todareistobmore t1_iuj8ubv wrote
Reply to comment by EfficiencySuch6361 in They formed the first Apple store union in the country. Now, employees say they’re barred from some benefits. by aresef
> If the union doesn’t have enough leverage, this is the result.
This is illegal. It's illegal for an employer to reward nonunion employees, and it's illegal for an employer to participate in a union election (by, for instance, bragging about how they're denying benefits to unionized employees).
Also, this store didn't unionize because of general public advocacy, they did so because they employees chose to. You don't have to support that, but if you don't, it says a lot more about your labor politics than who you think should have a union instead.
EfficiencySuch6361 t1_iuka1rr wrote
If the union can’t negotiate better than what is already the baseline for non-union employees… whose fault is that? It’s not mandated by law for the union to get preferential treatment during negotiations, either.
More union members = more leverage. If working at Apple or Starbucks was more horrible then they would probably have more union members and therefore more leverage. But this is Reddit where no one can bother to think critically when they could be complaining about the wages of Starbucks and Apple employees who are better compensated than just about any other retail or food service job. If the lowest paid of us were better off, we would all be better off. Why it makes sense to ppl here to not focus on the groups with the lowest wages and least benefits with the most stolen wages etc etc but hey why think rationally about something when we could emotionally downvote the trendy things to hate and promote the poorly developed hivemind ideas that prolly aren’t going to work
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments