Unionized Maryland Apple Store Workers Request 10% Raise and Option to Accept Customer Tips

[monstermash]

Maybe you should pay more... like a tip.

The grocery store I use has 6 check out lanes that have been replaced with self check out. One person and some machines replacing a number cashiers while I do ALL the labor. I want a discount.

Why should a store's cost savings measure give you a discount?

They cut costs to improve profitability, not simply lower prices.

 

[johnmacward]

May they win ALL THEIR DEMANDS! Power to these workers! Wonderful to see...

 

[GizmoDVD]

Maybe you should pay more... like a tip.

The grocery store I use has 6 check out lanes that have been replaced with self check out. One person and some machines replacing a number cashiers while I do ALL the labor. I want a discount.

Your discount is the price of your goods buying might not be as high because they don’t have to pay a 6 more 55 year old cashier $35 an hour to scan a barcode and sigh when something doesn’t scan properly.

 

[haplain]

I'm not going to touch most of this but I disagree with "the union said. Tip money would be split among employees based on hours worked." So you have someone who goes above and beyond, who might deserve a tip, and the person who does the bare minimum, that will benefit from others hard work? A tip should be based on individuals merit/service.

 

[monstermash]

I'm not going to touch most of this but I disagree with "the union said. Tip money would be split among employees based on hours worked." So you have someone who goes above and beyond, who might deserve a tip, and the person who does the bare minimum, that will benefit from others hard work? A tip should be based on individuals merit/service.

That is the nature of unions. Everyone should be treated the same.

Except union bosses of course. Extra perks for them.

 

[monstermash]

Wall Street Journal is reporting corporate profits are major driver of inflation at this time.

And where do profits come from?

People spending money.

Where do people get money? Most get it from wages.

 

[seek3r]

And where do profits come from?

People spending money.

Where do people get money? Most get it from wages.

that's not how that math works, like at all. There's a few steps you kinda handwaved away there, like, you know, the entire actual business.

 

[monstermash]

that's not how that math works, like at all. There's a few steps you kinda handwaved away there, like, you know, the entire actual business.

Ain't no business if people don't buy your stuff.

 

[seek3r]

Again, a living wage and the federal minimum wage are clearly two different things.

and again, they arent supposed to be. The minimum was *explicitly* created to be, word for word, a living wage. You're trying to use semantics in the name to get around the explicit purpose and ignoring that the law wasnt passed in a void with just a title, it had a description and lots of publicly documented explanation too. It's especially weird in this case since the word you fixated on as the alternative that's "different" was used directly, repeatedly, often, and clearly to describe what minimum wage is supposed to represent.

 

[bgillander]

I work with quite a few people, around 150.

They goof off because they don't have the discipline to do their job correctly. Others do the job because they want their name to mean something positive.

If it was easy to terminate them, we probably wouldn't have anyone employed in many places.

So do those of you that do the job get paid a living wage while the goof offs get less? If so, congratulations! Most places I’ve worked at pay everyone in the same position a similar wage, promote the good ones to better paying positions, and let the others stagnate in the lower positions or turf them if they are terrible. I haven’t seen a place where the same job position gets much of a different wage for actual quality of work (other than commissions.)

 

[MacWiz_007]

and again, they arent supposed to be. The minimum was *explicitly* created to be, word for word, a living wage. You're trying to use semantics in the name to get around the explicit purpose, which is pretty weird in this case since the word you fixated on as the alternative that's "different" was used directly, repeatedly, often, and clearly to describe what minimum wage is supposed to represent.

You're wrong. I'm sorry that you aren't able to comprehend this. Again, please explain to me how the government created a blanket, nation wide minimum wage, that was meant to be a "living wage" whether you live in Manhattan, or in the middle of nowhere Iowa? You can't, period. And again, the federal minimum wage is word for word the minimum wage every company in the US has to pay its workers. It guarantees you nothing beyond that. That's it. No more, no less. Regardless, you seem to be the argumentative type, and I'm sure you are the last word type as well so please, fire away. Nothing you are going to say is going to change the fact that the federal minimum wage has never been, and never will be a "living wage".

 

[AtomicDusk]

I find the concept of a multi-millionaire dragging himself to a retail store to buy computers funny. I mean, doesn't he have PEOPLE for that? I mean...if nothing else, order online and have them delivered. What is wrong with that guy??

It’s even funnier if I said who it was, because he was definitely one of the few recognizable ones, even to people who didn’t really follow basketball, like me.

 

[NY Guitarist]

And where do profits come from?

People spending money.

Where do people get money? Most get it from wages.

^ This demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of the current causes of inflation.

Ignorance is not a valid argument.

 

[NY Guitarist]

Why should a store's cost savings measure give you a discount?

They cut costs to improve profitability, not simply lower prices.

When stores eliminate workers who provide a service, and I still pay the same price, that is corporate driven inflation. No different than shrinkflation.

 

[bmot]

How much “more” should they pay their employees to make you feel good? Do you know how much they currently get paid?

I couldn’t care less. I don’t work for Apple, nor am I planning to. As long as Apple finds enough people that work for them for the offered payment nothing will change.

 

[0924487]

As I replied to another poster, that was not the original intent.

Quote from former US President

“It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.”​

Sorry, that’s just a PhotoOp.

The truth is, simple economics will tell you that reversion to the mean will dictate that anyone who demands above market wage will be laid off somehow in the long run. Maybe those jobs will simply seize to exist in the US.

An employee must generate at least 125% more net productivity than the cost of keeping that role for the company. Notice that salary is only a part of this cost.

 

[0924487]

That's just a neo-liberal trope used to rationalize under-paying workers.

Speaking of wage theft, why don't customers get a discount when using self check-out?

Customers already did get that. It’s factored into the price.

 

[avz]

Sorry, that’s just a PhotoOp.

The truth is, simple economics will tell you that reversion to the mean will dictate that anyone who demands above market wage will be laid off somehow in the long run. Maybe those jobs will simply seize to exist in the US.

An employee must generate at least 125% more net productivity than the cost of keeping that role for the company. Notice that salary is only a part of this cost.

So the military, education and the healthcare are the obvious exemptions from your understanding of the "economics", right? You can't have a country(state) without certain things even if you have to run them at a "loss".

 

[avz]

Your former president FDR, the one who introduced the minus wage did not agree.

“It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.”​

Yes, Roosevelt clearly had statesmanship competencies to understand the importance of the decent wages in order to keep any sort of country together let alone the US.

I don't think anybody here seriously expects the average MacRumors poster to have statesmanship competencies in order to understand the reasoning behind Roosevelt's decision making.

 

[0924487]

So the military, education and the healthcare are the obvious exemptions from your understanding of the "economics", right? You can't have a country(state) without certain things even if you have to run them at a "loss".

Your examples are not exceptions.

The US government will not keep a oversized military if there is no significant economic benefit for keep one (robbing oil, bullying countries who don't toe the line). No solders will enlist if they are not paid.

No one will go to universities if there is no economic advantage over a high School diploma. No professor will teach a course if he's not paid handsomely.

No hospitals will exist in low income neigherhoods without significant state/taxpayer subsidies (rare in the US). The fact is, many of them are closing down.

You can want many things, but if the economics doesn't make sense, i.e., if the market doesn't clear, nothing will happen.

You can say, every Canadian deserves heat in the winter. Sure, but if they can't afford it, who's gonna pay for it? The state? Hell no. The taxpayers? Well, who's gonna pay the extra tax to keep other people's house in order? Why would they vote to agree to a new tax law like that? What are the incentives? How do you clear the market? That's economics.

 

[seek3r]

You can say, every Canadian deserves heat in the winter. Sure, but if they can't afford it, who's gonna pay for it? The state? Hell no. The taxpayers? Well, who's gonna pay the extra tax to keep other people's house in order? Why would they vote to agree to a new tax law like that? What are the incentives? How do you clear the market? That's economics.

Not everything makes sense from a pure private market economics perspective. Yes the state should cover heat, yes the taxpayers should pay for it. Ignoring any moral arguments that letting people suffer or even freeze to death when you can stop it there’s market economics on the government level that are important. As you accurately noted we fund a military to advance aocietal interest, whether defense or projection of power for economic or other reasons.

The government in part exists ti fund the things that are economically important but too big, too long term, or cost too much for a private company to commit to. That includes core infrastructure *and*, crucially, social services. Social service costs are a loss leader for the economy, people can work, generate economic activity, and grow the economy better if, say, they dont freeze to death.

So why should taxpayers fund heat from a purely economic POV? Because if people have basic needs met in the long run they contribute to the economy, and both create and consume goods and services that support those taxpayers in, overall, long term, higher amounts than it costs.

Also worth noting that people who are the edge of freezing to death, starving to death, etc - people who have nothing to lose - are more likely to become violent or radicalized because, hey, they have nothing to lose. Do you like riots? Terrorism? Revolutions? Keep people in abject poverty in huge amounts, create an underclass, and that is what you’ll get. Because when someone is desperate and has nothing to lose…

 

[BigJayhawk]

I have a tip for the employees. I won’t shop there and neither should others. I have a tip for Apple. Close the Store - regardless of cost. Disgusting!

 

[avz]

Your examples are not exceptions.

The US government will not keep a oversized military if there is no significant economic benefit for keep one (robbing oil, bullying countries who don't toe the line). No solders will enlist if they are not paid.

No one will go to universities if there is no economic advantage over a high School diploma. No professor will teach a course if he's not paid handsomely.

No hospitals will exist in low income neigherhoods without significant state/taxpayer subsidies (rare in the US). The fact is, many of them are closing down.

You can want many things, but if the economics doesn't make sense, i.e., if the market doesn't clear, nothing will happen.

You can say, every Canadian deserves heat in the winter. Sure, but if they can't afford it, who's gonna pay for it? The state? Hell no. The taxpayers? Well, who's gonna pay the extra tax to keep other people's house in order? Why would they vote to agree to a new tax law like that? What are the incentives? How do you clear the market? That's economics.

If you refuse to pay for your own army you will end up having to feed the army of your rival power. So there is much more to it than just "bullying other nations and stealing their oil" although US definitely thoroughly enjoyed it while taking full advantage of their unique remote geographic location. They would not be able to do it if they have been part of the mainland surrounded by other countries.

I am still not sure you fully understand the true repercussions of the "many of them are closing down" from the perspective of statesmanship competencies.

 

[NY Guitarist]

Customers already did get that. It’s factored into the price.

No, the prices stayed the same. It's factored in to the profits.

 

[0924487]

Not everything makes sense from a pure private market economics perspective. Yes the state should cover heat, yes the taxpayers should pay for it. Ignoring any moral arguments that letting people suffer or even freeze to death when you can stop it there’s market economics on the government level that are important. As you accurately noted we fund a military to advance aocietal interest, whether defense or projection of power for economic or other reasons.

The government in part exists ti fund the things that are economically important but too big, too long term, or cost too much for a private company to commit to. That includes core infrastructure *and*, crucially, social services. Social service costs are a loss leader for the economy, people can work, generate economic activity, and grow the economy better if, say, they dont freeze to death.

So why should taxpayers fund heat from a purely economic POV? Because if people have basic needs met in the long run they contribute to the economy, and both create and consume goods and services that support those taxpayers in, overall, long term, higher amounts than it costs.

Also worth noting that people who are the edge of freezing to death, starving to death, etc - people who have nothing to lose - are more likely to become violent or radicalized because, hey, they have nothing to lose. Do you like riots? Terrorism? Revolutions? Keep people in abject poverty in huge amounts, create an underclass, and that is what you’ll get. Because when someone is desperate and has nothing to lose…

If you think the tax is too low for you, why don't you make a gift to the US government? There is no limit on how much you can gift to the US treasury!

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html#

Economics is a science, not a philosophy. That's why it's in Nobel Prize as Economic Science, where as Philosophy is not.

What's the difference?

Science tells you what will happen. Philosophy tells you what should happen.

If you force the outcome, i.e., what should happen, then something else must give.

In the case of public spending, you are focusing on what we should spend tax money on, but you neglected where to collect those tax money from. Same with politicians in the US, they ran a deficit and kicked the bucket forward. Because no one want to be the term where the music stops.

That's eating the seed for next year because you are hungry. This is still predicted by economics, it's called reversion to the mean. What goes up, must come down.