Apple Store employees trying to unionize(itworld.com)
itworld.com
Apple Store employees trying to unionize
http://www.itworld.com/mobile-wireless/166763/some-apple-store-workers-are-talking-u-word-thats-union
11 comments
The market working is a great thing. The issue is when the market doesn't work. There are many laws granting unions more power than they would otherwise have if the market worked.
For example, in some states, if 51% of the employees decide to form a union, the other 49% are forced to become members. Then the union can extract union dues from their paycheck, even if they don't want to.
Unions also destroy meritocracy, replacing raises based on merit with raises based on seniority.
Unions can increase wages far above what would happen if the market worked. At commercial airlines, you'll see some pilots making $200,000, and some making $30,000, for the same job, on the same route, with the same safety. Increasing wages above market prices causes unemployment, because the company is less likely to hire new employees. Without the union, in general you'll see lower wages, but also lower unemployment.
What'd I'd like to see is all laws mentioning the word union to be abolished. No laws protecting unions, and no laws preventing them either. If you can form a club, and raise your wages or working conditions, more power to you.
For example, in some states, if 51% of the employees decide to form a union, the other 49% are forced to become members. Then the union can extract union dues from their paycheck, even if they don't want to.
Unions also destroy meritocracy, replacing raises based on merit with raises based on seniority.
Unions can increase wages far above what would happen if the market worked. At commercial airlines, you'll see some pilots making $200,000, and some making $30,000, for the same job, on the same route, with the same safety. Increasing wages above market prices causes unemployment, because the company is less likely to hire new employees. Without the union, in general you'll see lower wages, but also lower unemployment.
What'd I'd like to see is all laws mentioning the word union to be abolished. No laws protecting unions, and no laws preventing them either. If you can form a club, and raise your wages or working conditions, more power to you.
There are many laws granting unions more power than they would otherwise have if the market worked.
THe employer still has a lot of power. You can be fired at a moment's notice and be forced into poverty. That's waaaaaay more power than a union has!
edit: I forgot to mention that a meritocracy doesn't exist. People come from different backgrounds and some have had more (or less) opportunities to improve their skills. Rewarding very skilled people is great, but you should also be rewarding less skilled people by giving them more training (which many companies skimp on...).
THe employer still has a lot of power. You can be fired at a moment's notice and be forced into poverty. That's waaaaaay more power than a union has!
edit: I forgot to mention that a meritocracy doesn't exist. People come from different backgrounds and some have had more (or less) opportunities to improve their skills. Rewarding very skilled people is great, but you should also be rewarding less skilled people by giving them more training (which many companies skimp on...).
Make it hard to fire and you make it risky to hire. This is why Europe has structural double digit employment while in the US some employers will still take a chance on a smart guy without formal credentials.
Paul English wrote a while ago that he had to let go about one in three as it wasn't working out. And look at all the hiring threads on HN about how hard it is to find the right person. If you can't fire, you can't take a chance on someone. It just reduces the liquidity of the labor market, and means borderline people don't even get jobs in the first place.
Paul English wrote a while ago that he had to let go about one in three as it wasn't working out. And look at all the hiring threads on HN about how hard it is to find the right person. If you can't fire, you can't take a chance on someone. It just reduces the liquidity of the labor market, and means borderline people don't even get jobs in the first place.
> You can be fired at a moment's notice and be forced into poverty
How the hell does an employer force someone into poverty? What country do you live in where an employer can just take the employee's savings, or prevent them from getting another job? Does your government not provide unemployment benefits? I don't want to move there.
How the hell does an employer force someone into poverty? What country do you live in where an employer can just take the employee's savings, or prevent them from getting another job? Does your government not provide unemployment benefits? I don't want to move there.
Savings? You must come from a privileged background! Some of us have to build our savings from scratch and take out mass loans just to go to school. We're in debt in our first few years of employment, so yes, the alternative to working for a crappy wage is poverty.
Unemployment benefits only apply once you've put some of your money into it.
Taking another job? Really? So fighting for an 8-hour day was basically a useless fight because wages can be driven so low?
Unemployment benefits only apply once you've put some of your money into it.
Taking another job? Really? So fighting for an 8-hour day was basically a useless fight because wages can be driven so low?
What are you talking about? I got fired once (well, quit before they could fire me) for not joining a union. That's the union, not the employer, speaking.
Out of curiosity, what state do you live in? That's why right to work states are so great, because it ensures your ability to work regardless of unionizations. It's also why unions spend an incredible money lobbying against states becoming right to work.
California
I'm against that as well. I believe that if you're in a union and the union has stopped working for you, you should stop working for the union and form a new one or go it alone.
The only reason that kind of thing happens is because the unions overreach and abuse their power and have stopped listening to the worker.
The only reason that kind of thing happens is because the unions overreach and abuse their power and have stopped listening to the worker.
> THe employer still has a lot of power. You can be fired at a moment's notice and be forced into poverty. That's waaaaaay more power than a union has!
Forgive my lack of knowledge, but is this just a US thing? It seems that you can be let go (from a permanent position; we'll not talk about contractors/casuals) very easily in the US, without much reasoning.
To contrast, here in Australia, a part-time/full-time employee needs to be formally warned (and these need to be documented) three times before being 'fired', and there are many cases where Fair Work (a government body) has helped an employee take an employer to court in cases where the documentation was insufficient.
Of course, that's a very high-level overview, but the message I constantly get is that you can be fired for really simple reasons in the US, without much recourse (lest you want to take it on yourself).
Forgive my lack of knowledge, but is this just a US thing? It seems that you can be let go (from a permanent position; we'll not talk about contractors/casuals) very easily in the US, without much reasoning.
To contrast, here in Australia, a part-time/full-time employee needs to be formally warned (and these need to be documented) three times before being 'fired', and there are many cases where Fair Work (a government body) has helped an employee take an employer to court in cases where the documentation was insufficient.
Of course, that's a very high-level overview, but the message I constantly get is that you can be fired for really simple reasons in the US, without much recourse (lest you want to take it on yourself).
This is how it's supposed to work in America, there are certain reasons why I can't fire you; like race. But I can fire you for anything else. But in reality this only holds true at smaller firms. At larger firms, they still need to document, because if I fire you for some random reason (which is legal) you can sue me saying that I really fired you for an illegal reason
This really only happens at larger firms, 'cause you could sue me, but you wouldn't get enough money out of the deal to properly pay your lawyer.
This really only happens at larger firms, 'cause you could sue me, but you wouldn't get enough money out of the deal to properly pay your lawyer.
That's not true. A wrongful termination suit can be brought against any employer. Employment law is handled on a state by state basis. In most states, once an employee has worked for someone for 90 days, termination without documentation of attempted intervention or sufficient transgression represents sufficient ground for the terminated employee to be reinstated or compensated for damages. Small businesses tend to be less formal about handling employee termination because employees of small businesses are less likely to seek remuneration for wrongful termination. Also, wrongful termination suits can be rather large and generally require very little legal work on the plaintiff's part so most law firms pick up the case for no fee and instead a percentage cut of the settlement.
He's essentially saying it's less of an issue for smaller companies, because they have less money.
Except, it seems, Woolworths, which just fired a bunch of employees for posting stupid planking photos on facebook.
Unless they were casuals. But even causals can be treated, by courts, as full timers; depending on the circumstances.
Unless they were casuals. But even causals can be treated, by courts, as full timers; depending on the circumstances.
> To contrast, here in Australia, a part-time/full-time employee needs to be formally warned (and these need to be documented) three times before being 'fired'
A small Australian business can fire someone immediately without any warnings. I think it's a company of under 50 employees at the moment. The number was increased under WorkChoices then dropped back again.
A larger business can use exceptional circumstances to remove you instantly as well (breach of contract and along those lines).
A small Australian business can fire someone immediately without any warnings. I think it's a company of under 50 employees at the moment. The number was increased under WorkChoices then dropped back again.
A larger business can use exceptional circumstances to remove you instantly as well (breach of contract and along those lines).
Doesn't cover everyone though. Many Aussie employers use casual contracts for what are essentially full time positions.
> meritocracy doesn't exist
Skills aren't everything. Not every valuable attribute can be taught. There's talent, motivation, work ethic. As edw519 said in his book today, the primary differentiator among programmers is passion.
Assuming I'm an above-average employee, I would rather work at a company that rewards me based on merit.
Assuming I'm a business owner, I would rather pay employees based on merit, because if I don't, I'd never attract the best. Paying based on merit improves the chances of success of the business. Profitable companies pay salaries; bankrupt ones do not.
Skills aren't everything. Not every valuable attribute can be taught. There's talent, motivation, work ethic. As edw519 said in his book today, the primary differentiator among programmers is passion.
Assuming I'm an above-average employee, I would rather work at a company that rewards me based on merit.
Assuming I'm a business owner, I would rather pay employees based on merit, because if I don't, I'd never attract the best. Paying based on merit improves the chances of success of the business. Profitable companies pay salaries; bankrupt ones do not.
So... if the union strikes and (as the grandparent mentioned) you've literally been forced into the union (and there are other ways of forcing, less legal-based but no less real), you're not actually not working?
I agree with your sentiments, but in the US, there are also many laws that restrict the power of unions, particularly government employee unions. There are laws that prevent government employees from striking which drastically limits their bargaining power.
Are you sure you want French style transportation strikes in the US, and government employees organizing strikes to get more vacation?
Are you sure you want French style transportation strikes in the US, and government employees organizing strikes to get more vacation?
Are you sure you want French style transportation strikes in the US...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_New_York_City_transit_stri...
So far the MTA is still overpaid and the union is still there.
I'd have no objection to government employees striking to get more vacation - provided the agency they work for has the right to fire (for cause) and permanently replace them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_New_York_City_transit_stri...
So far the MTA is still overpaid and the union is still there.
I'd have no objection to government employees striking to get more vacation - provided the agency they work for has the right to fire (for cause) and permanently replace them.
> I'd have no objection to government employees striking to get more vacation - provided the agency they work for has the right to fire (for cause)
IMO, in certain kinds of industries, striking should be cause for firing. Imagine the pilots at a commercial airline strike. That causes massive inconvenience for customers (especially that already have tickets!), damage to the brand and long-term revenue.
IMO, in certain kinds of industries, striking should be cause for firing. Imagine the pilots at a commercial airline strike. That causes massive inconvenience for customers (especially that already have tickets!), damage to the brand and long-term revenue.
It's not just certain kinds of industries, absenteeism is a cause for firing in virtually any industry. In most states, if you are fired for absenteeism, you won't even be eligible unemployment benefits.
Unless of course your absenteeism is blessed by a union.
Unless of course your absenteeism is blessed by a union.
> There are laws that prevent government employees from striking which drastically limits their bargaining power.
Ah yes - when's the last three times that said laws were enforced?
Ah yes - when's the last three times that said laws were enforced?
Unions aren't allowed to perform secondary strikes in the US.
Because unions don't let the market work. They physically attack "scabs" who would do the job for less without the bad attitude. They force all workers to pay them dues once a site is unionized (something that right-to-work laws are intended to redress). The union bosses like Andy Stern rake in the bucks for contributing negative productivity. And in the mid to long term they cause the demise, migration, or automation of an entire industry. That's why Boeing moved its plant out of Washington State, and one of the reasons Japanese car companies invest so heavily in robotics. Talk about killing the golden goose.
From the standpoint of the consumer and employer, who must deal with their strikes and surly attitude, unions are a disaster. From the standpoint of the above average and exceptional workers, they are also a disaster as unions exert peer pressure to stop people from working hard and "showing up" the unproductive workers. In a union workplace, all promotions are based on seniority rather than merit. And unions have a history of racist targeting of "outsiders".
You could not think of a culture less compatible with the tech industry, let alone a Silicon Valley startup.
From the standpoint of the consumer and employer, who must deal with their strikes and surly attitude, unions are a disaster. From the standpoint of the above average and exceptional workers, they are also a disaster as unions exert peer pressure to stop people from working hard and "showing up" the unproductive workers. In a union workplace, all promotions are based on seniority rather than merit. And unions have a history of racist targeting of "outsiders".
You could not think of a culture less compatible with the tech industry, let alone a Silicon Valley startup.
While I agree with the sentiment, unions breed enormous inefficiencies -- modern unions are worthy of scorn.
I'm not convinced that there's anything a union does that a co-operative corporation couldn't do better. Instead of battering your head against Management, you can align your interests with Management.
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative
I'm not convinced that there's anything a union does that a co-operative corporation couldn't do better. Instead of battering your head against Management, you can align your interests with Management.
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative
While I agree with your sentiment that cooperatives would be better, reality for many of these places are that management has no desire or will to cooperate.
Sadly, in the modern world, sometimes it seem labor is a throwaway commodity, and one that can increasingly be replaced by capital.
Sadly, in the modern world, sometimes it seem labor is a throwaway commodity, and one that can increasingly be replaced by capital.
Why should management give up the control of a company they founded/own/etc?
Because they want to share responsibility. It's not a one way street.
The people who found companies tend to be the kind that are not intimidated by responsibility, though.
A co-operative corporation can allow more people to start businesses that otherwise wouldn't have the resources to do so, without granting an ownership stake to outside investors.
Indeed- think of it as scaling out the co-founder concept.
If it was voluntary no one would have a problem, but unions demand special rights. Also unions poison the relationship, they turn what should be a mutually beneficial exchange into one that is antagonistic. Most people don't have a problem with the concept of a union, but the reality leaves much to be desired.
Here's a good example: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/n...
Here's a good example: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/n...
Some Unions can demand special rights. A union may poison the relationship.
Mike Rowe nails it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs61lfhqeNg&feature=playe...
Mike Rowe nails it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs61lfhqeNg&feature=playe...
A large contingent (here and in general) are "supply-side", pro-management, laissez faire, no/low/fair/flat tax supporting, anti-socialist types.
It comes with the territory that they'd also be almost certifiably Libertarian, which as a system would work perfectly if it weren't for the people.
It comes with the territory that they'd also be almost certifiably Libertarian, which as a system would work perfectly if it weren't for the people.
I've downvoted him because it's a one-comment opinion post that wasn't constructive to the thread.
Same as the other post examples (negative ones disappear fast so here's a loose example): "unions are bad." "wow, Apple employees are so self-entitled." "Speaking as a "convert"... Apple deserves a union."
Grinding axes is fine, but not when it purposely hijacks the thread.
Same as the other post examples (negative ones disappear fast so here's a loose example): "unions are bad." "wow, Apple employees are so self-entitled." "Speaking as a "convert"... Apple deserves a union."
Grinding axes is fine, but not when it purposely hijacks the thread.
It's funny how laissez faire is considered as solely good for producers by you.
In my country, nearly all price increases in the last 3-4 years are related to direct government involvement or regulations preventing competition. I have yet to see how this corporatism is going to benefit me.
I'll take my chances with laissez faire, thanks.
In my country, nearly all price increases in the last 3-4 years are related to direct government involvement or regulations preventing competition. I have yet to see how this corporatism is going to benefit me.
I'll take my chances with laissez faire, thanks.
>In my country, nearly all price increases in the last 3-4 years are related to direct government involvement or regulations preventing competition.
Yes, I'm sure the price of oil and the price of grain rising 30% due to shortages hasn't affected you at all.
Yes, I'm sure the price of oil and the price of grain rising 30% due to shortages hasn't affected you at all.
> Yes, I'm sure the price of oil and the price of grain rising 30% due to shortages hasn't affected you at all.
The last time I looked, govt controlled the vast majority of the oil leases in the US. They just shut down Shell in AK after Shell spent >$2B to get a site ready.
The last time I looked, the US govt mandated 10% ethanol in gas, subsidized its production, and placed a high tarriff on imported ethanal.
The last time I looked, govt controlled the vast majority of the oil leases in the US. They just shut down Shell in AK after Shell spent >$2B to get a site ready.
The last time I looked, the US govt mandated 10% ethanol in gas, subsidized its production, and placed a high tarriff on imported ethanal.
I'm not sure what the point of your post is as it's unrelated to the comment it's in reply to. But aside from that fact, be careful to avoid confusing price increases due to shortages and price increases due to speculation about perceived current or future shortages.
It's due to speculation as another poster said.
That being said, government loves higher prices. They benefit first.
That being said, government loves higher prices. They benefit first.
[deleted]
There is nothing anti laissez-faire about unions. In a free society people should be allowed to organize however they want. As long as the government stays out of such situations a union is as capitalist an idea as a corporation.
Unions depend on threats of violence or specialized legal action (using privileges which are only available to them by law). In a laissez-faire society, employers would be able to do business with competing workers against the union's wishes, and the union would fail in its modern function as a rent-seeking labor cartel.
Unions depend on threats of violence or specialized legal action
EMPLOYMENT depends on threats of poverty! If you don't work, you might fucking die. Unions depend on threats of strikes and other actions, but they don't depend on violence.
EMPLOYMENT depends on threats of poverty! If you don't work, you might fucking die. Unions depend on threats of strikes and other actions, but they don't depend on violence.
It's not employers' fault we require food. But there's a long appalling history of replacement workers who have been murdered in cold blood by union members solely to maintain their coercive monopoly on available employees for "their" jobs:
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1025783...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/sites/themes/society/indu...
http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/richard-trumka-facts-09152609
Hell, the reason these mafia have been granted the privileges they have (e.g., it's illegal not to negotiate) is that otherwise they were more than willing to declare war on employers:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/sfeature/mh_horror.htm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_violence
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1025783...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/sites/themes/society/indu...
http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/richard-trumka-facts-09152609
Hell, the reason these mafia have been granted the privileges they have (e.g., it's illegal not to negotiate) is that otherwise they were more than willing to declare war on employers:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/sfeature/mh_horror.htm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_violence
You're overlooking health and safety which is still a very legitimate concern. In laissez-faire societies, mine workers die like flies. China (quite ironically as an apparently worker loving state) takes such an attitude and thousands of coal miners die each year. In Australia, where far more coal is mined, there have been no deaths this year. I wouldn't claim it's just the union influence that makes the difference as there's much more automation here for one thing. But to discount it as a factor is naive.
I agree, I'm not really a fan of Libertopia (it requires far more faith in human nature than I have), just making the argument that in that environment we wouldn't see unions as we know them now.
I just can't stand the whole "scarecrow Libertarian vs. scarecrow Red Taper" debacle that happens every time the word "union" crops up.
Well, those who considered themselves to be "building socialism" killed 100 million people and drove their nations into poverty. Would you agree that China only emerged from this situation by embracing a fairly strong pro-business ideology?
The sad part is that the word "Libertarian" used to mean someone that was in favour of equality and socialism. Someone who was actually liberal.
I've never heard about the change of meaning in this word. Could you provide a source for that fact?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism says, in part,
The first person to describe himself as a libertarian was Joseph Déjacque, an early French anarchist communist. The word stems from the French word libertaire, and was used to evade the French ban on anarchist publications. In this tradition, the term "libertarianism" in "libertarian socialism" is generally used as a synonym for anarchism, which some say is the original meaning of the term; hence "libertarian socialism" is equivalent to "socialist anarchism" to these scholars. In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those who opposed state socialism, such as Mikhail Bakunin. In the United States, the movement most commonly called libertarianism follows a capitalist philosophy; the term libertarian socialism therefore strikes many Americans as a contradiction in terms.
The first person to describe himself as a libertarian was Joseph Déjacque, an early French anarchist communist. The word stems from the French word libertaire, and was used to evade the French ban on anarchist publications. In this tradition, the term "libertarianism" in "libertarian socialism" is generally used as a synonym for anarchism, which some say is the original meaning of the term; hence "libertarian socialism" is equivalent to "socialist anarchism" to these scholars. In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those who opposed state socialism, such as Mikhail Bakunin. In the United States, the movement most commonly called libertarianism follows a capitalist philosophy; the term libertarian socialism therefore strikes many Americans as a contradiction in terms.
"Classic liberal" vs "Modern liberal". It's a really bad co-opting but normal.
...and "liberal" used to refer to what we now call "(U.S.) libertarian".
[deleted]
The standard tactic employed by McDonald's is that if employees ever manage to actually get past the hurdles and get the official vote to unionize, the location of the unionized McDonald's is instantly and permanently shut down.
I don't know about McDonalds, but Walmart has taken action consistent with this approach.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/09/news/international/walmart_c...
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2009/11/27/Wal-Mart-Canada-...
http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/09/news/international/walmart_c...
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2009/11/27/Wal-Mart-Canada-...
Source? This sounds like a potential exploit for other businesses.
I read it originally in "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser
http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/toronto_13feb98.html
Starbucks employs other strategies:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/are-starbucks-and-wh...
Other companies do less obscene variations like instead of a layoff of unionized workers: move the factory just beyond the 2 hour commute so most entrenched employees will be forced to make their own decision.
http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/toronto_13feb98.html
Starbucks employs other strategies:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/are-starbucks-and-wh...
Other companies do less obscene variations like instead of a layoff of unionized workers: move the factory just beyond the 2 hour commute so most entrenched employees will be forced to make their own decision.
Not directly related to this, but I made my first ever visit to an Apple Store last Sunday.
For some reason I was expecting a quiet boutique shop, but ended up wading through a sea of people. The vast majority were waiting around to fidget with demo units and kill time, while the few store employees were literally working non-stop.
I'm not a crowd person, just walking around for a few minutes was stressful enough for me - I can't even imagine what it's like to actually work there all day while wearing a smile.
For some reason I was expecting a quiet boutique shop, but ended up wading through a sea of people. The vast majority were waiting around to fidget with demo units and kill time, while the few store employees were literally working non-stop.
I'm not a crowd person, just walking around for a few minutes was stressful enough for me - I can't even imagine what it's like to actually work there all day while wearing a smile.
Depends on the locale, probably. When I went to the Apple store in Philly to get an iphone4 a couple of months ago, it was quiet and the staff were too bust hanging out with each other to help me out - even after I asked to buy an iPhone. I was told someone would be right with me, and after watching the staff dawdle for 10 minutes, I interrupted a conversation and finally started the process.
Nice enough people, and I understand (and appreciate) they do not use high pressure sales tactics, but it took way too long for me to buy a phone in a nearly empty store. If in 2+ years my next phone is by Apple, I'm definitely ordering online.
Nice enough people, and I understand (and appreciate) they do not use high pressure sales tactics, but it took way too long for me to buy a phone in a nearly empty store. If in 2+ years my next phone is by Apple, I'm definitely ordering online.
Modern unions seem to be worried more about "fair wages" (where fair is determined by the union) than preventing employee abuse. The fact of the matter is that there is choice in employment, especially if you are employable enough to be hired by Apple Retail. What is happening here is effectively the same as if Apple Retail, Best Buy, etc banded together to demand "fair wages" (as determined by them). In free markets (i.e. not what unions were initially designed for), unions provide excess leverage to employees that force companies into unfairly paying employees more than they are worth (and I feel this is a large cause of the U.S. auto market crash).
This will never happen. Apple retail has one of the most selective hiring processes of any company on the planet. Would you endure 4 interviews across 6 months to sell shirts? Neither would most people but thats SOP at Apple. Yes, they probably aren't paid as well as others in their industry(especially given the $7,000/ft^2 the stores average) but it would take a lot more abuse than they put up with now before the Apple store is unionized.
Do you have a source on the interviewing process for the retail store? Sounds interesting.
I just wrote up my experience in trying to get a job with the Apple store: http://1every.blogspot.com/2011/05/employment-process-at-app...
Store employees go through such a process?
I've often wondered why, if corporations are subject to antitrust/anticollusion regulations, why unions aren't too. In both cases an entity or entities seek to gain sufficient clout such that the market no longer functions efficiently. Why should, say, the Boeing Machinist's Union or the UAE be allowed to monopolize the labor market of their respective corporations? Is it because there's a subtle difference between these instances?
Because unions protect the worker from being abused. The power balance is heavily in favour of management who can fire workers on a whim.
Also, the market isn't efficient. If you look at any large corporation, the amount of bureaucracy is crippling sometimes (of course some unions turn into bureaucracies which also hurts).
Also, the market isn't efficient. If you look at any large corporation, the amount of bureaucracy is crippling sometimes (of course some unions turn into bureaucracies which also hurts).
If the large corporation is such a bureaucracy, a start-up somewhere will come eat their lunch. The theory of natural market monopolies is a historical fallacy. Only with the government's assistance does a monopoly exist (such as a union, central bank, regulatory rights, etc). http://mises.org/daily/5266/The-Myth-of-Natural-Monopoly
The problem is that the startup will be acquired and thus absorbed into the bureaucracy or it will grow into that giant bureaucracy someday ;p
But yeah, I see what you're saying.
But yeah, I see what you're saying.
As the userbase here tends towards software-based startups, people often forget that there are many markets where becoming a seller requires very large initial capital.
If the competition is as slow and profitable as you say, I promise investors will want a piece of that action -- and the entrepreneur will make it happen. There's no reason a deal can't be structured.. unless, it's illegal of course :)
They are; under Taft Hartley, they can't perform secondary strikes.
As someone who's worked retail and fast food, I think those types of locations are past-due for some serious labor effort. Those kinds of jobs have atrocious pay and - from what I could tell - required working overtime to pay one's bills (supposing you were living on under 12K/year) if you weren't a supervisor.
Personally, I think if you work (around) 40 hours per week, you should be paid a living wage. That's going to vary based on location, but you shouldn't have to work more than 50 hours per week just to pay your (uber-frugal) bills.
Well, that's my opinion on the matter.
Personally, I think if you work (around) 40 hours per week, you should be paid a living wage. That's going to vary based on location, but you shouldn't have to work more than 50 hours per week just to pay your (uber-frugal) bills.
Well, that's my opinion on the matter.
Speaking as a "convert"... Apple deserves a union.
> It's certainly not an optimum time for unionizing. The economy is stalling
So, the employees are un-American?
So, the employees are un-American?
Given the context of the paragraph, I think its more likely the author is coming from a PR standpoint. I think they probably meant: the public isn't really behind unions because they've been demonized and are shrinking, and that problem is exacerbated because the economy is stalling.
"It's certainly not an optimum time for unionizing. The economy is stalling, and the percentage of private-industry, non-farm workers belonging to unions was slightly less than 7 percent in 2010 (versus 34 percent in the late 1940s), according to the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. And, of course, unions have been demonized ever since the Reagan Administration.
Still, I'm a big believer in the rights of workers to attempt to form unions, so good luck to the folks behind the ARWU. They're going to need it."
"It's certainly not an optimum time for unionizing. The economy is stalling, and the percentage of private-industry, non-farm workers belonging to unions was slightly less than 7 percent in 2010 (versus 34 percent in the late 1940s), according to the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. And, of course, unions have been demonized ever since the Reagan Administration.
Still, I'm a big believer in the rights of workers to attempt to form unions, so good luck to the folks behind the ARWU. They're going to need it."
It's a very odd point for the author to be making in the first place - the Apple Store employees would have been better off attempting to unionize 30 years ago?
Apple would probably have faced more PR backlash from the public if they had attempted to quash a union then. It's a reasonable point to say that unionizing now is more difficult.
Yes, if by 'stalling' the article is referring to Apple's 400% growth since the bubble collapse.
[deleted]
EDIT: Knew I'd get downvoted. Seriously though, why is it a bad thing for employees to bargain collectively in order to get the best deal? To me it just demonstrates the market working. i.e. people achieving "economies of scale" (to bastardise the term) in negotiations with powerful employers.