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

161–170 of 178 posts

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

#161

Post by synetic »

randomdata wrote: post #143
synetic wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I make $1,000,000 profit from selling stock I pay much lower taxes than if I made $1,000,000 from selling my labor to a company.

There is no productive output in the sale of stock, though. You are only moving capital around. Similarly, moving labour around carries no tax burden, leaving capital to be the one with the higher taxes. If your capital holdings produced $1,000,000 in productive output, presumably in the US you would pay the same taxes as if you you made $1,000,000 selling your labour. That would be the case here.

You are free to make whatever distinctions you want. Most people would say that it is unfair that a person who sells stocks for $50,000 profit pays far less in taxes than a person who lays bricks for a year for $50,000.

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

#162

Post by hospitalJail »

spacemadness wrote: post #27
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.

Sounds like solid MBA logic to me. May as well lay some more people off.

But unironically if you sell Veblen goods.

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

#163

Post by smoldesu »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #156
smoldesu wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't win any fight that ends in a concession. Apple was instructed to cease-and-desist; if they continue along their current path, they could be held liable for violating federal labor laws. Their legal council is probably doing the same thing they did with the Uighur labor allegations and the Foxconn suicides - begging Apple to denounce it publicly and blame each instance rather than admit systemic abuse. It's…

Issuing a cease and desist letter to a serial union buster is like telling Ted Bundy he needs to stop killing people. He probably agrees, but certainly isn't going to stop.

Ted Bundy's story ends with him dying in government custody, so I'd agree that it's an apt metaphor.

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

#164

Post by linksnapzz »

rqtwteye wrote: post #81
treeman79 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Gotta love how people blame lack of a company's success on those bad workers. How about actually doing the unimaginable and build decent cars? Almost every time I get a rental from a US car company I am reminded that they don't seem to care about building good cars. They just throw a bunch of options together and make the car bigger. Nobody seems to actually try the car and see if it drives well.

It takes two to tango.

The problem with industrial unions in the US is not so much the salary and benefits paid to one, or even to a set, of individual workers. It's the demands by the union to maximize union membership (and dues) that make it impossible to take advantage of improving efficiency (which could lead to fewer employees).

The story I've heard...was that steelmaking in the US went into decline after WWII, because US mills weren't destroyed in the war. USX, Bethlehem et al. kept making steel using inefficient prewar methods, with equivalent staffing costs. Foreign (ex-Axis) steelmakers invested in brand-new, more efficient methods to replace what had been bombed, and these new mills gave them a cost advantage.

So why didn't the US mills upgrade? Because their contracts with the union more or less made sure that no matter how many fewer staff it would take to run, the number of United Ironworkers members on the payroll would never decrease. It wasn't worth the capital cost to upgrade in the '50s-'6s, and by the '80s, when it would've been, it was too late.

There was a possibility, if the unions were a bit more farsighted, to accept a gradual drawdown in staffing, and consolidation of job definitions by attrition, with no real loss of individual wages or benefits. But that never happened.

A similar dynamic occurred in the auto industry...labor (and the UAW is a bad, bad, bad, union for this) was very short-sighted, and Detroit purchased peace with them at a very high cost in terms of productivity per worker; partly because they had the money to, partly because it was seen as a necessary evil, and partly because the idea of being more efficient in operations was seen as intractable-they didn't listen to Deming when he first started to talk about it.

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

#165

Post by hospitalJail »

foxyv wrote: post #78
Kiro wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

While that is the case now, I'm talking about when the first iPhone was just about to come out. Apple barely has to bother with marketing now because of their huge success 10-15 years ago. Largely in part due to Apple stores on college campuses, in major retailers like Best Buy, and in city centers. It used to be that was the only way to learn about an Apple product. This was before the internet was widely available.

>Apple barely has to bother with marketing now because of their huge success 10-15 years ago.

What are you talking about? Apple is all over reddit, snapchat, instagram, facebook, TV/sports/youtube, they likely astroturf/hire reputation management on reddit, HN, and twitter.

The king of marketing doesnt stop, they double down.

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

#166

Post by dragonwriter »

randomdata wrote: post #136
dragonwriter wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 capita…

> 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. Why is that? The taxes paid would be the same here. If we say the rate is 10%, labour case would pay a straight $5,000. In the machine case the business selling it might profit $5,000, so they would pay $500, and $25,000 in labour cost…

> The taxes paid would be the same here.

No, they wouldn't, because payroll taxes exist, and are paid by both the employer and employee.

> Okay, but then from that perspective the capital gains tax rate is always the same capital gains rate no matter what

I was taking issue with your misuse of “human” for what ia properly “labor” (which is as much a human means of relating to a capitalist econony as capital is), and also discussed what the labor equivalent of capital gains taxes (which are very much not the same.)

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

#167

Post by foxyv »

LegitShady wrote: post #8
foxyv wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

apple were massively popular in canada long before we had any apple stores, and in fact I've never been to an apple store and still own apple products. I don't think what you're saying is true.

Apple stores started opening in Canada in 2005. This was two years before the introduction of the iPhone.

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

#168

Post by LegitShady »

foxyv wrote: post #167
LegitShady wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

apple were massively popular in canada long before we had any apple stores, and in fact I've never been to an apple store and still own apple products. I don't think what you're saying is true.

Apple stores started opening in Canada in 2005. This was two years before the introduction of the iPhone.

In like one city maybe. There's a difference between "Started opening" and actually contributing to the success of apple products. I'd bet apple sells many many many more products that they get apple store traffic.

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

#169

Post by randomdata »

dragonwriter wrote: post #166
randomdata wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Why is that? The taxes paid would be the same here. If we say the rate is 10%, labour case would pay a straight $5,000. In the machine case the business selling it might profit $5,000, so they would pay $500, and $25,000 in labour cost…

> The taxes paid would be the same here. No, they wouldn't, because payroll taxes exist, and are paid by both the employer and employee. > Okay, but then from that perspective the capital gains tax rate is always the same capital gains rate no matter what I was taking issue with your misuse of “human” for what ia properly “labor” (which is as much a human means of relating to a capitalist econony as capital is), and…

> No, they wouldn't, because payroll taxes exist, and are paid by both the employer and employee.

Here that is not the case. The employer pays half of an employee's contribution into a retirement and insurance fund, but that is not a tax. That is additional compensation provided to the employee.

What's the logic behind taxing payroll?

> I was taking issue with your misuse of “human” for what ia properly “labor”

Labour is the productive output of a human. Capital gains is a property of the exchange of capital. The closest analog to capital gains with respect to labour is in the sale of humans (i.e. slave trade).

You haven't taken issue with anything, you've only repeated that it is silly to try and talk about capital gains and labour together. They are not meaningfully compared or contrasted.

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

#170

Post by randomdata »

synetic wrote: post #161
randomdata wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no productive output in the sale of stock, though. You are only moving capital around. Similarly, moving labour around carries no tax burden, leaving capital to be the one with the higher taxes. If your capital holdings produced $1,000,000 in productive output, presumably in the US you would pay the same taxes as if you you made $1,000,000 selling your labour. That would be the case here.

You are free to make whatever distinctions you want. Most people would say that it is unfair that a person who sells stocks for $50,000 profit pays far less in taxes than a person who lays bricks for a year for $50,000.

Because they don't realize the productivity of the capital is also taxed, and is taxed at the same rate as labour? That double taxation should sum to more than a labourer would be on the hook for.

After all, the value of capital is determined by its productivity potential. If there is no ability to generate productivity, the capital will be worthless, and then there will be no capital gains to speak of.

Let's face it, the real problem with the tax code (in this country, but I understand the US is the same) is that the borrowed income against capital is not taxed at all. This allows one to effectively create money out of thin air without paying a cent.

Post reply on HN