new world of working.
Re: (Score:3)
They're having a hard time doing that for the same reason OPEC has a hard time cutting oil production. If all the executives start laying people off then everybody makes a bunch of money when the average wage collapses and the unionization drive dies.
But if any one of the CEOs breaks ranks and doesn't fire their staff and instead focuses on making money right now they'll get a huge boost to market
Re: (Score:2)
It's worse than that. They create worse and worse conditions to get people to quit. The problem here is that it's never the duds that quit. It's the ones that can easily get a new job, if they so please in the first place.
One has to wonder what kind of logic this braindead idea follows.
Re: Fire them all (Score:2)
Yep. Apple should just close the store.
Re: Fire them all (Score:2)
The problem is it's store by store (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a classic divide and conquer strategy. It didn't work in the 50s through the 70s because job sites had gotten huge. So far it's working ok against modern employees. Keep them divided. Don't let them hire professional contract negotiators so you can screw them over with fine print.
And if all else fails have the federal reserve and your buddies on Wall Street trigger a recession so they have to accept bad terms while you use your borderline monopoly position [businessinsider.com] to jack up prices and blame the recession on the inflation you caused .
It's been their playbook since Reagan. It's frustrating how long they've got away with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Talk for yourself, unions over here (in "socialist" Europe, where else?) are part of the contract negotations.
By law.
I'm not even kidding. My country has a "collective contract law" which basically states that in a certain industry, certain minimum criteria are present in every contract between employer and employee. That includes not only payment but vacation, sick days, insurances, everything. That's by law. There's even a "worker's council" that represents you in legal struggles with your employer that y
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think Apple Corporate would vote to unionize the entire workforce, the tens of thousands of Apple employees across the country? Thats likely impossible - too many workers making too much money. The only way the unions could get a foothold in Apple is to convince a couple dozen store clerks in a random store that the union has their best interest at heart.
Tomorrow's Headline Today (Score:3)
"Apple Closes Oklahoma Store, Claims Restructuring Unrelated To Recent Unionization"
meh (Score:2)
Apple supply me with goods and services and they get to change their terms and conditions to suit themselves, the workers supply Apple with labour and are just changing their terms and conditions.
Tenure of employees? (Score:2)
I'm curious. My impression is a union is attractive if you plan on keeping your job for a fair amount of time. If you're young and only expect to work there a year or so, a union seems less valuable. My personal experience was I was applying for a job as a bagger at a grocery store when I was in high school. I knew I'd only work that a year or two. I couldn't see how paying the relatively large union fees was in any way worth it. I'd much rather have had the cash.
Does anyone know how long a typical Apple re
Re: (Score:3)
Anectdote time, I worked at a union grocery store in my late teens as well and was part of a union. The fee's were based on income so for my meager $7.65/hr salary I was deducted about $12 a paycheck.
Heres what I got for that $12;
Enforced designated break periods, even as a part timer.
Enforced overtime pay both per day and per week (anything over 8, anything over 40)
Overtime on all holidays
Time and a half on Sundays
Scheduled increases in pay over time
Enforced vacation time based on contract schedule.
Worker
Re: (Score:2)
My personal experience was I was applying for a job as a bagger at a grocery store when I was in high school. I knew I'd only work that a year or two. I couldn't see how paying the relatively large union fees was in any way worth it. I'd much rather have had the cash.
Unless it was unionized that would be a minimum wage job.
Re: (Score:2)
His pay was $7.65, it was a minimum wage job - the federal minimum wage was set at $7.25/hr in 2009 [dol.gov] - and it was a unionized job, notice how he said he was paying union dues of about $12/week?
Re: (Score:2)
His pay was $7.65, it was a minimum wage job - the federal minimum wage was set at $7.25/hr in 2009 [dol.gov] - and it was a unionized job, notice how he said he was paying union dues of about $12/week?
Must have been another thread. If people with unions in the US still make minimum wage that just makes you look like even more of a shithole.
Re: (Score:2)
When the first APple store that voted to unionize, one of the people quoted claimed to have been an employee at the store for 13 years (as I recall) and felt that when the union finally came in she would FINALLY be promoted to management.
Uhm, after 13 years as a store clerk, I doubt she demonstrated the skill-set to move into management, and if the union forces it, that may not work out well for the store.
In a Right to Work State (Score:1)
How are they being abused? (Score:3)
Of course, slashdot's editors would chose a piss-poor article to prevent for this story that does not actually bother to detail the specific complaints that these employees have against Apple. That's a pretty goddamned important when the topic is supposed to be employees ostensibly fighting back against abuse by unionizing. Seriously... use the damned inverted pyramid! I remember that shit from high school English class and the one college journalism class I took as an elective. It should be the bread and butter of anyone purporting to be a "professional" news writer or editor! But this story' pyramid is not only right-side-up; it seems to be collapsed and partially buried.
This is confusing to me because back when I worked in a more traditional IT organization that supported desktop users as well as production, we used to love to poach from the Genius Bars at our local Apple Stores. Ex-Geniuses had a great combo of desktop-level technical knowledge plus people skills. So I got to know a decent number of them. None of the ex Apple Store people I know expressed that they were being mistreated or that it was in any way a particularly bad place to work*. It was still retail, of course, and as such was never anything but stepping stone to something better. And of course it did include the general headaches of retail or any other job that includes contact with the general public. But that's hardly Apple's misconduct. And by every account I heard, Apple Stores were a pretty good gig so far as retail goes.
So, come on slashdot, what TF precisely is these employees' beef???
*And this was back when Steve "90 hours a week and loving it" Jobs was in charge. By all accounts, Tim Cook is more mellow and Apple people have a much better work/life balance than they used to, whilst still being quite well-paid.
Re: (Score:3)
And by every account I heard, Apple Stores were a pretty good gig so far as retail goes.
Me too, I wonder what the issues are in the store, it likely isn't money, healthcare, or other benefits - it's probably a reaction to a lousy manager that created an opening for the union to come in...
Re: (Score:2)
Requiring employees to show up on time and actually perform at work seems to count as "abuse" these days, so it really could be any perceived grievance.