This is also my experience dealing with unions. Management is legally required to make concessions during collective bargaining, so anything that can be considered an improvement to mandatory bargaining topics (pay, benefits, or working conditions) gets held back for the contract negotiation.
In one case, management wanted to purchase sit/stand workstations for employees, but HR pointed out that this was a change to working conditions and should be included in the collective bargaining negotiation. However management had already started taking measurements for the tables, so the union knew what management was intending. During the negotiations, the union decided to try and call HR's bluff and refused to ask for the workstations as a concession. So in the end, the whole plan was scrapped so that HR would have concessions available for future negotiations.
if the belief is that employees using sit/stand workstations will improve productivity and output, it's a business' own choice not to do so for employees who have collective bargaining.
there is also a cost associated with maintaining different workspaces and equipment for employees of different status, and it's a company's choice to take that on.
typically when discussing working conditions, you're talking about minimum standards. it's not very smart to refuse to improve working conditions across the board.
you said in a reply further down that you were an executive level manager, you should have told HR to shove it because your individual performance would be impacted by the collective output of your employees, and the costs of improving working conditions would be returned in several multiples, some of which you might receive as a bonus.
it was, however, your choice and right not to do this. :)
> you said in a reply further down that you were an executive level manager, you should have told HR to shove it because your individual performance would be impacted by the collective output of your employees, and the costs of improving working conditions would be returned in several multiples, some of which you might receive as a bonus.
This assumes the EMgr is compensated/recognized more on performance of collective output than on politics and relationships. I dont know specifically about Apple, but plenty of orgs are imperfect enough that relationships are actually more highly rewarded/recognized than optimal collective outcomes (which are disparate and difficult to take credit for.)
This is part of the reason why "glue" workers[1] are usually overlooked and kept back. They neither please anyone, nor have a specific item to take credit for, usually simply boosting the outcomes of others who take all the credit for their work, plus some for that of the glue worker.
[1]: (ones which keep a team functioning well, but do nothing particularly stunning of their own)
No, the point is you get to make demands and make the company meet your way. That means once the deal is done, that's the deal. It's literally fair. You made a deal, now that is the deal. Your deal is different from other employees deal. There are upsides and downsides to both. Upside for the union employees, they got all the benefits they demanded with the downside of no new benefits. Upside for non-union employees is they get all the new benefits with the downsides they don't have all the benefits the union employees demanded and got because they thought they were that important.
Well, the point of a union is that management actually has a very bad sense for what employees want, so employees can't rely on management to meet their needs.
Like in this metaphor, sit/stand desks are a visible 'we care about you' move that cost $500/head one time. Meanwhile, the dental plan sucks and management ignores it because only a small subset of the employees notice and even then, it's only periodically.
So from that point of view, HR probably just said "well, based on the union negotiations, they don't seem to care about the desks, might as well shelve it and put the money to use elsewhere."
OP is the one adding the color about 'saving it for the next negotiation'
no, the point is maybe the union wants a 9% raise. if you put new desks in you now pay a 9% raise and new desks. if you keep it for bargaining then maybe you pay an 8% raise and include some other benefits like new desks.
I don't know the language of the collective bargin contract, but I've heard of unions making it difficult to replace carpeting due to the wording on contracts...
Even assuming a good-faith employer, there's an additional legal burden to make sure you DONT violate the contract, which can slow things down weeks or months... Unfortunately this article is behind a paywall so I can't get the details, but from the glimpse, "money for school" likely is considered a salary-like benefit (it's taxed as such), so it likely has contract wording considering it.
>Management is legally required to make concession
This is false. The NLRB explicitly says so:
> It is an unfair labor practice for either party to refuse to bargain collectively with the other, but parties are not compelled to reach agreement or make concessions.[0]
They are only required to bargain 'in good faith.' Withholding benefits they would normally give is an intimidation tactic and an attempt to maintain leverage.
no, apple is currently conducting negotiations with the unionized store and there is no contract so presumably they are working on getting that into the contract as part of the bargaining process. which is literally the way unions are set up to work.
messing with existing benefits could be construed as an intimidation tactic but delaying new ones due to going through the union workers just voted in is not, since the union has already been elected this isn't interfering with a vote or sm.
That the benefits are new, and specific to the workplaces without the extra overhead/limits of a unionized workforce, suggest that weren't "normally given".
That sounds like a win for the union and it’s members.
Union members would presumably much rather pocket the money than have it go to standing desks. Sacrificing stuff they don’t want in a negotiation is negotiation 101.
I’ve worked in several union shops. You can as an employer easily choose to address these via a side letter or other mechanism.
One place i am familiar with this handled COVID remote work with that type of mechanism. They setup a pilot program for the duration of the pandemic that included language to not undermine future negotiations.
I'm sorry this happened to you. But this sounds like your experience dealing with a low-road employer, not with "unions". If you don't mind me asking, which union were you and your coworkers affiliated with?
"In one case, management wanted to purchase sit/stand workstations for employees, but HR pointed out that this was a change to working conditions and should be included in the collective bargaining negotiation. However management had already started taking measurements for the tables, so the union knew what management was intending. During the negotiations, the union decided to try and call HR's bluff and refused to ask for the workstations as a concession. So in the end, the whole plan was scrapped so that HR would have concessions available for future negotiations."
You experienced two standard union busting techniques favored by management-side labor lawyers. First, try to divide the workers to weaken their bargaining power, with the ultimate goal of portraying the workers active in the union as an unrepresentative minority. Then, blame "the union" or "labor law" (i.e. your coworkers who are active) for negative changes that are entirely their doing.
"Management is legally required to make concessions during collective bargaining"
If this is the United States we're talking about, you were misinformed. Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), management has a duty to bargain over certain issues with unionized workers, but there is no obligation to make "concessions" (i.e. changes the workers find favorable).
I was an executive level manager at the time. My understanding is that employers are required to "bargain in good faith" and the easiest way to demonstrate good faith is by making concessions.
>If this is the United States we're talking about, you were misinformed. Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), management has a duty to bargain over certain issues with unionized workers, but there is no obligation to make "concessions" (i.e. changes the workers find favorable).
And just how do you think you go about proving that you engaged in good faith negotiation? All the union has to prove in a lawsuit to a preponderance of the evidence, that more likely than not, management did not negotiate in good faith. Good luck winning that as management by not budging on anything at all.
About the same reasons I never joined ones, when I had the option (which lets be honest in IT is not that often). Great ideas on paper, properly poor execution that ends up in entrenched folks, power games and politics
The moral of the story here is that HR tried to withold something they were already planning on doing to avoid paying employees more, and you think the answer is to just accept whatever management wants?
The ownership side is in a union whether employees are or not, with their own dollar-weighted democracy, legalized collusion between owners (say two restaraunts agree with each other to lower wages, that's illegal; say they both merge and become shareholders: a coordinated wage decrease across both restaraunts with the same two owners involved is now considered done by one entity).
As opposed to the entrenched folks, power games, and politics that exist currently? Those don’t appear because a union is formed, you just have less of a say at the bargaining table without one
- Why did my store not get this new benefit that other non-unionized stores are getting?
- Why was my store not affected by layoffs but other stores in the area were?
- Why was my raise X% but employees at other stores got Y%?
The answer to all of these is the same – you will get exactly what is in your collective bargaining agreement, not a penny more or less. If you want more perks, ask your union reps to bring it up in the next contract negotiation.
Would Apple have introduced these perks without the union?
It's not the union that's preventing these things from going to the unionized workers. It's the company.
My guess is that Apple would prefer there not to be a union, so they take the carrot&stuck approach in response. Carrot new perks if you don't unionize. Stick we close the union stores.
But you have to ask what the state of things would be without the union at play. Does Apple decide to give everyone more perks just 'cause?
>Does Apple decide to give everyone more perks just 'cause?
No, in the absence of unions and regulations, companies provide more perks and compensation when they need to in order to higher or maintain workers.
Classic supply and demand. If you can't hire a worker for X dollars, you raise the salary to x + 1. Companies do it all the time when they can't find the workers that they need
Apple has 370+ stores across the country and 65,000 retail workers. Exactly one store is unionized. It’s safe to say that broad benefits decisions across the company aren’t being driven by this union.
I recall one particularly vivid experience with a customer who seemed to be dumb as a post. But he kept getting what he wanted, and it took some time to realize I'd underestimated him.
His superpower wasn't his wit, it was getting things he didn't really deserve. His bosses saw that, which is why he was in charge. He would ask for things that sounded very reasonable, and every time we said yes our profit margins went down.
Every boss who has loyal employees that make 10% less than they deserve gets recognition from the organization for getting things they aren't really entitled to. That's why your 'nice' boss often seems to get stuck. They only succeed if you go out of your way to make them look good.
The main benefit mentioned in the article is a $400 annual credit to Coursera. Everything else is "some education" or "some doctors", which usually translates to practically nothing useful.
They should have found out what the average pay is for union vs non-union, and then compared if the new benefits actually translated to something meaningful.
My guess is that the union members earn more than $400/yr in cash, and then they can spend it on whatever they want - education, doctors, whatever.
Benefits were not withheld from the union, they get to negotiate separately. They earned the right to negotiate. Most of the company is under at-will employment.
Non-union Apple employees didn't get to choose those "additional" benefits and didn't have a choice of taking the cash value or bargaining for something else.
Apple has a choice here - they can offer the benefits freely or withhold them to try to extract something else from a negotiation. If offered freely the union could still reject them, and try to extract something else instead at the next negotiation. If the union did that it would at least raise the question of whether the money spent on those benefits might have more utility providing something else for the workforce.
It sounds more to me like they're offering college credit and improved healthcare plans; both of which are expensive and something you'd want. The coursera thing isn't the main benefit at all
> The company told retail and corporate staff this week that it will increase benefits for outside educational classes and health care, according to people familiar with the matter. Workers will get more funds to pursue coursework, and employees in some states will be able to access new health plan benefits,
If you read the article they are offering better healthcare options in a few states (not the one where the upcoming union vote is) and to pay for their tuition reimbursement in advance rather than as a reimbursement. The Coursera thing is in fact the main new/universal benefit.
This is standard contract law. With a contract in place, companies are required to adhere to the language of the contract, any any change needs to be negotiated (or the contract needs to expire).
Adding a benefit or removing it without going through a contract causes all kinds of legal liabilities (employees may assume it as a permanent perk). Union leadership also don't typically want perks granted that they didn't negotiate for (why would people "choose" to pay for a union otherwise).
Except there's no contract in place yet, and there's absolutely nothing preventing them from being good people. Except, of course, the vicious demands of capitalism.
Unions are not quite the great deal. They don't add to the value of the company, and their only goal is to redistribute value from company to workers. Which is not a bad deal when all runs smoothly, but come financial stress and unionized companies go under first. Then there's also the question of fairness. Unions are not motivated by merit employee brings, so the leeches end up eating lunch of workers who are productive, causing stagnation. All in all, this is not an ideal arrangement. If I had an option to join a union, I wouldn't
This is the problem with the adversarial union system.
You can call it a failure of the vicious demands of capitalism, but after decades of watching independent adversary unions destroy whole industries that my family was involved in (aerospace, airlines and steel) - with zero-sum negotiations where one side must loose for the other to win - I've come to the conclusion that the only way to deal with it is to give in and deal with unions and only unions and only in the context of the law.
The unions know that - of course - which is why the Union in Australia is threatening to extend their strike if Apple asks it's local workers there to vote on a proposal, when only 1/4th of the workers are represented by the union.
The company I work for has over 150k unionized employees and about 50k white collar workers. Including a massive amount of retail employees. The union negotiates on behalf of their employees this is nothing new. Not sure what Starbucks is doing but Apple is going to negotiate with them.
I don't know what you mean by "obligation," but I assure you employers have a legal duty to negotiate in good faith with their employees' representative. See 29 U.S. Code § 158 (a)(5) - It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer...to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees, subject to the provisions of section 159(a) of this title.
> I don’t see why one has an obligation to negotiate with an adversary.
But that the situation when negotiation is most needed. I agree that the unions are under no obligation to negotiate with management, its just a good idea.
The heirs who own the majority of Apple stock - the idle class which generation to generation does not work, but which expropriates surplus labor time from workers - they already know they are in an adversarial relationship with the workers. The new thing is the workers who do all the work and create all the wealth have woken up to the fact that they are dealing with an "adversary" as you call it.
The heirs who own the majority of Apple stock - the idle class which generation to generation does not work, but which expropriates surplus labor time from workers - they already know they are in an adversarial relationship with the workers. The new thing is the workers who do all the work and create all the wealth have woken up to the fact that they are dealing with an "adversary" as you correctly call it.
I find it so funny hearing HN people on here trotting out all the old tired anti-union BS. I think we all know the meta-game that's going on here. Unions provide an opportunity for employees to use their collective leverage to get better overall conditions (and especially to get real working condition improvements, not a meaningless $400 coursera gift card that practically no one will use).
However, Apple can't let that happen, because if the unions provide real benefit to the employees, then more people will join unions driving up the costs for Apple, and improving the leverage of the union. So it's much better for Apple's bottom line to run a continual PR campaign against unions - putting out articles in the press about "Everyone EXCEPT union workers get X benefit". Especially since it's so easy - people are tripping over themselves on here to shout about how this was always the obvious result and the union workers should know they're going to get screwed.
The important thing is for union workers to keep their eye on the prize - Apple is fighting unions for a reason, and that reason isn't because they're looking out for workers best interests, they're looking out for the shareholders. Don't be distracted by a bullshit $400 coursera subscription.
I think that this tradeoff is empowering to unionized workers Kinda. It forces them to design their own preferred workplace conditions and perks. Some perks, like a free company jacket, are chosen by the employer to make you feel loyal to the company. Perhaps you'd like the value of that jacket in cash or paid time off or better funding for retirement? Or maybe you want to extend company cafeteria access to your family?
The problem is that collective bargaining happens every X years but changes to regular employee perks and HR benefits can happen as inspiration strikes (management). They can also be withdrawn, as when a division underperforms despite the workers all doing their jobs well.
Readit News
In one case, management wanted to purchase sit/stand workstations for employees, but HR pointed out that this was a change to working conditions and should be included in the collective bargaining negotiation. However management had already started taking measurements for the tables, so the union knew what management was intending. During the negotiations, the union decided to try and call HR's bluff and refused to ask for the workstations as a concession. So in the end, the whole plan was scrapped so that HR would have concessions available for future negotiations.
there is also a cost associated with maintaining different workspaces and equipment for employees of different status, and it's a company's choice to take that on.
typically when discussing working conditions, you're talking about minimum standards. it's not very smart to refuse to improve working conditions across the board.
you said in a reply further down that you were an executive level manager, you should have told HR to shove it because your individual performance would be impacted by the collective output of your employees, and the costs of improving working conditions would be returned in several multiples, some of which you might receive as a bonus.
it was, however, your choice and right not to do this. :)
This assumes the EMgr is compensated/recognized more on performance of collective output than on politics and relationships. I dont know specifically about Apple, but plenty of orgs are imperfect enough that relationships are actually more highly rewarded/recognized than optimal collective outcomes (which are disparate and difficult to take credit for.)
This is part of the reason why "glue" workers[1] are usually overlooked and kept back. They neither please anyone, nor have a specific item to take credit for, usually simply boosting the outcomes of others who take all the credit for their work, plus some for that of the glue worker.
[1]: (ones which keep a team functioning well, but do nothing particularly stunning of their own)
Like in this metaphor, sit/stand desks are a visible 'we care about you' move that cost $500/head one time. Meanwhile, the dental plan sucks and management ignores it because only a small subset of the employees notice and even then, it's only periodically.
So from that point of view, HR probably just said "well, based on the union negotiations, they don't seem to care about the desks, might as well shelve it and put the money to use elsewhere."
OP is the one adding the color about 'saving it for the next negotiation'
Playing devil's advocate though:
HR's hands might be tied.
I don't know the language of the collective bargin contract, but I've heard of unions making it difficult to replace carpeting due to the wording on contracts...
Even assuming a good-faith employer, there's an additional legal burden to make sure you DONT violate the contract, which can slow things down weeks or months... Unfortunately this article is behind a paywall so I can't get the details, but from the glimpse, "money for school" likely is considered a salary-like benefit (it's taxed as such), so it likely has contract wording considering it.
This is false. The NLRB explicitly says so:
> It is an unfair labor practice for either party to refuse to bargain collectively with the other, but parties are not compelled to reach agreement or make concessions.[0]
They are only required to bargain 'in good faith.' Withholding benefits they would normally give is an intimidation tactic and an attempt to maintain leverage.
[0]https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-right...
messing with existing benefits could be construed as an intimidation tactic but delaying new ones due to going through the union workers just voted in is not, since the union has already been elected this isn't interfering with a vote or sm.
Union members would presumably much rather pocket the money than have it go to standing desks. Sacrificing stuff they don’t want in a negotiation is negotiation 101.
Deleted Comment
One place i am familiar with this handled COVID remote work with that type of mechanism. They setup a pilot program for the duration of the pandemic that included language to not undermine future negotiations.
I'm sorry this happened to you. But this sounds like your experience dealing with a low-road employer, not with "unions". If you don't mind me asking, which union were you and your coworkers affiliated with?
"In one case, management wanted to purchase sit/stand workstations for employees, but HR pointed out that this was a change to working conditions and should be included in the collective bargaining negotiation. However management had already started taking measurements for the tables, so the union knew what management was intending. During the negotiations, the union decided to try and call HR's bluff and refused to ask for the workstations as a concession. So in the end, the whole plan was scrapped so that HR would have concessions available for future negotiations."
You experienced two standard union busting techniques favored by management-side labor lawyers. First, try to divide the workers to weaken their bargaining power, with the ultimate goal of portraying the workers active in the union as an unrepresentative minority. Then, blame "the union" or "labor law" (i.e. your coworkers who are active) for negative changes that are entirely their doing.
"Management is legally required to make concessions during collective bargaining"
If this is the United States we're talking about, you were misinformed. Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), management has a duty to bargain over certain issues with unionized workers, but there is no obligation to make "concessions" (i.e. changes the workers find favorable).
And just how do you think you go about proving that you engaged in good faith negotiation? All the union has to prove in a lawsuit to a preponderance of the evidence, that more likely than not, management did not negotiate in good faith. Good luck winning that as management by not budging on anything at all.
Edit:removed an extra “don’t”
Deleted Comment
- Why was my store not affected by layoffs but other stores in the area were?
- Why was my raise X% but employees at other stores got Y%?
The answer to all of these is the same – you will get exactly what is in your collective bargaining agreement, not a penny more or less. If you want more perks, ask your union reps to bring it up in the next contract negotiation.
Would Apple have introduced these perks without the union?
It's not the union that's preventing these things from going to the unionized workers. It's the company.
My guess is that Apple would prefer there not to be a union, so they take the carrot&stuck approach in response. Carrot new perks if you don't unionize. Stick we close the union stores.
But you have to ask what the state of things would be without the union at play. Does Apple decide to give everyone more perks just 'cause?
No, in the absence of unions and regulations, companies provide more perks and compensation when they need to in order to higher or maintain workers.
Classic supply and demand. If you can't hire a worker for X dollars, you raise the salary to x + 1. Companies do it all the time when they can't find the workers that they need
His superpower wasn't his wit, it was getting things he didn't really deserve. His bosses saw that, which is why he was in charge. He would ask for things that sounded very reasonable, and every time we said yes our profit margins went down.
Every boss who has loyal employees that make 10% less than they deserve gets recognition from the organization for getting things they aren't really entitled to. That's why your 'nice' boss often seems to get stuck. They only succeed if you go out of your way to make them look good.
If you believe in meritocracy this is a complete _negative_
They should have found out what the average pay is for union vs non-union, and then compared if the new benefits actually translated to something meaningful.
My guess is that the union members earn more than $400/yr in cash, and then they can spend it on whatever they want - education, doctors, whatever.
Non-union Apple employees didn't get to choose those "additional" benefits and didn't have a choice of taking the cash value or bargaining for something else.
> The company told retail and corporate staff this week that it will increase benefits for outside educational classes and health care, according to people familiar with the matter. Workers will get more funds to pursue coursework, and employees in some states will be able to access new health plan benefits,
Adding a benefit or removing it without going through a contract causes all kinds of legal liabilities (employees may assume it as a permanent perk). Union leadership also don't typically want perks granted that they didn't negotiate for (why would people "choose" to pay for a union otherwise).
You can call it a failure of the vicious demands of capitalism, but after decades of watching independent adversary unions destroy whole industries that my family was involved in (aerospace, airlines and steel) - with zero-sum negotiations where one side must loose for the other to win - I've come to the conclusion that the only way to deal with it is to give in and deal with unions and only unions and only in the context of the law.
The unions know that - of course - which is why the Union in Australia is threatening to extend their strike if Apple asks it's local workers there to vote on a proposal, when only 1/4th of the workers are represented by the union.
With the union having won an NLRB election, the employer is required by law to bargain with the union in good faith.
https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/ba...
American unions are adversarial to management. I don’t see why one has an obligation to negotiate with an adversary.
American management is adversarial to workers.
But that the situation when negotiation is most needed. I agree that the unions are under no obligation to negotiate with management, its just a good idea.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
However, Apple can't let that happen, because if the unions provide real benefit to the employees, then more people will join unions driving up the costs for Apple, and improving the leverage of the union. So it's much better for Apple's bottom line to run a continual PR campaign against unions - putting out articles in the press about "Everyone EXCEPT union workers get X benefit". Especially since it's so easy - people are tripping over themselves on here to shout about how this was always the obvious result and the union workers should know they're going to get screwed.
The important thing is for union workers to keep their eye on the prize - Apple is fighting unions for a reason, and that reason isn't because they're looking out for workers best interests, they're looking out for the shareholders. Don't be distracted by a bullshit $400 coursera subscription.
The problem is that collective bargaining happens every X years but changes to regular employee perks and HR benefits can happen as inspiration strikes (management). They can also be withdrawn, as when a division underperforms despite the workers all doing their jobs well.