Apple Finalizes First Retail Union Contract With Maryland Store

[Reverend Benny]

Apple doing this is not a shocker. Tesla's CEO is at war all over Europe because he will not recognize unions, so that would be a surprise.

Yea, I know Teslas at war all over Europe, I'm in one of those countries that fights Elon the most.
I was under the impression that Apple was fighting the union the same way that Elon was, but might have misunderstood or maybe that's a thing of the past then.

 

[Iconoclysm]

Yea, I know Teslas at war all over Europe, I'm in one of those countries that fights Elon the most.
I was under the impression that Apple was fighting the union the same way that Elon was, but might have misunderstood or maybe that's a thing of the past then.

Apple has been one of the more cooperative companies when it comes to doing what's right for its employees. They're often chastised for being a "liberal tech company".

 

[Iconoclysm]

This!

Walk into a Home Depot or Lowe's, at least near me, and you will find ZERO manned checkout lanes! Every lane was closed and only the self-checkouts were open with a single employee watching the 6 self-checkouts. Convenience stores and supermarkets are mirroring this experience.

You can price your job right out of existence.

It's funny that you blame the employees for that and not the management. If the price of your labor requires that labor to also collect welfare simply to get by, it's your establishment that needs to be removed from existence.

 

[icanhazmac]

It's funny that you blame the employees for that and not the management. If the price of your labor requires that labor to also collect welfare simply to get by, it's your establishment that needs to be removed from existence.

Ok, no more fast food, convenience stores, supermarkets, gas stations.... need I go on? Not every position warrants the level of pay that is being imposed upon it. Entry level or low skill positions are meant to be first jobs for teens or part time adult work to supplement income.

Never ending cycle:

10 Wages not considered "living"
20 Wages artificially raised
30 Cost of goods go up to cover labor costs
40 Goto 10

 

[citysnaps]

Yes, a balance of both is probably good. But I would rather my outrageous cost for Apple devices get a better distribution across all employees, rather than all going to management, which in my opinion, is not doing anything worth their compensation.

No, Apple product sales revenue is not all going to management.

You might not be aware that a company that employs 164,000 employees having excellent wages and benefits, has a large number of buildings/facilities and 500+ Apple Stores, invests in research and development, plus huge overhead costs in running a company with the above number of facilities and employees, comes out of product sales income.

Cook's and those in upper management's salaries are well deserved keeping a company of Apple's size with around a billion active customers (many repeat), running smooth.

 

[lovehateapple]

One of the consequences of this is apple won't open any more stores in Maryland or where the union has jurisdiction.

 

[lovehateapple]

This!

Walk into a Home Depot or Lowe's, at least near me, and you will find ZERO manned checkout lanes! Every lane was closed and only the self-checkouts were open with a single employee watching the 6 self-checkouts. Convenience stores and supermarkets are mirroring this experience.

You can price your job right out of existence.

CA is learning this in real time with its $20 minimum wage for fast food workers.

 

[lovehateapple]

Surely they can just get half a penny less from every device they’re going to sell today to balance it out.

It's not going to be "just half a penny" though..

 

[Apple2GS]

Coal miners and other dangerous jobs need unions. Retail does not.

 

[richpjr]

No, Apple product sales revenue is not all going to management.

You might not be aware that a company that employs 164,000 employees having excellent wages and benefits, has a large number of buildings/facilities and 500+ Apple Stores, invests in research and development, plus huge overhead costs in running a company with the above number of facilities and employees, comes out of product sales income.

Cook's and those in upper management's salaries are well deserved keeping a company of Apple's size with around a billion active customers (many repeat), running smooth.

If the wages and benefits were excellent for all employees there would have been no need to unionize...

 

[citysnaps]

If the wages and benefits were excellent for all employees there would have been no need to unionize...

Nope.

That's one Apple Store (guessing 50 to 100 employees) out of 530 Apple Stores. And there are around 160,000 non-store employees at Apple. None of which are unionized.

Apple's doing a good job keeping their employees happy with competitive wages and benefits. Which leads to creating outstanding products their roughly 1 Billion active customers continuing to purchase new Apple products going forward.

 

[maxoakland]

Good for them! These employees really took their future into their own hands. It’s great to see

 

[maxoakland]

Artificially inflated wages hurt as many people as they help. Witness the number of restaurants shutting down in some states due to an increased minimum wage and the ones still in business forced to raise their prices to cover for it. The costs are always passed on to customers. It sucks for people with the low wages but just wait until AI really starts eliminating jobs in the not-too-distant future - people will really have something to complain about.

Raising prices is the cost of doing business and paying your employees a living wage

The alternative is the government paying part of the wages in the form of food stamps, UBI, that kind of thing

Why should taxpayers have to subsidize a company’s payroll? Thats a cost of doing business

It’s better in the long run because the working class buys stuff with their money which is better for the economy than rich people hording it

 

[NagasakiGG]

If the wages and benefits were excellent for all employees there would have been no need to unionize...

Facts. I personally also don’t see a benefit for me as I work in a high skilled sector in CH where there’s no need for such. Though, I am not the representation of the whole country, and I know that there are „not-so-privileged“ people. So if it helps them to have a slightly better standard, why not?

 

[Someyoungguy]

It’s always amazing to me how people who hate unions for low wage workers don’t consider that corporations routinely use collective bargaining to improve their bottom lines. That’s what PACs and chambers of commerce and trade organization lobbying are for.

 

[icanhazmac]

paying your employees a living wage

Please define this. Don't spare the details. People spout off "living wage" but never define it.

The alternative is the government paying part of the wages in the form of food stamps, UBI, that kind of thing

An alternative is that if you are not making enough with your primary job, you get a second, part-time job. The problem is we have incentivized handouts. Working the cash register at a fast-food joint is not worth $20/hr, this is why we have ordering kiosks.

Why should taxpayers have to subsidize a company’s payroll? Thats a cost of doing business

You are asking the wrong question.

Why should business overpay for labor?

Answer is, they won't, they will replace that labor with automation the first second they can (see above reference to self ordering kiosks). If that labor cannot be replaced then hours will drop, cost of goods/services will increase, etc.
You also spout "cost of doing business" as if this is a mythical price that business owners "pay", wake up, consumers of goods and services are the only people that "pay", the business owner is just the middle man.

When the cost of goods and services go up because of the artificial increase in labor costs I suspect you will be back here crying about "living wages". Vicious, endless cycle.

How can people be this bad at math?

How about this, perhaps if our society wasn't so keen on getting something for nothing people would get paid what they deserve. Take @maxoakland for instance, on record stating that you would only consider subscribing to Spotify for $9 a month:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/spotify-raises-prices-for-second-time-in-12-months-now-more-expensive-than-apple-music.2428081/page-7?post=33184223#post-33181840

When I detailed what your $9 could actually provide in fair compensation to the artists you "disagreed" me. You didn't offer a dissenting opinion or challenge my math, because it was correct, you just didn't like the results.

 

[maxoakland]

How about this, perhaps if our society wasn't so keen on getting something for nothing people would get paid what they deserve. Take @maxoakland for instance, on record stating that you would only consider subscribing to Spotify for $9 a month:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/spotify-raises-prices-for-second-time-in-12-months-now-more-expensive-than-apple-music.2428081/page-7?post=33184223#post-33181840

When I detailed what your $9 could actually provide in fair compensation to the artists you "disagreed" me. You didn't offer a dissenting opinion or challenge my math, because it was correct, you just didn't like the results.

I see you’re confused

When I said I would subscribe to Spotify for $9 a month, I was participating in capitalism. I decided it’s not worth the money to me and I chose to use other sources of music

Paying employees so little they have to be on Foodstamps isn’t capitalism because the government/taxpayers are paying part of the money a corporation owes to its employees

The companies are choosing to use workers labor, but they don’t want to pay for it

That’s the opposite of a person making the choice not to spend money by not buying a product

 

[icanhazmac]

I see you are confused...

Paying employees so little they have to be on Foodstamps isn’t capitalism because the government/taxpayers are paying part of the money a corporation owes to its employees

A corporation, or any business, does not owe anyone anything other than an agreed upon wage and/or compensation package for the labor/skill provided. If the labor/skill one provides is worth less than your mythical "living wage" then one can get a different job, get a second supplemental job or expand their skillset. Where we get into trouble is when some random group decides that the least common denominator employee should be compensated in excess of their contribution. This is why we have self-checkout lanes and ordering kiosks. Simple math really.

The companies are choosing to use workers labor, but they don’t want to pay for it

Categorically false, companies pay workers every single day. Workers are getting paid the wage agreed upon when they were hired or last review cycle. Just because the fast food cashier THINKS they are worth $20/hr doesn't mean they are. Artificially raising labor costs has consequences, that is called an increase in cost of goods/services.

By the way... where is your detailed description of "living wage"??? Inquiring minds want to know...

 

[profcutter]

By the way... where is your detailed description of "living wage"??? Inquiring minds want to know...

Man, your attack on the term living wage isn’t the gotcha you seem to think it is. Here, I googled it for you. The first thing that came up.

Explainer: What is a living wage and how is it different from the minimum wage?

The International Labour Organization has agreed a formal definition for a living wage. Here’s how it differs from a minimum wage and what that means for workers.

www.weforum.org

From those radical socialists at the World Economic Forum (/sarcasm, if you didn‘t know, the WEF represents the wealthiest economies and companies across the globe)

 

[wdfly]

America used to be a manufacturing mecca, constant and often ridiculous wage increases caused companies to relocate these jobs to other countries where labor is cheaper. This will only fuel that fire.

 

[icanhazmac]

Man, your attack on the term living wage isn’t the gotcha you seem to think it is. Here, I googled it for you. The first thing that came up.

I think you misunderstand my request of other members. People throw terms around but never define them and it is infuriating.

Even your "googled" response is ill-defined and nebulous:

A living wage is a level of pay that gives workers and their families a decent standard of living. This includes being able to afford basic needs such as food, housing, healthcare, education, transport and clothing.

Ok, what is that level of pay? Average across the US, define it!

• First off, should every single position be required to offer this "living wage"?
  • Are there entry level positions for teens / part-time that might be less than this "living wage"? Who decides which positions these are?
    • If no, then every 13 year old working their first part-time McDs job now earns a "living wage"?
• Should this "living wage" support a single person or a family? How do you police that? Can't have single folks making a "living family wage", that would be abusing the system.
  • Would supporting a family assume 2 working parents or do we now advocate "living family wage" for a single parents? If so does this mean when you get pregnant or divorced that you get a raise? If a "living family wage" is paid to a single parent do they get a pay cut if they re-marry?
• What level of housing? Tent? Single room, dormitory or barracks style? Apartment? 5000 sqft home with in-ground pool in Beverly Hills?
• Education is covered, non-issue.
• Transport. Is public transportation ok or are we suggesting the "living wage" cover the cost of a new BMW?
• Clothing seems easiest, show me an area that doesn't have lots of thrift stores.
• Healthcare... this is the hardest of the bunch. "Cheap" healthcare was pushed a couple of administrations back and victory was claimed based on low premiums. What they never talked about was that cheap premiums come with enormous out of pocket deductibles. I don't see that as a victory.

Surely you can see the need for some parameters?

I was simply asking another member to expand upon and quantify their comments. Generally they don't or can't, they just like to virtue signal with vague generalities.

 

[profcutter]

I think you misunderstand my request of other members. People throw terms around but never define them and it is infuriating.

Even your "googled" response is ill-defined and nebulous:

A living wage is a level of pay that gives workers and their families a decent standard of living. This includes being able to afford basic needs such as food, housing, healthcare, education, transport and clothing.

Ok, what is that level of pay? Average across the US, define it!

• First off, should every single position be required to offer this "living wage"?
  • Are there entry level positions for teens / part-time that might be less than this "living wage"? Who decides which positions these are?
    • If no, then every 13 year old working their first part-time McDs job now earns a "living wage"?
• Should this "living wage" support a single person or a family? How do you police that? Can't have single folks making a "living family wage", that would be abusing the system.
  • Would supporting a family assume 2 working parents or do we now advocate "living family wage" for a single parents? If so does this mean when you get pregnant or divorced that you get a raise? If a "living family wage" is paid to a single parent do they get a pay cut if they re-marry?
• What level of housing? Tent? Single room, dormitory or barracks style? Apartment? 5000 sqft home with in-ground pool in Beverly Hills?
• Education is covered, non-issue.
• Transport. Is public transportation ok or are we suggesting the "living wage" cover the cost of a new BMW?
• Clothing seems easiest, show me an area that doesn't have lots of thrift stores.
• Healthcare... this is the hardest of the bunch. "Cheap" healthcare was pushed a couple of administrations back and victory was claimed based on low premiums. What they never talked about was that cheap premiums come with enormous out of pocket deductibles. I don't see that as a victory.

Surely you can see the need for some parameters?

I was simply asking another member to expand upon and quantify their comments. Generally they don't or can't, they just like to virtue signal with vague generalities.

The problem is that real economics isn’t just “A living wage is 23.54 1/2 per hour.” Each area has its own cost of living, and they vary widely from site to site. You can find living wage maps for the US, for example, which shows how much a living wage is for a given locale. A living wage is not like a minimum wage, which is arbitrary and can stagnate like it has in the US since 2007. I think we’d all agree that inflation has gone up a staggering amount since 2007, yet minimum wage is 7.25/hour. In some very few, very rural parts of the US, a family can support itself if each wage earner works multiple jobs. In the rest of the country, 7.25 is so far from being able to cover rent that it’s beyond a poverty wage.

A living wage in Seattle is far higher than a living wage in Bucksnort, TN. SeaTac raised their minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour, and there was no way it could keep up with the cost of living. The problem was not raising the living wage. The average home price in Seattle is over 800,000 dollars, that’s far more than I could afford with a PhD and seniority and tenure at my professor job.

As far as your parameters, yes, those are exactly the parameters that economists use to determine the living wage. Housing is determined as far as affording a 1 or 2 bedroom apartment in the area, and yes, it means that families will be at a disadvantage, but that’s the economic reality anyway. As far as should “every single” yes, that’s the idea. Look at the folks bagging groceries at your local stores. Some folks would have you believe that those are “teenager jobs,” bit the fact is the economy is structured in such a way that you have folks with decades of experience bagging groceries, in some areas it’s a relatively good paying union job.

Some of the questions you’re asking are absurd, and you of course know that. No one suggests a living wage pay for a BMW, or a house of 5000 Sq Ft, there are average apartment prices in every locale, and there are entry-level apartments as well, you simply look for the cost of safe, affordable housing in your area, the living wage is based on that. Education is generally not covered, in the sense that a living wage should allow parents to send their kids to public schools, which is something that many economists support for everyone anyway. And you’re right, since no administration in the US seems to want to challenge the insurance industry, it’s really caused healthcare prices to balloon to unacceptable levels, ridiculous compared to every other industrialized country, as well as several under-developed countries.

 

[gleepskip]

The problem is that real economics isn’t just “A living wage is 23.54 1/2 per hour.” Each area has its own cost of living, and they vary widely from site to site.

People who need a more affordable lifestyle should move out of huge, expensive metros. Happens all the time.

 

[elvisimprsntr]

When I grew up, retail and service based jobs were a stepping stone. Sadly, the US has moved to a lower wage service based economy since all the higher wage manufacturing jobs have moved overseas. Lower wage jobs generate less tax revenue from employers and employees. With the national debt skyrocketing and no control on spending, state and federal governments have no choice but to raise wages, which fuels inflation. Thus a positive feedback loop which spirals out of control. When, not if, the US economy and dollar collapses, there will be civil unrest like you have never seen before. The end is nigh.

 

[profcutter]

People who need a more affordable lifestyle should move out of huge, expensive metros. Happens all the time.

Sure, so they can be poor in a rural area.