Slashdot Mirror
Apple Store Employee Attempts To Form Union
An anonymous reader writes "Cory Moll, a part-time employee at an Apple store in San Francisco, is attempting unionize Apple store employees. The Apple Retail Workers Union is an attempt to fight for better wages and benefits and to address what he says are unfair practices in the company's glass-and-steel retail showrooms. 'The core issues are definitely involve compensation, pay, benefits,' said Mr. Moll, who has received little public support from employees so far, though he said he has emails expressing support. An Apple representative confirmed Mr. Moll is an employee, but declined to comment on the union effort."
Yeah, go ahead and form your "union". You will quickly find out just how replaceable you are.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Is how many of them that don't allow their own employees to unionize.
Seriously, never heard anything like this. Most union reps I know belong to the very same.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Do you really believe that is easy? Getting a new job involves time searching for it. Also, not having a job even for a short period of time is not an attractive option for most people, which complicates the matter further. There's a lot of friction in the job market, which is why it doesn't work well at all without unions and regulation.
Reminds me that Americans are assholes when it comes to labor rights.
If you feel you're not being paid enough, ask for a raise. If you don't get it and you're still unhappy, then change workplace. It's not that hard. And this is even from a part-time employee...
I'm not fond of unions myself. I like the idea, but unions are like every other organization: they refuse to disband or become inactive when their goals are accomplished. For unions, once safe workplaces and decent wages are established, the next growth area for them is politics and that's the problem. But to play Devil's advocate here... I have a question for you.
If we do things your way it will turn into a race to the bottom. If you are not being paid enough (and actually have a legitimate reason to believe that), sure you can change jobs. That won't be easy in this job market but it can be done. The problem is, your replacement is going to make the same inadequate wage that you did and is likely to make less since they just joined and haven't been with the company any length of time. You have no guarantee you won't end up in the same situation at the new company you work for, especially in the form of added responsibilities with no matching increase in pay. When this keeps happening across an industry it serves to stagnate wages or even drive them down.
Just think about mobile phone providers in the US. There are several different companies. They compete with each other. You'd think this would have certain effects, such as at least one company that charges a realistic rate for text messaging that actually reflects the marginal cost of delivery. The first company to do that could seriously undercut the competition. Fact is, they all grossly overcharge for texting and they all make more money that way. None of them want to rock that boat. It's de facto collusion, of the sort that doesn't have to be deliberately pre-arranged. Why do you think that can't happen to the job market? If no employer will pay a wage that realistically reflects the value you provide for the company, you either suck it up or get a new skillset and find a different line of work.
A union can actually force an employer to pay a higher, or if you like more reasonable, wage. That can be the case whether the employee is you or someone else. They can increase the average "going rate" for a worker in your industry, something other companies do look at when deciding how to attract the talent they want. Unions are an answer to the fact that any single employee is going to be replacable and that employers generally have the advantage in the job market due to overwhelming resources and the effects of "organization vs. individual, let's bargain".
What is it that Americans have against unions? Do you enjoy knowing that your employer has all the power and you're their bitch? At heart a union is an organisation that defends workers' rights and if a case blows up with their employer provides money and support to fight it in court. Or is a union in America more like a bunch of mobsters going around eating babies and raping people's cats? Because the American reaction to someone talking about a union seems at least as strong as if they were swearing fealty to Castro, wiping their ass with the constitution and swearing to bring the Revolution to America by blood and force and GOD FUCK EVERYONE. I mean seriously, we had a lot of trouble with unions before and they had got out of hand... but at heart, unions are a good thing and a line of defense against abuse from your employer that you simply don't have the means to provide for yourself.
Honest question, I just don't understand the attitude. Or maybe I've only heard from the ones that are opposed to unions, for whatever reason.
True that. One should negotiate one's wages with a multinational corporation as equal individuals, not go brute force with collective bargaining.
That's how unions start, dumbass. You ask around to feel out support. Than you start the campaign if you think you can win. Personally, I hope you're the first one with your AC back against the wall when the revolution comes before you criticize more "trouble".
Feel free to down-mod, my karma can take it. But parent comment is bullshit.
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.
they're also about organizing people into voting blocks. Think of what the AARP does. You can't touch Social Security & Medicare because old people are organized, they vote, and they've got the AARP telling them HOW to vote so they don't have to spend their time figuring out if candidate A can be trusted to leave SS & Medicare alone. The idea is works organize, form voting blocks, and if all else fails put laws in place (tariffs, min wages, socialized medicine) to protect themselves.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
you can't remove the battery yourself!
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I know some Apple Store employees. They are all happy with their wages and benefits. Medical benefits at an Apple Store start from day 1. They tend to start at above $16 an hour. What other goddamned salesman, tech, or other retail monkey gets paid that kind of money? Sorry, but this asshat doesn't seem to know that he's not in some high-demand job. There are people who would line up for a shot at an Apple Store job and be happy with it.
why shouldn't employees (who are free to associate, right?) try to leverage the sunk costs of their training into higher salary? assuming (for sake of argument) that there is no government interference on their behalf and that the unionizers don't initiate "violence" against the non-unionizers, why is this not a rational approach compatible with Libertarianism(tm)?
note, a reply should either explain how unionizing under these assumptions is irrational or give a coherent argument along the lines that these assumptions are impossible to satisfy (i.e. convince me that government interference and/or violence is an absolutely inevitable effect of voluntary unionization).
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Look into what Apple Store employees get paid. Look into their benefits. Then look at the rest of the retail industry and see what they get paid. Then shut the hell up because Apple actually treats their employees better than most.
> Honest question, I just don't understand the attitude
It's about justice, agreements being voluntary to both sides, and reality reflecting the true economic value of labor.
In addition, there is a long tradition here of unions protecting incompetent employees, "pay for seniority", and other unfair practices. While it's highly imperfect, non-union places at least *try* to pay for performance rather than merely how many years you sat on your ass.
I can't find the link now, I'm sorry, but there was an article several years ago comparing US unionized steel plants to non-union plants. The ONLY profitable plants were the non-union plants. Their working condition were no worse than the unionized plants, and they were succeeding against foreign competitors in a way the union plants were not. When workers are protected no matter how lax they get, they get lax.
Ultimately you don't get to have your cake and eat it too. If another competitor (say, China) is willing to have labor reflect its true economic value, and you are not, well, your jobs go to China. We're seeing that effect now, and it is killing the nation as our entire manufacturing base moves overseas.
My industry is non-union and it is one of the last remaining one where the US has a domestic presence. Coincidence? Well, I doubt it. Obviously other will disagree.
Actually, under Federal labor law, you can't be fired for advocating unionization. If you live in an at-will state, you can be terminated arbitrarily, but then a) you're eligible for unemployment, and b) if you WERE agitating for a union, and fired "without cause", you can drag your former employer in front of the NLRB for a lengthy and costly arbitration process.
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.
I don't think that's iLlowed.
Historically, unions aimed at a single company fail pretty miserably, Unions live or die by numerical strength, and you can't get that if one company can scab the entire membership out. Now if they got Best Buy, Radio Shack, etc on board and called themselves the "electronics salesforce union", they might have a chance. Short of that, it'll just be a flash in the pan.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
Dude, that's complete bullshit. The majority of Apple Store employees are part time and don't get any benefits (except for cheap benefits like commuter checks.) Part timers start at ~$12 an hour.
Apple Store has a reputation for firing people at the drop of a hat. There's simply no value for them in retaining employees in the long run simply BECAUSE their employees are easily replaceable and the cost of retention is higher than the cost of training.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Unions are a relic of the movements that won us the 8-hour day, workplace safety laws, OSHA, the Fair Labor Standards Act, whistle-blower protection laws, retirement benefits, employer-subsidized health insurance... and that's just off the top of my head.
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.
Last time I checked, the competition for jobs at Apple Stores was pretty fierce. If they're not getting a fair wage, then they should quit and get another retail job. And if they economy is bad and they can't find another job, then they should be happy about their current job and not complain. And if they don't like working retail then they should study for a new career that's higher paying. The people working in the retail store don't have anything to do with Apple making billions of dollars per year. (Yeah, sure, Apple needs retail staff, but like I said, if every single Apple Retail employee quit today, Apple could have the jobs all filled by tomorrow, and in two weeks the store's sales would be the same as they are today.)
It's not about how much you make, it's how much you can afford. Not everything costs the same worldwide.
Dilbert RSS feed
When does the cost of living ever go down? The end goal of capitalism is for profits to be ever increasing, and that money must come from somewhere!
Steve's real cool. You'll see.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Cory Moll was reported missing today by his family. They also expressed concern about a chrome statue placed in front of the local Apple store in Cory's exact image and dimensions. An Apple store representative said, "We wished to express our gratitude for Mr. Moll's concerns and have thus erected this statue, and will do so for any other employee who does the same."
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
In the last several decades corporate profits have grown tremendously while wages have been relatively stagnant. I don't see many good answers to this. Most laws intended to alter market forces produce horrible side-effects that no one wants to admit. An easy example is the shortages caused by imposing price controls. Another example not typically understood in terms of market forces is drug prohibition -- market forces are really quite difficult to declare by fiat.
What I'd personally like to see is the rise of co-ops and employee owned companies. I'd like to eventually see them replace standard corporations. Someone will probably scream bloody murder since globalism is our new holy of holies, but a little protectionism is not a bad thing either. Specifically, I'd like to see just enough that manufacturing jobs start returning to the US. This would be even more effective if we finally admit that corporations do not pay taxes; they merely pass them onto their customers by charging more. If most of their customers are not wealthy, this is actually the same kind of regressive taxation that "progressives" (progress towards what?) normally foam at the mouth about. Currently, more than 20% of the price tag of any item you buy is directly caused by the (inclusive) corporate income tax. Who do you think is most harmed by this? Bill Gates?
Not having the world's second highest corporate tax rate would also attract manufacturing jobs back to the US. If anyone doesn't understand this, perhaps they can take a few minutes (preferably before replying) to look into why the company is called Daimler-Chrysler and is not called Chrysler-Daimler. Replacing income tax with a consumption tax would be the easiest way to do this, and has the nice side-effect of transferring a large amount of power away from Congress since the only "advantage" (for them) of an income tax is that you can use carrot-and-stick incentives to manipulate behavior. Otherwise it's one of the most burdensome, least efficient, most-prone-to-cheating methods of attaining government revenue.
In a probably futile effort to save time, if your knee-jerk reaction is to scream about how consumption taxes are so horribly regressive, do yourself a favor and actually research the Fair Tax Act. Don't be the kind of self-congratulatory jackass who pretends like such concerns have not been addressed. That would only prove that complete ignorance of a subject doesn't stop you from forming an opinion about it. They have been addressed. If you disagree with the methods by which they have been addressed, in that case I welcome your views.
A bit more national self-sufficiency, more jobs, and a wider variety of long-term viable jobs would alter the completely lopsided "buyer's market" that is now the job market. Employers may have to go back to competing with one another for the most desirable talent, something that ultimately benefits everyone. Few benefit from a situation where each applicant to McDonalds is competing with hundreds of others, let alone for higher-paying jobs and "real" careers.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Something tells me you've never had to look for a job before.
You should probably move out of the basement before you comment further.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Yes, ask those Chinese workers who are paid more than the workers sitting right beside them in the same factory but who happen to be making Xbox or PS3, or some other thing. The ones who make specifically Apple stuff *are* paid more, at Apple's demand of their supplier.
Yeah, what the other AC asks. When was the last time the cost of living went DOWN? It hasn't happened since I graduated high school in 1974. Unless you're a really, really, really old bastard, you've never seen it happen either.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
It is the goal of producers to maximize profit. It is the goal of consumers to get what they want at the lowest price. Free market Capitalism is the system where producers and consumers are free to set that price.
The real reason the cost of living doesn't go down is because of the federal reserve. They are constantly inflating the money supply to slowly steal the wealth of the country for the politicians and wall street bankers. If there was sound money all prices including wages would be constantly falling as people saved and became more productive. The goal for the last 100 years has been to inflate enough to keep prices stable so that people don't notice the theft.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
They already have a cult, why not a union?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
I don't think that's the whole story, for two reasons. Firstly, although of course getting higher rates of compensation is an important part of the role of a union, and they're very successful at doing that, unions are not just there to get higher pay. There are numerous other ways that individual employees can find themselves on the wrong end of bad employment practices, unfair management, harassment or other types of discrimination that aren't picked up by a company's internal processes. A good recent example in the news was the housekeeper that was allegedly assaulted by Dominique Strauss Kahn at the hotel she worked at in New York. No fault on the part of the employer of course, and I'm sure Sofitel pay isn't bad either. But, in a situation where a high profile and important client has allegations made against him, many hotel managers would be tempted to sweep it under the carpet, or worse, quietly let the employee go if she caused too much trouble, for some "other" reason of course. But because the housekeeper in question was a member of a union, the allegations had to be taken seriously, and she would have had access support from someone with expertise if there were any difficulty. The lesson there is, if you're going to assault a maid, don't try it on in a unionised hotel. Of course it would be better if all workers had that kind of support to help them.
Secondly, Apple Stores can pay higher wages than others because they're a successful business with high margins, and the actual stores themselves form part of that. That's great! Unions always like to see businesses being successful and generating income. It's not true to say that unions want business to be less successful or damage their business. But, it could be possible to query how the profit is shared out. Seems to me that whenever a company is making some big margins, and if it possible more of that is going back to the capital owners than to the employees, then that isn't as fair as it could be. I think from what you're saying, that you believe somone lucky enough to be working for a company that's doing well, should mean they get paid better than a business that doesn't do so well. Well that seems only fair. But there are definitely cases where employees working for successful, profitable companies aren't getting compensated in proportion to the success of their business, especially lower ranked employees. So I believe there is always a role for proper representation, if only to put that case.
Nah, it just implies that they want their customers to believe they're hiring people a little better than expendable.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
except an entire economy that's being engineered by a greedy ruling class to create a massive disenfranchised poor for their own benefit. The world's more complicated than either Adam Smith or Ayn Rand believed, and the super wealthy really are out to get you. It's what they do all day.
I have a hard time believing people are serious when they say schlock like this. Except that I realize that, yes, some people really are this stupid and paranoid.
Why, oh why, would "the rich" want to keep people from bettering themselves and making more money? More money for the general population means more money for... the rich. More people buying the products and services they make.
You're either making the very old, very silly mistake that there is a fixed amount of wealth, and that if one guy makes more, another must make less... or you're simply paranoid and think the world is truly one big conspiracy. Either way, you're to be pitied as much as you're to be mocked.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Your disdain for the common working man is remarkable. As is the attitude that people don't deserve better until they're up the ladder pissing down on little people. It takes everyone from the laborer to the CEO to make a successful company and ALL of these people deserve a fair deal and some dignity.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
The core issues are definitely involve compensation, pay, benefits
While the linked article says:
The core issues definitely involve compensation, pay, benefits
I hope the typo was an accident, and not something inserted to try to make the person attempting to organize look like an undereducated person with poor grammar.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
And it seems to me, Apple operates on a high margin anyway.
21.48% net profit margin in 2010: lower than both Google and Microsoft.
every workplace pays roughly the same.
companies compare their wages with each other, and fix wages at the 'average', which they continually drive down to reduce costs and improve margins for investors.
in a high unemployment enviornment, there is no incentive for any employer to raise wages. their business model depends on processes that deliberately eliminate any opportunity for skill or individuality to make an improvement in efficiency. everything is diagrammed and programmed and planned down to when the worker shits and eats.
if you 'ask for a raise', you will be blacklisted and/or put on a list of 'problem workers'.
think about it. you are a manger. you have two people who do roughly the same job, which has been purposely micromanaged and controlled so that one person cannot do much better at it than another, since they have no opportunity for independent decision making.
one of these people never complains, works when sick, etc. the other one asks for a raise. which one are you going to lay off at layoff time?
some can 'start their own business' or 'get retrained' or this or that and the other. after working a couple of years, seeing people who have been 'retrained' 2-3 times, people with bachelors and masters degrees, its not that simple. the theory does not match reality.
in a scientific system, when your observations do not match the predictions of your theory, then your theory has flaws, and a new theory must be created to better match observational reality.
I looked, and they successfully unionized in 2006.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
I think this asshat needs to take a long, hard look at the rest of the industry. He's working a retail storefront job. He's getting paid $14/hr when hardly any other retail job is going to pay like that, and Apple happens to offer very good benefits. Medical starts from day 1 for full-time employees, at least. Want to go to school? Apple will help you do it! The employee discounts aren't bad at all, either, usually 25% off.
If the employees are happy with their renumeration and benefits then the union bid will fail. If they're unhappy, it's more likely to succeed.
In Ontario, Canada there's a good amount of car manufacturing that goes on with quite a few different companies. GM is fairly prevalent to the areas to the east of Toronto (e.g., Oshawa), and all of the plants are unionized (AFAIK). To the west of Toronto, Toyota has a manufacturing plant in Cambridge. The CAW (~UAW) has been trying to unionize it for over a decade, and every time a vote came up, the workers have rejected unionization.
If you have an enlightened employer you don't need a union. I've never worked there, but from what I've heard, Apple is generally a pretty good company to work for.
If this employee has grievances and/or problems with the job, I would hope Apple would look at them and hopefully address some of them. If they're egregious grievances, and Apple is brushing them off, then a union may be the only way to rectify things. While the labour code has certainly improved since the time of Charles Dickens, it still takes resources to fight a legal battle if you've been aggrieved, and a union has better resources than a regular schmoe—who may be forced to get a second-rate settlement because they can't the lawyer's fee for proper 'justice'.
You can certainly go too far in the power of unions, but so too can you go too far in the lack of them and the power of large companies. The trick is finding a balance between the rights & responsibilities of workers and the rights & responsibilities of companies. Demonizing one or the other completely is just silliness.
YOU ARE EXPENDABLE.
Perhaps. (I have always liked the line (supposedly) from Charles De Gaulle: The graveyards are full of indispensable men.)
However, treating your employees like cogs (or used tissues) is not a good way to run a company (IMHO), or to keep morale up. It's why unions were formed in the first place: so that employees couldn't be tossed aside while refuse, and that they were treated with some kind of respect.
Having good benefits is a reason not to get unionised!?!?!?
Unions are there not only to fight for something new, but to make sure that benefits aren't taken away without a good reason. Getting quarterly results up is not a good reason...
That just means that your current employer is screwing you. Your response should be to try to get more money, not to demand that your peers make less.
Boeing is being sued by the NLRB for opening a new plant in a right-to work state (workers cannot be required to join the union and generally don't) while increasing the number of workers in the unionized plant at the same time because the NLRB says that it is in retaliation for strikes by the union in the past.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Bullshit. The people at the top of the pyramid could easily be replaced for a fraction of whay they're being paid, salary, perks, stock options. It's more of the same old boy network that's been very well documented by anyone who hasn't imbibed in the right wing anti-worker kool-aid as you obviously have.
I've lost track of how many failed executives and managers I've suffered under. I'll take 50% of what they pull down and couldn't fuckup any worse than they did.
The actual disagreement was whether it was better for all the union teachers to take a small cut in benefits and all keep their jobs (supported by the Republicans) or whether low-seniority teachers should be fired to preserve the existing pay and benefits for the more senior teachers (supported by the Democrats and Union leadership).
The real fight is over whether the Unions can continue to collect their dues by force. The Union leaders know that if their members are given the option of quitting the Union, they will. Up til now, they have had friends in State government (the Democrats) who were willing to give them whatever they wanted to maintain their grip (and continue to donate money back to those Democrats).
Unfortunately for them, the people of Wisconsin kicked the Democrats out of their leadership positions throughout the state. Amazingly, the Democrats, the Union leadership and most of the "mainstream" media completely ignore this fact. They pretend that the 2010 election never took place and that they can just continue to act as though the People of Wisconsin really left them in power.
Guess what? The jobs market, like any other is ruled by supply and demand. If there are plenty of resources to do the job properly for $X, why should the company pay $Y? Artificially boosted wages with crap like minimum wage, unions, etc just causes INFLATION of wages, which means everything you buy goes up in price to match your new inflated income. You/we all take home more money, but everything costs more, and look - now you're in a new higher tax bracket.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Ah, gotta love the massive leap to conclusions and people kneejerking this shit. Retail employees are not highly skilled labor. They are not worth tons of money. There is a large pool of potential employees. You cannot expect awesome wages and awesome benefits in that situation, period. You can call it disdain. I call it fucking reality. You want to get paid a lot? Work a job where you're worth a lot to the employer. You can cry all you want about the big bad men at the top, but that's how it is. Supply and demand applies to labor. That's how it is. Furthermore, when these people are making better wages and getting better benefits than most in similar jobs, you can hardly say that they're getting pissed on. But go ahead, keep assigning your own meaning to what I write if that helps you continue your idiotic ranting.
It is the goal of producers to maximize profit.
Not at Apple. The goal is to focus on a few features and do them really, really well. Maximizing profit is just a byproduct of that, not a means.
HAH! AAAAAHAHAHAHAH!!! Funniest thing I ever heard. Apple is just interested in making cool products man. The fact that they get paid to do it is just a bonus. heck they would do it for free if they could. Thanks for this joke, made my day.
It is the goal of producers to maximize profit. It is the goal of consumers to get what they want at the lowest price. Free market Capitalism is the system where producers and consumers are free to set that price.
But consumers never are free to set that price. When was the last time you went into a supermarket and say the to checkout girl "Actually I don't think that banana is worth that much, I want to pay 10% less". The people in the western world don't know how to haggle any more.
And if some idiot tells me that I can vote with my wallet I would point out to them that I don't particularly like starving.
The real reason the cost of living doesn't go down is because of the federal reserve. They are constantly inflating the money supply to slowly steal the wealth of the country for the politicians and wall street bankers. If there was sound money all prices including wages would be constantly falling as people saved and became more productive. The goal for the last 100 years has been to inflate enough to keep prices stable so that people don't notice the theft.
[citation needed]
No seriously. You need to re-examine your evidence. This has been going on in all countries everywhere since the "free market" and capitalism was invented. This is not a problem specific to America (land of the relatively inexpensive), but it's a problem with capitalism and basic human greed. The aim of the rich is to get richer. The aim of the poor is not to starve to death.
Please stop whining about how it's the government's fault, and realise that it's human nature to want more.
It's an APPLE guy.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
You're off by about 50%. Minimum wage in the US is $7.25.
Disagreeing with me does not mean you get to mod me troll.
It sounds lke the union movement in the US has a lot of maturing to do. Unions in Australia look after the rights of their members and a big part of this is collective bargaining. Large employers have decent sized teams working out employment conditions, and the union (or group of unions) is a reasonable counter to this. Otherwise you have a team of 5-10 professional negotiators 'negotiating' with employees one-on-one.
When industrial action is called for by the more mature unions, participation is voluntary. I was a member of a union that represented clerical and technical people in the electricity and local government industries. I had the choice of not striking, and when I did I was able to record that as protected industrial action. It gave my supervisor's manager a bit of a panic as he had to record it, and it wasn't usual for a professional engineer to strike (just for the day). The blue collar union that represented the electricians had very high turnouts, and the 'association' representing managers and professional engineers didn't get too many people taking part.
Promotion is on the basis of merit in the power industry, and the 'last on, first off' rules are pretty much legislated out of existence. Some unions do make rediculous demands when they think they have management over a barrel, and sometimes that results in jobs going overseas. Heinz were put in that position, and rather cave in to Australian union demands they expanded a factory in New Zealand instead.
A union that cares about the welfare of its members is also happy for an unsafe or dangerous worker to be shown the door. If workers bypass safety devices on a machine then they will get little support from their union, and rightly so.
Perhaps the US is just a few years behind the rest in the maturity of unions?
That's what's wrong with people today. Everyone thinks they're entitled to something. What ever happened to being happy with what you have, and if that isn't enough, to find a replacement job or second job? Apple computers and iPads, etc. are expensive enough already.
I like the idea, but unions are like every other organization: they refuse to disband or become inactive when their goals are accomplished.
March of Dimes was founded to combat polio. However, it has done much good after polio was defeated. MADD was useful up until the late 80s or maybe early 90s, when it became more an organization of puritanical teetotalers looking to eliminate alcohol and uninterested in road safety. The number of drunk drivers who kill others because they are drunk is under 10% of fatalities now. Still not eliminated, but there are cheaper and easier targets that would save more lives that are being ignored because MADD won't just declare victory and disband.
However, unions still have a distinct goal that can't ever be accomplished. In the US, the ratio of the CEO pay to the lowest worker and average pay has increased greatly (CEOs are taking a larger and larger percentage of the payroll). The CEOs are paying themselves more compared to the average worker because they set their own salaries, and those of the people below them (whether directly or indirectly, the effect is the same). The unions need to gain power just to raise the average pay to rise with the CEO pay. That is adversarial and ongoing. If the working conditions were perfect, the CEO would still give himself a larger raise than everyone else. The board of directors won't complain because that CEO is on the board of a company that board member is a CEO of (or, to put it another way, the CEOs are members of the CEO union, they just pay dues in time spent on boards of other companies). So without collective bargaining, the employees will lose buying power year after year with that buying power transferred to the CEOs.
While I agree with some of your post regarding cost of living, I have to disagree with your statement about consumers never setting price. In a free market, demand will set the price once a product is past it's initial release. Once you get past the early stages where production is low and costs are high, the consumer demand sets the price. That doesn't mean someone can walk into a store and demand a set price, but if consumers aren't buying a product, they are forced to either cater to a richer audience if that's an option, or they make it cheaper, innovate to add features to make it seem more of a value, or fail against the competition and possibly go out of business entirely unless they lower their prices.
That model does weaken on consumables that are a necessity for most, like fuel. In those instances, the effect is blunted, but even fuel, if driven too high, will effect sales. It is directly measurable to demand. If the price is too high, people travel less, and demand drops, along with the price. If a local grocery store's price is too high, they will either become a high end store, or if there is too much competition, they will be forced to lower prices. If there is a war in the middle east, people become concerned that supplies will be interrupted and prices skyrocket.
Don't confuse a lack of ability to haggle with market demand on a larger scale. If a new energy source was discovered tomorrow that made gasoline optional or opened up competition in the fuel market, the price of gas would plummet.
That was a joke, right?
In case you're actually as clueless as that, we're talking about people who need to work at the Apple store to scrape by, not engineers making cushy 6-figure salaries. There's a huge chasm between having recruiters calling daily to poach you and not being able to take take off an hour in the middle of the workday because rent is due. You're one of the lucky few to be completely oblivious to how most Americans actually live. Work retail for a few months without using your current assets and credit- you'll get a real education. It ain't pretty.
No. Unions are useful in one case, and only one case: when a lack of industry regulation puts workers in peril. Unions were once necessary to combat hazardous working conditions, unreasonable hours, and mistreatment (i.e., verbal and physical abuse). In today's industrialized countries, strong laws and regulations exist to protect employees from these perils and thus unions are, in the vast majority of cases, completely unnecessary.
Today's unions are used not for protecting workers, but instead:
- bargaining for pay raises and other benefit increases
- organizing election votes along the union's party line
- making it unduly difficult to fire under-performing employees
- making it impossible (and sometimes illegal) to hire otherwise qualified non-union employees
- requiring that a worker join the union upon employment and pay union dues, even if she desires no union representation
So, unions probably are necessary right now in some newly-industrialized countries like China where "middle-class" just means "don't have to steal food anymore." But here in the good old Magnited States of America, our society has evolved to include strong worker protection laws.
Now, even if I were to believe that most unions had a place in modern western industrialized nations, Apple Inc. employees would still pretty much the last ones in the entire universe who would be qualified to join the trade union party. I have close friends who worked in Apple stores and they certainly did not think they were mistreated. Yeah, you have to drink a lot of Apple koolaid. And yes, they said it was demanding work. But the benefits sounded quite reasonable (certainly better than what I was getting at the time for similar work) and they gained experience, solid resume material, and tons of networking. I think most any Slashdotter will agree that most entry-level I.T. and retail jobs are far worse than having to pitch Apple gear all day long.
</rant>
They are not worth tons of money. There is a large pool of potential employees. You cannot expect awesome wages and awesome benefits in that situation, period. You can call it disdain. I call it fucking reality.
Show me the stone tablets where this is inscribed. Why should all the money go to shareholders or in bonuses to people who are already very well off ? Why can't a company offer awesome wages and benefits to all its employees when it can afford it like Apple clearly can ? This reality is what you make it.
You want to get paid a lot? Work a job where you're worth a lot to the employer. You can cry all you want about the big bad men at the top, but that's how it is. Supply and demand applies to labor. That's how it is. Furthermore, when these people are making better wages and getting better benefits than most in similar jobs, you can hardly say that they're getting pissed on. But go ahead, keep assigning your own meaning to what I write if that helps you continue your idiotic ranting.
So why can't solidarity figure into it ? Why make it impossible for workers to say: "this is not how I want to be treated and all of us are willing to stand up for it together" ? This is freedom of association, a basic right in Europe.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
When GM was successful, their unions aren't as greedy as they were today
Now you're talking out of your ass. The unions at GM are nowhere near as powerful today as they were when GM was wealthier. The unions have made numerous concessions over the past several decades, regardless of what Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh tell you.
Do you really think the unions during GM's heyday is the same as the one you see today?
They are a decidedly weaker union today than they were before. They are arguably the weakest union ever to represent GM in terms of what they have won for the workers recently in comparison to what they have conceded.
The answer is no, and if you claim to the contrary, then you really doesn't know history.
You don't seem to know history, or grammar.
GM unions are one of the greediest in USA, no doubt about that
That is an arbitrary metric, to be kind. There is not an industrialized nation in the world where the unions have less clout than the USA.
Even USPS unions doesn't hold a candle to GM unions when it comes to selfishness.
I would ask you to provide a reference for that, but I see no reason to expect that you would.
Oh, BTW, it wasn't me who say 'Today's unions have been known to bankrupt companies once they get on site' post.
I realized after I sent that reply that you entered into the conversation late. Being as you were replying to a specific query that I offered up in response to a specific comment from someone else in the conversation, I errantly expected you would know what you were replying to.
However now I realize while writing this reply that you have no idea what you are talking about. If you had more than conservative radio snippets to base your conversation on, this might be interesting.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
It's called supply and demand. It's one of those unpleasant realities, like, say, gravity. That being said, Apple IS offering awesome wages and benefits to its employees. Compare Mr. Moll's $14/hour + health benefits + discounts + matched 401K vs. what a retail employee gets at another electronics retailer. Like, say, Frys. Or BestBuy. Or Target. He's already GOT a better deal.
And, to be honest, retail sales is not a high-skill job.
As to "this is not how I want to be treated, etc."... they are free to do so. But you're ignoring the other side of that "freedom of association" thing: the employer also has the freedom to NOT associate with them, to say "I think your demands are unreasonable, and I'm going to work with someone I think is more reasonable."
Or are you simply trying to use "freedom of association" as a smokescreen for "what's mine is mine, what's yours is mine, too."?
Or that you have little grasp on the value of unskilled labor.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Your comment is completely useless without your location.
Its obviously not the US and Ontario is the only place in Canada where its above 10$.
If you are talking about Europe, then you are comparing appels and watermelons. Local costs of living means allot, as well as local minimum wages.
14$ an hour + benifits (ANY BENIFITS) is pretty damn good for any retail job.
Save for a few exceptions, benifits do NOT come with retail floor jobs.
14$ is usually reserved for Ass. Managers or Managers depending on the chains.
There is a reason you find teenagers and young adults manning the stations at retail stores. Its a steeping stone, not a career.
Apple's goal is to be as profitable as possible
No, their culture is to make "insanely great" products, which is the sort of hyperbole they believe in, but gives the haters ample ammo. Contrast that with Dell and their razor thin margins and cheapest commodity components possible, and there's your reason most Apple customers love Apple products and nobody loves Dell.
The means Apple uses to differentiate its products (and thus to get their higher profit margins) is doing a few features really, really well.
Which is what I said. Talk to an Apple employee for 5 minutes and you'll be sick of the term "focus". It's ingrained in their culture, and they believe it. Others think it's a bit corny, but it seems to be working just fine.
I work as a non-union contractor in an otherwise largely-union environment. The general workers have one union and the managers have another union. Most of the people just want to get their work done and go home. I don't see too many differences between my contracting colleagues and the employees. The union is vocal, but has understood that not everyone can keep their jobs in the current environment. They accepted unpaid furloughs in lieu of actual pay rate cuts, and when the numbers clearly showed that wasn't working, they accepted that a lot of people had to be laid off. While I disagree with some of their stances, they're a reasonable union in my books.
OTOH, my dad worked in aerospace for the better part of two decades. Union actions were fairly common. He took part in them for a while until he saw union reps being driven up in towncars and limousines, wearing expensive clothes, and generally doing a lot better than he did. Eventually, he lost faith in them and started crossing the picket lines. He had an advantage that others did not, though. At more than six feet in height, looking every bit the biker that he was, and with most people knowing that he had plenty of other biker friends at the plant who had his back, no one messed with him or his truck or motorcycle. Other people who crossed the lines weren't so lucky.
Incidentally, his willingness to cross the lines and keep working got him transferred to working on military aircraft (tankers and cargo planes). He still says, many years after that company ceased to exist, that he was happier seeing through his work ethic and getting something done than being on the picket lines, losing money while union leaders haggled for weeks over a few cents an hour worth of pay or benefits.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
The thing that's funny to me is that people realize there are bad unions but don't seem to realize that there are any bad employers. Jon Stewart mentioned this in relationship to teachers... "there are shitty teachers? yeah, I don't know if you've noticed, but there's shitty everything."
OK - please explain why an apple store employee should be paid more when they have a queue of people lining up to do the job?
If the pay isn't good enough, get some skills and make yourself more valuable. Asking for more money "just because" when there is a surplus of people vying for the job is not going to work - especially in a recession.
In a supply/demand environment, resources (eg, people) are only worth more when there is a shortage of them. There is no shortage of them.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Umm... correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how management works, and why there's a manager in every store adapting to what works best for their particular store.
Again, this is a little thing called "empowerment" which means their store managers can actually make decisions on how to best run their particular store. I'm guessing the cost of living differs dramatically across all the locations where Apple has stores, and store mangers could use the discretion to retain particularly valuable staff who might have an extra hour's commute, for example?
Now this one seems to be the crux of the matter. personally I find it hard to believe that store managers are queuing up to get rid of their best performing employees. I could, however, understand if a store manager paid particular attention to someone who might be doing decent sales, but had an attitude problem that could cause issues.
From that interview, everything he says makes Apple look like a progressive employer who empowers their management to reward the staff who add value to the business. This sounds like sour grapes from someone who has worked "in multiple stores" and can't get past the shop floor for whatever reason. Could it be the big chip on his shoulder noticing that other people seem to be doing better than him?
Philosopher (n) - a wise person who is calm and rational; someone who lives a life of reason with equanimity
The dignity part was more about DurendalMac talking about retail workers like they are the scum of the earth, losers that stumbled into their lot in life though their own incompetence and just deserve whatever crumbs get thrown at them. That kind of attitude bothers me. Probably because I come from a long line of factory workers and day laborers.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Wages have been flat in the US for too many years. Labor in general needs to push back, and on that basis alone, I will support unions.
You should look around. The nations you speak of do have strong unions, and formal representation of labor in their politics. We could use more of that here, because people have been significantly devalued.
Blogging because I can...
If he is stuck in a part time position then he is probably does not show any initiative. Showing some initiative should be the first step and trying to pursue full time status. If you cannot move up to full-time then how do you expect anyone to give you a raise?
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Thank you! As a man who has taken work in a warehouse picking and packing food I appreciate that someone knows that we actually are proud of what we do. I can run servers, have owned my own business (Internet cafes are so the thing of the past) and have worked in a management position. REAL work, however, happens at the bottom. I'm in better shape than I have been since I was 23 years old, and management has me working on a morale boosting program to keep the workers as happy as possible while still getting the work done. This is a company I can work for, and respect. Hell, I'm bottom rung and they address me a Mr. {LastName}.
Wow. Good company. I'm betting Apple is close to if not in that same category. Are there any Apple guys out there that can give us insight into what it's _really_ like to work there, or would you get sued?
Show me the stone tablets where this is inscribed.
Reality isn't inscribed anywhere, it just is . If you don't like it then work to change your own situation. If you want to achieve goals or have things then you have to be willing to work for them. Few things worth having come easily or free of charge. That's the world we live in. Going around with a chip on your shoulder harms nobody but yourself. Didn't your parents teach you these things when you were small?
Why should all the money go to shareholders or in bonuses to people who are already very well off ?
It doesn't. The employees had to be paid, the capital acquired (i.e. inventory or equipment), the factors organized and a product produced; all with no guarantee that any of it would earn any money whatsoever. In other words, the owners took substantial risks that the employees did not. It's their right, by virtue of their ownership of the company, to be compensated for taking those risks and bringing new products and services to market. If you think it's easy to be an owner, get some of your friends together and try to start your own company (I hear that's popular in San Francisco anyway), then you will understand why a majority share of the profits go to those who shoulder a majority of the risks.
Why can't a company offer awesome wages and benefits to all its employees when it can afford it like Apple clearly can ?
Apple is free to offer whatever it wishes to its employees and its employees are free to take it or leave it. That is a private arrangement between Apple and its employees. If the employees don't like the terms they are free to quit at any time, it's a free country after all. If you don't like the pay then don't work there, simple isn't it?
So why can't solidarity figure into it ? Why make it impossible for workers to say: "this is not how I want to be treated and all of us are willing to stand up for it together" ?
There is nothing preventing the workers from attempting to do just that. However, Apple is free to refuse their demands or replace them with non-union labor. California is a right to work state, which means that nobody can be forced to join an association, a union for example, as a condition of employment. So, they can all stand up and Apple can terminate all of the employees at the store and hire new ones. There are lots of people in San Francisco right now who are both capable of working at the Apple store and need employment. Supply and demand, it's not just an exam item in Econ 101.
Lets not forget Apple may report into http://www.theworknumber.com/index.asp
Its basically a credit report about your work history, and unfortunately the employee can not see what's listed in there because they do not fall under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
So it's entirely possible "Fired for Unionization" could be listed in there and you would not be able to do anything about it, and employers will not show you this information when they pull things up on you. So you could be a Sr Engineer and they list your title as Engineer, and you apply for another job elsewhere claiming your Sr Engineer and they will just call you a liar and move on to the next person.
No shit. I walked into an Apple store today to buy a Father's Day gift - a 27" iMac. I walked in the door, met the greeter, and told him I was here to purchase - not to look, not to think, TO BUY. It took them over ten minutes to get someone over to me. Hello? I want to give you money. People who walk in the door and say "I'm ready to make a purchase, right now, no questions asked, please" are a retailer's dream. But it didn't seem to matter to them - they had almost a dozen people doing the soft sell routine on random people in the store, but nobody who could just walk up and process my purchase.
Employer-subsidized health insurance is a result of having to get arond WWII wage controls (see http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/is-employer-based-health-insurance-worth-saving/ for info). Unfortunately, it continued after the war, and the result is that people who lose their jobs lose their insurance (that being the majority of the "N milliion uninsured" figure that is bandied about).
Your counterexample is the US just after the Civil War, which bears about as much resemblance to the modern economy as the rain forest does to the Moon?
How about we look at a more modern example, such as Japan:
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Sorry man. You've been swallowing a lot of dogma whole, for a considerable length of time it seems.
Over the last 30 years, the average American has been exposed to more cost and risk than they have increases in buying power per hour worked, and it's escalating.
Health care, in particular, is a huge risk point, with a large cost. Did you know we pay more than any other nation for that? Did you know we pay twice as much per capita as the next most expensive nation, which is France? Our access / per out of pocket dollar, and outcomes are far worse than theirs are.
I lost my home and all I worked for because of our health care policy. Had I lived in a nation that actually does value it's people properly, that would not have happened. And no, I was not the sick one, sadly.
Risk and cost are on the rise, with multi-national companies doing what they do best, which is push cost and risk away from the enterprise. Where does it go? On the US citizen, that's where it goes.
Clearly, you've had little real union involvement. I've worked for myself, in small business with a union, and without, and everything in between.
Secondly, average wages are far down now, if you exclude the very high percentages. For average people, the waves of outsourcing have forced them into jobs that pay far less than their old one did. Happening all over the place, and that too is escalating. New job creation is not generally family wage jobs, meaning we are moving more of our work force to poverty wages, than we are employing them at family wages.
You go ahead though. Ignore the contributions of labor to our past, and also ignore the lessons of other nations like Germany, who actually do target the welfare of Germans with their trade policy, instead of here, where we make sure our big corporations get all they want, leaving scraps for the average laborer to fight over.
Blogging because I can...
Actually in Belgium there's a service that organizes babysitting (by independent sitters, mostly students) that makes sure there's a standard rate charged, the sitter is insured, established work conditions like tasks that will not be performed, etc. Not strictly a union I guess, though the name "gezinsbond" does translate roughly to "family union/association." My girlfriend used to do some work through them in fact, even though it was for people in her neighborhood. The country is pretty unionized, so I'm sure I've paid "extra" so to speak to give some people a decent wage.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
In other words, as long as I get by, please, go ahead and reduce everyone else to serf or slave-status. Paying people a living wage would infringe on my god given right to maximize my personal profits. Remember, kids, minimal wages are SOCIALISM. Better avoid that hellish trap and make it perfectly legal to employ 10-year olds for a nickel a day.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
While general motors did have a large amount of union pension bills to pay, which eventually was one of the reasons they went bankrupt, it was not because of the unions. General motors was using its workforce less effectively than others for decades, and took nearly twice as much labor to produce cars than the asian competitors. This was because they did not adequately invest in flexible manufacturing and lean manufacturing systems, as what they did invest into robotics initially was poorly implemented for decades. Thats not to say that their unions didn't play hardball, but GM also failed to see them as legitimate stakeholders, and didn't cooperate until shit hit the fan.
Generally speaking general motors was mismanaged since the sixties, an icon of this era was a book by nader called "unsafe at any speed". The issue was that general motors wanted the biggest piece of the pie, so they created different lines for different demographics, and did this by going on an acquisition spree across the world. However their position as dominant leader in the in the world didn't protect them from market dynamics. When the asian tigers emerged, they focused on only a few lines, that they marketed around the world. Meanwhile GM was producing dozens of different models of vehicles, and they had higher fixed costs and weren't able to innovate as quickly. Moreover they didn't want to move into the small vehicle market, because it had lower margins and thought that it was a fad during the 70's. And when faced with these problems, they chose to try to amortize their costs over higher volumes, and made more acquisitions. Finally they nearly became brankrupt in 92, and was forced to sell the parts of the companies that they could sell, which were the valueable parts of the company poste haste. which then led them to be dependant upon other companies like lotus and its part division.
Lets not forget that when they did invest in innovation they utterly failed, they used to be the largest robotics purchaser in the world, but they couldn't automate so many types of automobiles. They also invested in a modular frame system, that would have automated well, but also failed miserably. And they created saturn as a test bed of innovation, but infighting led to it being neglected, after they changed CEO's. And they made designs that nobody else liked (pontiac aztek), but appealed to the management (Olds), or looked good on paper.
Here in Europe the right to join a collective organisation is a legal right so Apple or any other employees can engage in free collective bargaining with the man. Heck, here we even have tenants unions where our lawyers are smarter and cheaper than their lawyers. This freedom can often be a huge surprise to some American Companies. For eight years Walmart attempted to colonise the German retail industry. They were unaware of a) cultural differences and b) the power of the Workers Committee. Their Orwellian behaviour, spying on employees, banning staff romances and trying to coerce the staff into informing on each other was not surprisingly resisted by ver.di (the union), the staff and the general consensus of popular opinion. The experience proved so unmanageable for them they eventually disposed of their German assets to Metro and left the country.
Sadly Huey Helicopters were not involved but would have looked so good.
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
The original "union" idea was indeed what this guy proposes, and good luck to him (personally, I suspect he isn't going to be working for Apple that much longer - he's publicly suggesting that all is not well at Apple which is not going to go down well with the PR guys unless they are smart enough to work *with* him instead).
The problems with unions is that they turn into a political tool as soon as they have some size, and become toys in the hands of political manipulators. At that point the primary goal is no longer to improve (or at least normalise) employee life, it becomes all about power itself.
I've seen all of this happen in the early 70s, and whereas technology may have changed, people have not..
Insert
We really only need one fact to prove we do need unions. Over the past few years, while wages have been flat and the economy has been in a major recession, corporate profits are at an all-time high. It isn't that companies are too broke to hire more workers or create jobs, they are just holding onto their money. Corporate cash reserves are staggering.
The science shows that when the tax rates for the wealthiest members of our society are raised (ie undoing the Bush tax cuts), the wealthy look for long-term investments in which to put their money. This is what creates jobs and improves our infrastructure, and thus our economy. Right now while the US, and most of the world is in a recession, the wealthy and corporations are doing quite well; exponentially better than the average person or even compared to themselves just ten years ago. Just look at the average CEO pay compared to the same companies average worker over the past thirty years; it is astounding. The problem isn't that everyone is broke. The problem is getting corporations and the wealthy to put some of that money back into the economy. This is why Reagan's "trickle down" economics failed miserably. Also note I said "that money" instead of "their money" because last time I looked, the dollar bill still has "United States of America" printed on it, not "the wealthy of the US" which means it is "our" money.
Member of American Sarcasm Society - Motto: "Like we need your help!"
Do you know whether there's an equivalent service in the UK?
Equifax's UK site has no hints, and the DPA (data protection act) would obligate them to share any/all data they hold on an individual.
It's human nature, when working for a huge corporation making billions in profits, to expect a cut of that because you helped bring those profits in, irrespective of where you are in that organisation.
It's also important to note the direct social impact low salaries have.
Okay, not so relevant to electronics technology but go back 40 or so years when there was a prevalence of small local shops (or "Mom & Pop Dime Stores" as I believe you say in the US) as opposed to the huge hypermarkets today, and in those days around 40% of the money spent in local shops was recycled back into the local economy - for example, the grocer selling fruit and vegetables would get his van (or pickup truck) serviced by a local mechanic.
These days, with huge chain stores and megacorps, less than 10% of the money spent goes back into the local economy. And if people "feel" there is less money around but see billions going into corporate coffers, then they are going to want a piece of that.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
But here in the good old Magnited States of America, our society has evolved to include strong worker protection laws.
Surely, you must be joking. And I suppose the USA has strong consumer protection laws as well? Both are utter bullshit, although I will agree that many of the unions in the USA have become twisted into some kind of monstrosity. The USA has practically no worker protection, when compared to much of Europe for example. Where I live you cannot just fire someone because you don't like their haircut or don't approve of their leisure time activities. Employers actually need a valid reason to terminate you, unlike the USA where you can be fired on the spot for practically anything. I don't belong to a union per-se, but I also don't need to worry about sudden termination without cause either. I do belong to a white-collar trade organization which works for me to help ensure that my employer gives raises that at least cover cost of living increases plus reasonable salary increases. I pay a tiny annual fee to benefit from this and it also guarantees that I will receive 60% of my salary should I lose my job due to my employer's decision (layoffs for example), for up to 3 years. It is opt-in and there is no pressure to belong to anything, though blue-collar workers are generally automatically covered by a union.
In much of the Western civilized world outside the USA, unions can be useful and actually do protect workers from unfair practices without being used for things they are not meant for. The problem with the unions in the USA is that many of them have or have had close ties to organized crime and have been used for political purposes.
That is incorrect. Unions correct a distortion of the market: the asymmetry of having on one side an HR department with excellent lawyers and negotiators, and on the other hand fairly helpless individuals with little clout to achieve anything.
It is not the only key, and it sometimes must be overruled to satisfy more key keys. Your one-track-mind attitude reveals you really know little about economics.
Right. Fire that geezers, let those useless bastards starve. I am sure you have a better idea?
At least the competent and young workers are in the position to actually compete for other things.
If you feel you're not being paid enough, ask for a raise. If you don't get it and you're still unhappy, then change workplace. It's not that hard. And this is even from a part-time employee...
What a standard line. You've clearly never worked in a hostile workplace have you? The "If you don't like it, there's the door" attitude is nice in theory. The In practice all that happens is any self-respecting ambitious individual moves on to some other job, and you're left with the disrespectful unambitious drips that can't work anywhere else. Often the employer just uses the high staff turnover to have a workplace full of cheap expendable employees, some middle manager gets a wage raise himself, out of all this. Costs saved from paying your staff less, neglecting the work environment are quickly wiped out by abject business failure. You quickly end up with employees who don't give a damn, you know the kind. Customer service standards will degrade, sales will struggle, you'll have more employees acting up, management will struggle with discipline, will have to be harsh. Showing up drunk or not at all and some outright bilking the business. Eventually, something has to give. You pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
I've been a middle manager in a hostile work place, I moved real quick on rather than standing my ground and trying to fix things. Later the union did move into the work place - a rather easy target due to the catastrophically low moral and flagging sales.
But as you say, people could ask for raises and make demands, you can't get fired for asking nicely and stating your case, and if you do, in most countries you can dispute wrongful dismissal. It's disappointing that more employees don't put up more of a fight if they want their work place to be better. It's just a shame that unions have to be paid to do it for them.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Why should the CEO of Wal-Mart make more in one paycheck than the average Wal-Mart employee does in his or her lifetime? Does the average CEO really do 500 times the work of his average employee? Do high level banking executives really deserve millions in bonuses after crashing the world economy?
Your claptrap might make some sense where the VP of your division was fired from his $2 million a year salary and replaced with a couple of cheap MBA's from India who are payed $80k a piece.
But of course, we all know this dog-eat-dog-fight-for-scraps bullshit only applies in one direction.