Why doe Apple maintain retail stores anyway?
Because they are wildly successful and profitable?
Apple's union-busting practices violated employee rights at NYC store
121–130 of 178 posts
Re: Apple's union-busting practices violated employee rights at NYC store
#122Once you start following/helping/participating in the labor movement it becomes clear that virtually every company will go to great lengths to stop a union from being formed and winning a contract, they will even break the law. The question for organizers is not "will this company do it?" but "what do we do about it when they do?"
> they will even break the law This is probably true in the USA, as that laws seem to not be enforced. But if you enforce employee's protection laws companies will respect them.
Walmart is infamous for shutting down stores that unionize. This can be particularly devastating to the community because Walmart's whole schtick is to wipe out every other business in the area through "dumping" - flooding the market with stuff sold at a loss until they drive the other companies out of business.
So not only do a lot of people in town / the county lose their jobs, but they lose the only place to shop for a lot of things.
Result? Anyone who talks about unionizing gets reported, or simply ostracized. "Shut the fuck up, Jim. You wanna get the place shut down? We'll all be driving an hour to get our groceries."
Re: Apple's union-busting practices violated employee rights at NYC store
#123Earlier 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.
> corporations aren't fighting them for their employees' benefit. But they are. The long-term profitability of the company is essential for ensuring the jobs of everyone. History is filled with the bankruptcies of unionized companies where the workers asked for more than what the market would support. I hate to rain on your parade, but in my experience the union leadership were much more like a parallel track of mana…
> The long-term profitability of the company is essential for ensuring the jobs of everyone
Long-term profitability is the goal of company management? In my experience that’s often not the case. Short term profit going straight to shareholder dividend, seeking a sale at the highest possible price… Maybe I’m too cynical but it feels like these are the primary goals of corporate America these days. Boost, boost, boost then cash out. If anything a unionized workforce can help keep management on the straight and narrow path to long term profitability because unions make the short term cashouts more difficult.
I’m not going to try to claim that all union management is wonderful but a great number of employees in the US would still be in a better place represented by selfish, inefficient union bosses than left to the company’s whims.
Re: Apple's union-busting practices violated employee rights at NYC store
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think so. Apple Stores are mostly a US thing.
Even in urban areas of America, Apple Stores are often far away in inconvenient locations. Look at the map of Apple Stores in Seattle; it's a pain in the ass to get to one without a car.
[deleted]
Re: Apple's union-busting practices violated employee rights at NYC store
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny, every company I have ever been a part of has taken out life insurance policies on me explicitly because if I suddenly die, it will take a while to replace me and it will cost a good amount to replace me.
That means you are near the top of the company and are a strategic value...do you think every Apple employee, or more specifically the ones targeted by this union, are the same value?
I'm barely above a junior dev. The reality is those policies are pennies and would just be a payday for the company and offset the replacement cost.
Re: Apple's union-busting practices violated employee rights at NYC store
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the past half century, inflation adjusted wages have remained basically flat while productivity has more than doubled. The 1% heirs have captured almost all of that growth. So that is the source of this funding - the heirs expropriate the profit of surplus labor time to finance the government which oversees that expropriation.
> For the past half century, inflation adjusted wages have remained basically flat while productivity has more than doubled. So how is it that real median household income is up almost 50% in the same timeframe?[0] [0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
Would this be women obtaining higher paying positions?
Re: Apple's union-busting practices violated employee rights at NYC store
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> The tax on labor is far higher than the tax on capital. So, in the USA, if I were to make $50,000 in a year producing widgets, the tax rate on that amount would be higher if I made the widgets by hand than if I had a robot produce the widgets for me? That is interesting. In my country, the product of capital is taxed at the same rate as the product of labour. Or are you trying to talk about capital gains? The human…
My understanding is that tax on capital refers to capital gains taxes.
Re: Apple's union-busting practices violated employee rights at NYC store
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
The unions were instrumental in getting the people pushing globalism elected.
The two flavors of US political parties were both right wing, neoliberal globalists. Clinton allying with Republicans to pass NAFTA is clear evidence of this. Only recently have they also both postured away from this stance, largely in response to the new Cold War with China.
> The two flavors of US political parties were both right wing, neoliberal globalists.
There were significant (but not always dominant) factions of that type in each party during the period of ideologically incoherent parties in the period of the long post-Depression realignment, and overlapping the very end of that period there was the brief neoliberal consensus period from the late 1980s into the 1990s.
Re: Apple's union-busting practices violated employee rights at NYC store
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, I was responding to this part of that comment, which is about the present day. > Companies have forgotten about the older pact with unions to remove violence, and then now commit economic violence (destitution, starvation, etc). Maybe they should be reminded?
Sorry, following dangs guidelines and didn’t even register the not so subtle call for violence ;)
I was not calling for violence. But having companies continually violate the law, and having no real repurcussions does create a very BAD situation. People pushed into a corner react very badly.
And perhaps companies can go back to WHY the NLRB was created, and what the before-times was like. I particularly don't want to go back to that.
And you can be reminded with a history lesson and education, and not shooting up the bosses house. You all also broke HN guidance by assuming the worst of me too.
Re: Apple's union-busting practices violated employee rights at NYC store
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> The tax on labor is far higher than the tax on capital. So, in the USA, if I were to make $50,000 in a year producing widgets, the tax rate on that amount would be higher if I made the widgets by hand than if I had a robot produce the widgets for me? That is interesting. In my country, the product of capital is taxed at the same rate as the product of labour. Or are you trying to talk about capital gains? The human…
> So, in the USA, if I were to make $50,000 in a year producing widgets, the tax rate on that amount would be higher if I made the widgets by hand than if I had a robot produce the widgets for me?
No, you spent $50,000 buying labor vs. $50,000 aquiring machines and parts to build widgets, your taxes and the taxes on the people you bought from would be higher in the labor case.
> Or are you trying to talk about capital gains? The human equivalent of gains on the sale of capital would be profiting from a slave trade
No, the human equivalent of capital gains is capital gains, since all capital gains are earned by hunans or legal fictions representing them. But the labor equivalent is wages; earnings from production are split between capital and labor, the labor share distributed as a mix of immediate and deferred wages, the capital share (eventually) extracted as capital gains, either directly as dividends or by trading future interest in dividends for current money by selling stock, etc.
This is not, however, an alternative to the analysis of taxes impacting the production methods; the two are both different framings of the same facts: capital gains are taxed preferentially to “normal” income which in turn is taced preferentially to labor income.