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

Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 150 posts

Re: Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

#41

Post by brchn »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #15
danuker wrote: post #2

I believe unions are necessary in a world of humongous companies. That is because, in case of disagreements, an employee's prospect (losing 100% of their income) is a much worse negotiating position than a large company losing <1% of its workforce.

Many unions soon get corrupted and get in bed with the government (or atleast one side of it). Here in slovenia, many worker unions were against the lowering the taxes on paychecks (higher net with same gross pay), because their political parties were against those, even if the workers themselves would benefit from those. We also have some areas (eg. a government rail company), where you cannot even get a job, if you…

Voting against a tax decrease could still be in the workers’ best interest, no? I think some context is needed

Re: Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

#42

Post by tareqak »

nickpp wrote: post #28
krageon wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet it's not, so clearly you are making a thought error somewhere along this heavily elided process.

Please do point out my logical error. I see countless examples of competition keeping corporations in check. What is keeping Unions in check then?

The legislative and executive branches of the US government blocking the majority of rail workers from going ahead with a rail strike: https://apnews.com/article/business-economy-strikes-congress... .

Re: Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

#43

Post by jimbob45 »

While the NLRB has previously held that companies can require employees to attend anti-union meetings, the agency’s current general counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, views such “captive audience” gatherings as inherently coercive and illegal. Her office is pursuing cases that could change the precedent, including at Amazon.com Inc. and Starbucks Corp., both of which have denied wrongdoing.

So it sounds like Apple's tactics weren't illegal but this new counsel wants to reverse precedent to make sure they are now illegal. Seems bizarre to try and change precedent from the side of the lawyers rather than the judges. Paired with the PR-tone of this article, it looks like an upstart lawyer trying to win the court of public opinion rather than a legal court.

Re: Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

#44

Post by pjc50 »

refurb wrote: post #12
danuker wrote: post #2

I believe unions are necessary in a world of humongous companies. That is because, in case of disagreements, an employee's prospect (losing 100% of their income) is a much worse negotiating position than a large company losing <1% of its workforce.

I think the challenge is the way unions are set up in the US. It's very different than Europe. I recall some HNer mentioning in the UK (I think) your work place can have multiple unions, you can join whichever one you want.

The practice is called a "closed shop", and it was ended in the UK by Thatcher and Labour gave up on trying to reinstate it because it was unpopular. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/18/labour-aban...

Re: Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

#45

Post by martimarkov »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #16
WeylandYutani wrote: post #6

It's heart warming to see the US rediscover labour unions Republicans wrote American socialists out of the history books but you can't keep the people down! You'll see increased lobbying from companies for increased migration to keep wages down.

> You'll see increased lobbying from companies for increased migration to keep wages down. I find it funny, that here (my country, slovenia), we have right(ish) parties against immigration but more liberal workforce rules, and on the other side, we have both leftish and pure "communist" parties (even with a red star in the logo), supposedly "fighting for the workers" and at the same time supporting more immigration.

You fight for more votes. Get more workers to fight for and more ppl vote for you. ;)

Re: Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

#46

Post by indymike »

thr0wawayf00 wrote: post #22
winReInstall wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, hear me out, they could ditch the lipservice to democracy entirely and push some ursurper on a throne. After all strong hierarchys controlled by a godking are closer to a company anyway. What has democracy ever done for us?

> What has democracy ever done for us? The labor movement gave us the 40 hour workweek, weekends off and the minimum wage. They're the reason you have time to opine online right now instead of working. https://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-the-40-hour-workw... https://exhibitions.lib.umd.edu/unions/labor/living-wage

>> What has democracy ever done for us?

Labor unions, for one thing.

Re: Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

#47

Post by bigbillheck »

nickpp wrote: post #28
krageon wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet it's not, so clearly you are making a thought error somewhere along this heavily elided process.

Please do point out my logical error. I see countless examples of competition keeping corporations in check. What is keeping Unions in check then?

Your premises are unsound.

Re: Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

#48

Post by westmeal »

anshumankmr wrote: post #29
frippertronics wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's valid to write off all unions based on anecdotal evidence. For every example of bad unionisation one can probably provide one or more counter-examples of good unionisation (e.g. the Scandinavian countries).

Weren't the Teamsters also super corrupt? (My only knowledge comes from watching The Irishman)

Oh yeah big time. The entire east coast got it's strings pulled by the unions.

Re: Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

#49

Post by cmh89 »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #15
danuker wrote: post #2

I believe unions are necessary in a world of humongous companies. That is because, in case of disagreements, an employee's prospect (losing 100% of their income) is a much worse negotiating position than a large company losing <1% of its workforce.

Many unions soon get corrupted and get in bed with the government (or atleast one side of it). Here in slovenia, many worker unions were against the lowering the taxes on paychecks (higher net with same gross pay), because their political parties were against those, even if the workers themselves would benefit from those. We also have some areas (eg. a government rail company), where you cannot even get a job, if you…

>Here in slovenia, many worker unions were against the lowering the taxes on paychecks (higher net with same gross pay), because their political parties were against those, even if the workers themselves would benefit from those.

You can't lower taxes without some sort of tradeoff, which is usually a cut to services. I don't know the context here but it stands to reason that you are not giving the whole situation.

>We also have some areas (eg. a government rail company), where you cannot even get a job, if you don't get approved by one of the two unions, which mostly means that you have to pay off someone in the union to get an approval (for a very cozy job).

Corruption is going to exist without strict governance regardless of unions. I'm a unionized worker in the USA and no one needs to bribe their way into a job here. We have robust oversight and documentation of the hiring process.

Re: Apple’s anti-union tactics in Atlanta were illegal, US officials say

#50

Post by cmh89 »

anshumankmr wrote: post #29
frippertronics wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's valid to write off all unions based on anecdotal evidence. For every example of bad unionisation one can probably provide one or more counter-examples of good unionisation (e.g. the Scandinavian countries).

Weren't the Teamsters also super corrupt? (My only knowledge comes from watching The Irishman)

There was corruption at the height of organized crime. The average Teamster is doing a lot better than than average non-unionized trucker
Post reply on HN