Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple's union-busting practices violated employee rights at NYC store

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 178 posts

Re: Apple's union-busting practices violated employee rights at NYC store

#41

Post by Kiro »

foxyv wrote: post #7
hospitalJail wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My MBA mostly pointed them to having the best marketing campaigns. I never once read or had a discussion about the quality of the employees. I suppose employees are the people making the marketing plans, but these aren't the people unionizing.

A huge part of the Apple marketing are their retail locations and "Geniuses." A great deal of the reason I bought my first Apple product was because of an employee in an Apple Store.

I highly doubt that's a huge part. My country has no Apple Stores and Apple is still very popular here.

Re: Apple's union-busting practices violated employee rights at NYC store

#42

Post by JimtheCoder »

pierat wrote: post #39
nonethewiser wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Virtually all companies oppose unionization. Am I to believe that all these companies are doing so out of sheer incompetence?

These companies need to remember that NLRB and unionization was an agreement to take harsh violence off the table. In the old days, when First International and IWW was created, unionization efforts were to "set the bosses house on fire, with them in it", "pass out rifles to all workers and shoot up the bosses house", assaults, bombs.. you name it. That's also where we have the paramilitary force, Pinkertons. They we…

"and then now commit economic violence (destitution, starvation, etc)."

This is a new one. Thanks for sharing...

Re: Apple's union-busting practices violated employee rights at NYC store

#43

Post by onion2k »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #37
onion2k wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet think currently the top 1% is paying over 50% of all taxes. There's a few things to consider with this statement. First, and most importantly, everyone in the US who has more than $1m is in the top 1% by wealth, including assets. That illustrates how little money most people have. Secondly, the top 1% captured 54% of the wealth generated in the last decade, so paying 50% of the tax sounds about right. Lastly, we'…

> everyone in the US who has more than $1m is in the top 1% by wealth, including assets. 88th percentile for $1M net worth including home. https://dqydj.com/net-worth-percentile-calculator-united-sta... 90.5th percentile excluding home. It is 99th percentile until age 35 to age 39 though. https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-united-states/

I imagine the number varies a lot depending on your source. Mine is Credit Suisse via the World Bank - https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/3...

Re: Apple's union-busting practices violated employee rights at NYC store

#44

Post by johngladtj »

derelicta wrote: post #20
40yearoldman wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Argument makes sense if you conveniently forget it's workers in the first place who created the company's wealth.

The workers didn't create the wealth. The owners did.

The workers sold their time and labor, and we're compensated according to what they negotiated.

Why should they be entitled to anything more?

Re: Apple's union-busting practices violated employee rights at NYC store

#45

Post by imachine1980_ »

treeman79 wrote: post #35
93po wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does anyone really think corporate anti-union talking points are in their workers' best interest? Yes, usually at least half the workforce. But but but the monthly dues!!!

[flagged]

Car companies left cities not Detroit, the cost of labor was high but also thw cost of the space

Re: Apple's union-busting practices violated employee rights at NYC store

#46

Post by myspy »

jvmfjvfjvf wrote: post #34
ethbr0 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Companies hate unions because they increase labor costs and benefits. Does anyone really think corporate anti-union talking points are in their workers' best interest? Unions have their faults (e.g. bureaucracy), but corporations aren't fighting them for their employees' benefit.

Well, Walmart non union workers still have their jobs while the ones that did unionize all lost theirs.

Well, if the States allow such practices it's super sad. Nobody gets fired when joining a union in Germany.

Re: Apple's union-busting practices violated employee rights at NYC store

#47

Post by ceejayoz »

Kiro wrote: post #40
notwhereyouare wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

let go all of the employees that work for apple an see how long they are still in business. Don't think the CEO is making their iphones on the line

We're talking about Apple Stores, not Apple in general. I'm sure Apple would be fine if they closed all stores.

The stores are a pretty critical component in their sales, marketing, and support cycles, and generally considered a big part of their current success.

Re: Apple's union-busting practices violated employee rights at NYC store

#49

Post by synetic »

40yearoldman wrote: post #11
lscdlscd wrote: post #2

Just goes to show how effective unionizing is. Power to those workers! They're a key part in making Apple one of the most valuable companies in the world. They deserve a fair share.

[flagged]

Individual taxes make up around 41% of government revenues. The tax on labor is far higher than the tax on capital. As such the very wealthy pay a way lower percent of their overall “income” in taxes than the rest of us. I know of know concept of fairness where this is considered just. Even Reagan thought the tax on capital ought to be higher than the tax on labor.

Re: Apple's union-busting practices violated employee rights at NYC store

#50

Post by myspy »

johngladtj wrote: post #44
derelicta wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Argument makes sense if you conveniently forget it's workers in the first place who created the company's wealth.

The workers didn't create the wealth. The owners did. The workers sold their time and labor, and we're compensated according to what they negotiated. Why should they be entitled to anything more?

The owners wouldn't have been able to make more out of their company without others working for them. So yes, they did create the wealth. The owners could've died at some point and the company still would create the wealth.

Up until to a certain point it takes those owners but it's a synergy.

Post reply on HN