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

Apple signs union agreement for Glasgow Apple Store staff

appleinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 93 posts

Re: Apple signs union agreement for Glasgow Apple Store staff

#41

Post by Apocryphon »

Xeoncross wrote: post #35
gruez wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If only there was a way for us to get together...as people...to unite as a group. To hold hands and stand up for ourselves. To become so large that the corporations and politicians must notice us and must change. Isn't that what the state is? It has all of that, plus a monopoly on violence, which a union doesn't have.

No, remember we're anti-local government. We want a massive centralized federal government that is to large to care about the peasants in a certain state.

At the same time, what is any local government going to do to Apple?

Re: Apple signs union agreement for Glasgow Apple Store staff

#42

Post by TaylorAlexander »

Xeoncross wrote: post #36
Melatonic wrote: post #21

Big companies are now so large that they can influence policy and politicians in a way that it is impossible for the individual to fight back. If only there was a way for us to get together...as people...to unite as a group. To hold hands and stand up for ourselves. To become so large that the corporations and politicians must notice us and must change. Fucking Union!

This is where Union on paper falls apart. Eventually Unions (like large companies and governments) end up being part of the issue they were forced to solve. You don't have a choice, you have to join the union that runs the area. Union boss is a real thing. It's just another government you're forced to pay taxes too even if you don't want to be a part of it. Unions are great at first though.

To the extent that this is true in the USA it would be so thanks to the Taft Hartley Act of 1947, which restricts Union power in general while placing all of the unions power in the hands of the union leadership. The act makes wildcat strikes illegal so all strikes must be agreed upon by leadership. It makes sympathy strikes illegal. And that’s just what I remember off the top of my head (IANAL).

The act should be repealed so union members have the power to strike regardless of whether union leadership agrees. Many common issues with unions people will share in this thread are experiences had under the Taft-Hartley Act, which is not the natural state of unions but an act of the state to weaken their power.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act

Re: Apple signs union agreement for Glasgow Apple Store staff

#43

Post by Xeoncross »

Apocryphon wrote: post #41
Xeoncross wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, remember we're anti-local government. We want a massive centralized federal government that is to large to care about the peasants in a certain state.

At the same time, what is any local government going to do to Apple?

The same thing the union just did and more.

Re: Apple signs union agreement for Glasgow Apple Store staff

#44

Post by Xeoncross »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #42
Xeoncross wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is where Union on paper falls apart. Eventually Unions (like large companies and governments) end up being part of the issue they were forced to solve. You don't have a choice, you have to join the union that runs the area. Union boss is a real thing. It's just another government you're forced to pay taxes too even if you don't want to be a part of it. Unions are great at first though.

To the extent that this is true in the USA it would be so thanks to the Taft Hartley Act of 1947, which restricts Union power in general while placing all of the unions power in the hands of the union leadership. The act makes wildcat strikes illegal so all strikes must be agreed upon by leadership. It makes sympathy strikes illegal. And that’s just what I remember off the top of my head (IANAL). The act should be re…

This is a really great point. The laws that get put on the books have a habit of benefiting the few over the many even if the sales pitch was to help everyone.

Re: Apple signs union agreement for Glasgow Apple Store staff

#46

Post by ClumsyPilot »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #38
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he would spend 30min+ in the restroom > The bathroom policy was put in place after having multiple meetings with the district manager. Did he have health issues? I have never seen a healthy adult hide in the Bathroom. Is this something that happens? Has an effort been made to figure out whats wrong with them? I have also had a junior colleague and a family member go through stomach related issues where they require…

> For every 'lazy' or 'unproductive' employee i've seen, I can name two that create negative productivity for an entire team through office politics and maneuvering. Is there a reason to assume the same ratio exists across all businesses?

There is a good reason to believe it's non-zero across all business, but only the first problem is ever talked about.

I suspect that rank and file employees are better at identifying the second problem than managers are. What it second problem is less common in places where unions are present? Maybe it's a tradeoff, you gain A but you loose B.

I am just saying this is never examined

Re: Apple signs union agreement for Glasgow Apple Store staff

#47

Post by TaylorAlexander »

Xeoncross wrote: post #44
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the extent that this is true in the USA it would be so thanks to the Taft Hartley Act of 1947, which restricts Union power in general while placing all of the unions power in the hands of the union leadership. The act makes wildcat strikes illegal so all strikes must be agreed upon by leadership. It makes sympathy strikes illegal. And that’s just what I remember off the top of my head (IANAL). The act should be re…

This is a really great point. The laws that get put on the books have a habit of benefiting the few over the many even if the sales pitch was to help everyone.

Well the whole point of this law was that there were a lot of strikes after WW2 and the government wanted to weaken union power, so while they may have pitched this as helping everyone it was obviously a way to empower the business class over workers.

Re: Apple signs union agreement for Glasgow Apple Store staff

#48

Post by maxsilver »

changoplatanero wrote: post #2

As an Apple investor, I wish that Apple would do more to make working conditions such that the retail employees would be less likely to want to join a union. A large share of the employee grievances will be things not related to pay and could be helped by having ways for the employees in the stores to communicate their needs to corporate.

> As an Apple investor, (things) could be helped by having ways for the employees in the stores to communicate their needs. (snip) A large share of the employee grievances will be things not related to pay

They've already communicated their needs (wages are too low), and you've already dismissed their concerns. Your comment here is kind of proving exactly why Apple employees so desperately need to unionize -- they aren't going to get fairer wages any other way.

Re: Apple signs union agreement for Glasgow Apple Store staff

#49

Post by tdeck »

Xeoncross wrote: post #35
gruez wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If only there was a way for us to get together...as people...to unite as a group. To hold hands and stand up for ourselves. To become so large that the corporations and politicians must notice us and must change. Isn't that what the state is? It has all of that, plus a monopoly on violence, which a union doesn't have.

No, remember we're anti-local government. We want a massive centralized federal government that is to large to care about the peasants in a certain state.

When gruez says "the state" they're talking mainly about countries and governments in general, not specifically about US states.

Re: Apple signs union agreement for Glasgow Apple Store staff

#50

Post by JoshTriplett »

pocket_cheese wrote: post #32
doublepg23 wrote: post #6

It’s interesting seeing unionization back on the table in the 2020s. I worked at a union retail job for three years and saw the pros and cons firsthand. We had a problem employee who was untouchable regardless if he was completing his job duties (assuming he showed up at all). Eventually this came to a head as he would spend 30min+ in the restroom. To address this they instituted a “log all bathroom breaks” policy _f…

The worst case scenario with a union is bad employees taking advantage of a company. Without unions, the worst case is a bad company taking advantage of its workers. If you are a capital owner, I can see why unions are bad. If you are a worker,(i.e. 99.9% of people), I have no idea why you wouldn't want unions.

> The worst case scenario with a union is bad employees taking advantage of a company.

The worst case scenario is bad employees harming other employees or the public. People who create a horrible workplace for others, people who harm the people the company or organization is meant to serve, but can't be fired.

Having robust policies to make it clear this won't happen and is not a goal would go a long way towards countering anti-union sentiment.

Post reply on HN