If they don’t like it, they can go work at Best Buy, McDonald’s, etc.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Store Employees in New Jersey File to Unionize
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So what makes your investment worth more than the labor of the people working in the company? They are indirectly working for your benefit, so you should see better conditions for them as part of the investment. It may cause a short term dip but in the long run you benefit more.
You're talking smart and business savvy, but employee turnover is inevitable ... it's an assumed cost of running business that has been calculated into every budget. This is not unique to Apple or any other industry ... especially when it comes to entry level positions, stressful positions. We are living in interesting times where people go happy go lucky wake up and go to work for years, and one day they just ghost a well paying job/whatever and move on to something else.
I am thinking bigger picture, I am securing my family's future in case I find myself 6 feet under tomorrow. Is that so horrible?
It is very simple, flipping burgers is not skilled labor, therefore the labor they are selling is least common denominator or minimum wage. The more skilled your labor, the more it is worth. Arbitrarily stating that unskilled labor is now worth $X doesn't change the fact that it really isn't.
The economy does indeed need burger flippers and I never implied these people should not get paid, what I am saying is that this type of position is not a household supporting position. Artificially increasing the minimum wage just drives up prices.
Five Guys' prices spark outrage after $24 receipt goes viral: 'Highway robbery'
Social media users debated whether or not Five Guys burgers were worth the price after a $24 receipt — which only included one burger, fries and a soda — went viral.
California is already seeing restaurants closing or promising price increases. Once the prices go up people will begin to clamor that $20/hour isn't a living wage.
If it is your argument that least common denominator jobs should be household supporting then you are supporting this "basic" but failed concept:
10 Artificially increase minimum wages to a nebulous "living" level
20 Cost of goods and services go up
30 Minimum wages are no longer considered "living"
40 Goto 10
In all my debates on this topic no one ever defines, exactly and specifically, what a "living wage" is. Someone please detail this, what is a proper living wage for a least common denominator laborer? Be specific and detailed across the entire compensation spectrum. Don't take the easy way out and say X% of the CEO's earnings. Now, if anyone is brave enough to do detail this out please recognize that if you artificially increase the lowest wage by X% everyone higher up the skill chain now also feels entitled to a raise of X%. If we just raise everyone's wage by X% what do you think will happen to the cost of goods and services?
Well if teacher's unions are any indication, ................................
I've read this a couple of times now and it seems like what you're saying is "yeah, I'm greedy".
I think the difference is that you could want your family to be better off, or you could want your family to be better off at the expense of others. You seem to fall squarely in the latter. It's not enough that your profits from investing are good, the employees working to actually provide those profits should get less so that you can get even more.
Call it sensible if that makes you feel better about yourself, but it's unapologetic greed. And it often flies in the face of what research shows would return greater profits in the long term.
Pfft. A lot of back and forth over a lot of stupid issues on people’s opinions.
1: If memory serves me correctly, Apple no pays their store employees a minimum of ~24 and hour.
2: The Federal minimum wage is still only like 7.50
3: We don’t need unions; we need the government bodies we already have to do their jobs and tell companies to pay a proper living wage for the given region based on job and skills.
4: We need those same government bodies to crack down on companies that artificially inflating the cost of living (housing and such) that drive up the need for higher wages.
5: We need a system that will truthfully see to that people can receive an education that doesn’t turn them in to sheep but honest and contributing members of society.
6: I know points 3 4 and 5 are wishful thinking.
I am college educated but I have no degree. I don’t expect to make as much as someone who has a degree in computer science or nursing or teaching. But I do expect to be paid a fair and living wage based on the skills and benefits I provide for my employer. Now I am told my new/current (just went through a merger) company’s President believes in paying people based on the work they provide not the hours they put in (I understand that to mean, if Jane and Joe both work 40 hours in a similar role but Jane does it better with less errors and thus gets more done she would make more.). Now, as I have yet to have my review, I have not been able to see this first hand. I know for a fact that there are only a few task in my work place I have not been trained on, but I chose to work a lower paid tier under the old system as it was less stressful. I have no issues working the higher paid task on occasion, if and only if I am going to get properly compensated. Specially seeing as I am tasked to find and generally fix the problems that the people who make more than me, cause.
A proper wage would and should always be one the reflects what your company values you for - if they don’t wanna pay you well enough to be comfortable with a little extra based on your skills and drive (cash and or benefits) then they don’t value you. Sadly, the human race is bound to always screw someone else over to have a few on top of the pile.
1: If memory serves me correctly, Apple no pays their store employees a minimum of ~24 and hour.
2: The Federal minimum wage is still only like 7.50
3: We don’t need unions; we need the government bodies we already have to do their jobs and tell companies to pay a proper living wage for the given region based on job and skills.
4: We need those same government bodies to crack down on companies that artificially inflating the cost of living (housing and such) that drive up the need for higher wages.
5: We need a system that will truthfully see to that people can receive an education that doesn’t turn them in to sheep but honest and contributing members of society.
6: I know points 3 4 and 5 are wishful thinking.
I am college educated but I have no degree. I don’t expect to make as much as someone who has a degree in computer science or nursing or teaching. But I do expect to be paid a fair and living wage based on the skills and benefits I provide for my employer. Now I am told my new/current (just went through a merger) company’s President believes in paying people based on the work they provide not the hours they put in (I understand that to mean, if Jane and Joe both work 40 hours in a similar role but Jane does it better with less errors and thus gets more done she would make more.). Now, as I have yet to have my review, I have not been able to see this first hand. I know for a fact that there are only a few task in my work place I have not been trained on, but I chose to work a lower paid tier under the old system as it was less stressful. I have no issues working the higher paid task on occasion, if and only if I am going to get properly compensated. Specially seeing as I am tasked to find and generally fix the problems that the people who make more than me, cause.
A proper wage would and should always be one the reflects what your company values you for - if they don’t wanna pay you well enough to be comfortable with a little extra based on your skills and drive (cash and or benefits) then they don’t value you. Sadly, the human race is bound to always screw someone else over to have a few on top of the pile.
Of course my investment is worth more to me and family than anyone else. Why else would I do it? I want to change the world, I want everyone to make exponentially more money, but I gotta start at home first.
So you're saying shrinking returns are to my benefit? Tell me you don't invest without ... well you know the rest.
Given that wages have in general stagnated since the 1970s, yes, everyone’s wages should go up. What is a living wage? That depends on what the cost of living is. As the cost of living goes up, the cost of a living wage goes up. Since prices on things rarely drop, that is a number that will continue to go up over time.It is very simple, flipping burgers is not skilled labor, therefore the labor they are selling is least common denominator or minimum wage. The more skilled your labor, the more it is worth. Arbitrarily stating that unskilled labor is now worth $X doesn't change the fact that it really isn't.
The economy does indeed need burger flippers and I never implied these people should not get paid, what I am saying is that this type of position is not a household supporting position. Artificially increasing the minimum wage just drives up prices.
Five Guys' prices spark outrage after $24 receipt goes viral: 'Highway robbery'
Social media users debated whether or not Five Guys burgers were worth the price after a $24 receipt — which only included one burger, fries and a soda — went viral.www.foxbusiness.com
California is already seeing restaurants closing or promising price increases. Once the prices go up people will begin to clamor that $20/hour isn't a living wage.
If it is your argument that least common denominator jobs should be household supporting then you are supporting this "basic" but failed concept:
10 Artificially increase minimum wages to a nebulous "living" level
20 Cost of goods and services go up
30 Minimum wages are no longer considered "living"
40 Goto 10
In all my debates on this topic no one ever defines, exactly and specifically, what a "living wage" is. Someone please detail this, what is a proper living wage for a least common denominator laborer? Be specific and detailed across the entire compensation spectrum. Don't take the easy way out and say X% of the CEO's earnings. Now, if anyone is brave enough to do detail this out please recognize that if you artificially increase the lowest wage by X% everyone higher up the skill chain now also feels entitled to a raise of X%. If we just raise everyone's wage by X% what do you think will happen to the cost of goods and services?
And you say that flipping burgers is “unskilled” labor, a designation I already balk at because “skill” is itself a nebulous concept, but the fact is the bulk of our economy relies heavily on “unskilled” labor. And most people who do “skilled” labor will not accept “unskilled” labor jobs, even if they are offered to them with good pay, so it is reasonable to say that the people who DO actually do those jobs should be paid better than some arbitrary minimum that was set decades ago.
So many people act like they are entitled to the goods and services produced by “unskilled” laborers and that if they are in a “skilled” labor position, they are better than workers in “unskilled” positions. It’s sociopathic.
No, I didn’t ask why is your investment worth more to you, I’m asking why your investment is worth more to anyone else than the labor of the people who work for Apple. What makes a bigger profit for Apple, the cost of the shares you bought or the value of the profit brought in by the labor of Apple’s employees?
And I didn’t say shrinking returns are better for your investment, I said enduring short term shrinks that then lead to longer term bumps are better for your investment.
I'm sorry it took you a couple of times to understand, wasn't my intention to make it this hard.
I thought I was quite clear and unapologetic that when I invest and work I expect something out it. I took risks, I invested, I made questionable decisions that at times landed me on my behind, picked myself back up again with no one's help but my friends and family, took me 30 years to get where I'm at ... so what you're saying I'm exclusive in my thoughts and no one should be burdened with hard work, touch choices and climbing the ladder ... it should just happen instantaneous for everyone, because it's the right thing to do?
Many customers do and employees are not allowed to accept. If a tip is left on the table or otherwise forced upon them, it goes into the drawer, not their pocket.
I guess I expected that you wouldn't be so proud of your greed, so I thought I had misread it. Clearly it's something you value though.
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with what I said? I never said people can't work and invest to build a better life for their family. The point that I thought I made pretty clearly was that it's bad when you choose to step on others to get ahead. You could get decent returns on your investment, but you instead advocate that you get exceptional returns by ensuring that employees that earned you those returns are made worse off. If you can't see the difference in those two situations then I don't know what else to say.
Screw your 'investment'. The REAL investment in ANY good or service is the labor of the workers, not the dollars of capitalists.
You don't know that it was laziness - many corporate policies at fast food establishments are that straws, napkins, utensils, even ketchup is on request only. In some states it is actually illegal for them to provide a straw (or even ask you if you want one) unless requested (NJ being one). Now should they post that at the counter? Yes. Do they? Rarely.
Apple needs to nip this thing in the bud. Shutter the store, fire the employees and reopen a brand new store sans this unionization nonsense.
Please direct your anger and provide a sound explanation to the people who lost their jobs to AI, robots, and ever-increasing costs of labor and unionization.
Profit or roi doesn't affect just investors ... it actually affects the very people you're keyboard-fighting for ... REAL people are getting let go, or their hours are cut as a direct result of the very thing you think should happen in an instant because it's the right thing to do ... if you think for a second that companies big or small will keep their doors open in the same manner when their profits shrink we have nothing to discuss.
Well, that's done. Now all they have to do it wait for the unintended consequences.
Businesses will always try to reduce costs and maximize profits, and since they already exploit workers they continue finding new ways to reduce either the amount of employees they have, how much they pay those employees, or both. Unionization happened because capitalists were treating workers so horribly, capitalists didn’t start treating workers badly because of unionization (although to be clear, capitalists have harassed, attacked, and outright killed workers who fought for their rights). Stop treating workers like they’re the problem for asking for a little bit more than they are getting now.
You're so close to understanding the negative consequences of businesses succumbing to shareholder greed.
You got the name calling down I'll give you that ... quite possibly you have no idea what I value or not, but this is an Internet forum, lots of misunderstandings.
Who said anything about stepping over people to get ahead? I'm simply against unionization, there is nothing wrong with that is there? I believe it will not work out as companies tend to shy away from having a union telling them how to run a business ... My segue into this has everything to do with what you said. Wrong, I don't advocate exceptional returns by keeping others down, quite the opposite ... I said it took me 30 years to get where I'm at (others do it in a fraction of the time) but I'm still going because I'm trying to marry right and sensible, and even though I keep getting disappointed with the whole right/sensible thing I keep trying ... so perhaps I'm foolish, but greedy as you so freely called me, I'm not ... hope you have a great rest of the day/night 😉
I'm very much against unionization, but I don't think firing people, absorbing costs of closing and reopening a store is the answer ... why would you go with such an extreme solution? ... because people are unhappy and fell victim to a promise that a union will make their lives better?
People need to be educated on what exactly a union is and what it can give vs. take from you. I have few family members who have very cushy but boring jobs in union working at LA area ports, and a significant other working as an educator ... they say while the jobs pay well, you're never allowed to think outside the box and have to stay within union line. If that's what you're after, go union 🙃
It's not really name-calling as much as just observing a trait. I can only go off the things you've said and the values you've expressed and supported here. I'm not a mind reader, so if you don't say what you mean then that's on you.
I mean, being against the concept of unionising seems pretty bad to me. Obviously not all unions are perfect, but the idea that workers shouldn't even try to level the playing field because companies won't be happy makes no sense. If a company can't provide adequate compensation to workers, it shouldn't be a company. Apple has more than enough money to pay its workers better, but it won't because it needs to maximise returns to shareholders. You've already expressed that you think this is the sensible way to do things, so it's hard not to see this as stepping on others to get ahead.
On a side note, you can end a sentence with a single full-stop. You don't need to ... after everything.
No one said you had to be a mind reader, but you're jumping to conclusions ...
You express your opinion ... I express one of my own. Not all unions are perfect ... ok ... what is your experience with a union besides jumping on a bandwagon of what you think is "right" and expecting it to be the only possible way?
On that note ... who says that one is forced to work at Apple as an entry level position at the salary/benefits/conditions that were set forth when you started your employment? Is one not allowed to quit, look for a more favorable job ... or perhaps try to advance? I don't mean that in a demeaning way, but when you enter a job market and start for the lack of better words "at the bottom" it's nowhere but up yea?
Are you always in the habit of calling people names ... jumping to conclusions ... and correcting everything you see because it's not to your liking? 🥴