I really like the German system where employees get representation (usually union reps) on the board of the company - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany - I think it helps bring a lot more balance to business decisions.
I worked in Germany for a while and one of such unions was built at my company. I can't think of a single good thing they did and I remember plenty of ways they made the life of employees worse in ways that looked deliberate. The way the union/council was built looked very bad to me to the point where I completely stopped following the office politics.
I'm not saying this is a bad idea and I certainly don't have enough knowledge of the German system to have an objective assessment, but this looks like another example where the law is produced with good intentions but the implementations of such rules are serving some other purpose.
Other than that, I felt like Germany has incredibly good laws for the workers/employees, the working culture there is very healthy and I like it a lot.
But then at the same time you have something like Volkswagen who just fired their CEO that was pushing hard into EVs. The inertia of the old ICE portion of the company (including the union people who may lose their jobs) just puts a hamper on their speed of execution which shouldn't be the case since incentives are generally aligned. If the company succeeds then the employees + union succeed as well. In this case it seems like they want to hold on to the old way of doing things as long as they can but I don't know what their game plan is going to be once reality comes knocking?
It makes me wonder, can unionized shops survive when some fast moving competitors(eg. Tesla) are not unionized?
Big companies are now so large that they can influence policy and politicians in a way that it is impossible for the individual to fight back.
If only there was a way for us to get together...as people...to unite as a group. To hold hands and stand up for ourselves. To become so large that the corporations and politicians must notice us and must change.
This is where Union on paper falls apart. Eventually Unions (like large companies and governments) end up being part of the issue they were forced to solve. You don't have a choice, you have to join the union that runs the area. Union boss is a real thing. It's just another government you're forced to pay taxes too even if you don't want to be a part of it.
>If only there was a way for us to get together...as people...to unite as a group. To hold hands and stand up for ourselves. To become so large that the corporations and politicians must notice us and must change.
Isn't that what the state is? It has all of that, plus a monopoly on violence, which a union doesn't have.
why cant we just individually decide what we are willing to do? why do we need to mindlessly join unions that tells us what we think?
imagine if you will, that everyone had some personal backbone and responsibility, and had standards for what they would accept. They then communicate this to prospective employers, and would quit if things happen they cannot accept.
if everyone, or majority did this, then companies would be either forced to align, or have no workforce. and IF enough people exists that dont care about working 14 hour shifts 7 days a week, good?
nah, this seems stupid, why should individuals decide? lets rather sign our free will over to unions that by definition simply just exists to shield the "mediocre workers that CLEARLY cant think for themselves"
It’s interesting seeing unionization back on the table in the 2020s.
I worked at a union retail job for three years and saw the pros and cons firsthand.
We had a problem employee who was untouchable regardless if he was completing his job duties (assuming he showed up at all). Eventually this came to a head as he would spend 30min+ in the restroom. To address this they instituted a “log all bathroom breaks” policy _for everyone_ which caused the employee to not show up again.
However, the company kept the policy in place for weeks until I sent a strongly worded email to the union rep (who was unaware he was overseeing our store). He made a visit the next day and the policy was promptly changed.
So while I was glad to have a Union to override such policies I do wonder if the problem employee would have been around for so long without it.
Usually union employees can be fired if there is "just cause". Not showing up for work at all would definitely to considered "just cause" for most unions I've been involved in. Did no one even try to fire him or was he related to someone in a management position?
Being in a union doesn't mean you're "untouchable", it just means you can't be fired without hard proof that the worker is not doing what they are hired to do.
The worst case scenario with a union is bad employees taking advantage of a company. Without unions, the worst case is a bad company taking advantage of its workers.
If you are a capital owner, I can see why unions are bad. If you are a worker,(i.e. 99.9% of people), I have no idea why you wouldn't want unions.
If problem employees are the cost of employers being reined in and not abusing employees with no recourse, so be it.
All systems have some sort of drag on them, the question is not elimination of that drag, but how much you’re comfortable living with.
Organized labor is a mindset - management is the enemy, you are at war, their goals are not your goals. Why do you as a worker care about a problem employee? Are you feeling pressured to pick up the slack he leaves? Don't let management abuse you that way. Leave it undone. Are you personally invested in the smooth functioning of the store? Don't be. That's management's problem.
I think as engineers we like optimizing things. It feels almost intrinsically desirable for systems we encounter to be running well. And that gives us a level of sympathy for management's needs and goals that most unionized workers would interpret as betrayal.
I think the perfect balance is having the companies in deathly fear of unionisation without actually being bound by a union.
But unfortunately in 2023 we're now in a state where company leads don't respect their workers anymore and think they can get off with any kind of abuse, disrespect and exploitation. Time to remind them about the past I think.
Looking forward to the headlines of Apple taunting the Glasgow staff by offering benefits to other stores but not them, with the defense that the new benefits aren't part of the Glasgow agreement.
As an Apple investor, I wish that Apple would do more to make working conditions such that the retail employees would be less likely to want to join a union. A large share of the employee grievances will be things not related to pay and could be helped by having ways for the employees in the stores to communicate their needs to corporate.
> A large share of the employee grievances will be things not related to pay
Might be in other cases, but in this case it's about low pay, and shitty shift patterns:
> Reportedly, retail staff at Apple Glasgow earn 12 ($15) per hour. Workers at the store say that low wages, plus unfair shift patterns and a lack of pay transparency have prompted the move toward unionization.
They seem to also have asked for ways to enable better communication to corporate but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears, even their colleagues in other countries have ways but no one listens:
> "In the UK, Apple have staff forums, but these are continually shown to be ineffectual and feedback is ignored," one anonymous worker told the Glasgow Evening Times. "It is a one-way conversation."
I guess the conclusion is that people tried, Apple didn't want to, so now the workers forced them to listen.
I hope workers in other countries are following what's happening here and realize they have more power than what they think.
I might argue that the issue is not "having ways for the employees in the stores to communicate their needs to corporate.". But rather having corporate act on those needs, and in the face of larger investors like Buffet and Vanguard, who would probably like more to see dividends and share price increases, unions are a good way to balance the scales a bit.
That's not incompatible with unionisation. Union employees still have company bosses who will hopefully try to make their working environment better for them. What won't change is the employment contract, as that will be negotiated collectively, but those are typically the same for all employees anyway, at least for hourly waged jobs like this.
I don't think there's really much of a downside to unionisation here. It's not like one staff member asking to be paid more was ever going to happen being such a small cog in such a big machine.
> As an Apple investor, (things) could be helped by having ways for the employees in the stores to communicate their needs. (snip) A large share of the employee grievances will be things not related to pay
They've already communicated their needs (wages are too low), and you've already dismissed their concerns. Your comment here is kind of proving exactly why Apple employees so desperately need to unionize -- they aren't going to get fairer wages any other way.
It pretty much always comes down to pay (assuming there are not dangerous working conditions). People will say things like "too many hours" but you know what? If you pay a shitload for those then generally people (or at least some of them) will be okay with the overtime.
[+] [-] nfriedly|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kirillbobyrev|3 years ago|reply
I'm not saying this is a bad idea and I certainly don't have enough knowledge of the German system to have an objective assessment, but this looks like another example where the law is produced with good intentions but the implementations of such rules are serving some other purpose.
Other than that, I felt like Germany has incredibly good laws for the workers/employees, the working culture there is very healthy and I like it a lot.
[+] [-] nebula8804|3 years ago|reply
It makes me wonder, can unionized shops survive when some fast moving competitors(eg. Tesla) are not unionized?
[+] [-] snotrockets|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Melatonic|3 years ago|reply
If only there was a way for us to get together...as people...to unite as a group. To hold hands and stand up for ourselves. To become so large that the corporations and politicians must notice us and must change.
Fucking Union!
[+] [-] Xeoncross|3 years ago|reply
Unions are great at first though.
[+] [-] gruez|3 years ago|reply
Isn't that what the state is? It has all of that, plus a monopoly on violence, which a union doesn't have.
[+] [-] redeeman|3 years ago|reply
imagine if you will, that everyone had some personal backbone and responsibility, and had standards for what they would accept. They then communicate this to prospective employers, and would quit if things happen they cannot accept.
if everyone, or majority did this, then companies would be either forced to align, or have no workforce. and IF enough people exists that dont care about working 14 hour shifts 7 days a week, good?
nah, this seems stupid, why should individuals decide? lets rather sign our free will over to unions that by definition simply just exists to shield the "mediocre workers that CLEARLY cant think for themselves"
[+] [-] doublepg23|3 years ago|reply
I worked at a union retail job for three years and saw the pros and cons firsthand.
We had a problem employee who was untouchable regardless if he was completing his job duties (assuming he showed up at all). Eventually this came to a head as he would spend 30min+ in the restroom. To address this they instituted a “log all bathroom breaks” policy _for everyone_ which caused the employee to not show up again.
However, the company kept the policy in place for weeks until I sent a strongly worded email to the union rep (who was unaware he was overseeing our store). He made a visit the next day and the policy was promptly changed.
So while I was glad to have a Union to override such policies I do wonder if the problem employee would have been around for so long without it.
[+] [-] capableweb|3 years ago|reply
Being in a union doesn't mean you're "untouchable", it just means you can't be fired without hard proof that the worker is not doing what they are hired to do.
[+] [-] pocket_cheese|3 years ago|reply
If you are a capital owner, I can see why unions are bad. If you are a worker,(i.e. 99.9% of people), I have no idea why you wouldn't want unions.
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] closeparen|3 years ago|reply
I think as engineers we like optimizing things. It feels almost intrinsically desirable for systems we encounter to be running well. And that gives us a level of sympathy for management's needs and goals that most unionized workers would interpret as betrayal.
[+] [-] izacus|3 years ago|reply
But unfortunately in 2023 we're now in a state where company leads don't respect their workers anymore and think they can get off with any kind of abuse, disrespect and exploitation. Time to remind them about the past I think.
[+] [-] AceJohnny2|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AceJohnny2|3 years ago|reply
(to be clear, I'm not applauding Apple's efforts here at all, just observing an interesting, awkward, but mostly hilarious response)
[+] [-] Gordonjcp|3 years ago|reply
When it comes to things like this, Glasgow is the epitome of "fuck around and find out".
[+] [-] KennyBlanken|3 years ago|reply
Apple: "Yes."
"...by offering better benefits to other stores employees?"
Apple: "Yes. We're giving them nicer stuff than we gave you. This is why you shouldn't unionize."
"Hmm. By unionizing just our one store, we improved benefits for us, but also for ALL the non-union employees in the company?!"
Apple: "er....no"
"Well, if we hadn't unionized, we wouldn't have gotten better benefits, and you only improved their benefits to 'punish' us..."
Apple: "no, wait..."
"uuuunnnHHH! If we unionize another store, will you punish us harder, daddy!?"
Apple: >:(
[+] [-] nortonham|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] changoplatanero|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] capableweb|3 years ago|reply
Might be in other cases, but in this case it's about low pay, and shitty shift patterns:
> Reportedly, retail staff at Apple Glasgow earn 12 ($15) per hour. Workers at the store say that low wages, plus unfair shift patterns and a lack of pay transparency have prompted the move toward unionization.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/06/10/glasgow-apple-sto...
They seem to also have asked for ways to enable better communication to corporate but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears, even their colleagues in other countries have ways but no one listens:
> "In the UK, Apple have staff forums, but these are continually shown to be ineffectual and feedback is ignored," one anonymous worker told the Glasgow Evening Times. "It is a one-way conversation."
I guess the conclusion is that people tried, Apple didn't want to, so now the workers forced them to listen.
I hope workers in other countries are following what's happening here and realize they have more power than what they think.
[+] [-] Arkanum|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danpalmer|3 years ago|reply
I don't think there's really much of a downside to unionisation here. It's not like one staff member asking to be paid more was ever going to happen being such a small cog in such a big machine.
[+] [-] maxsilver|3 years ago|reply
They've already communicated their needs (wages are too low), and you've already dismissed their concerns. Your comment here is kind of proving exactly why Apple employees so desperately need to unionize -- they aren't going to get fairer wages any other way.
[+] [-] Melatonic|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gordonjcp|3 years ago|reply