Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

- Why did my store not get this new benefit that other non-unionized stores are getting?

- Why was my store not affected by layoffs but other stores in the area were?

- Why was my raise X% but employees at other stores got Y%?

The answer to all of these is the same – you will get exactly what is in your collective bargaining agreement, not a penny more or less. If you want more perks, ask your union reps to bring it up in the next contract negotiation.



For me the question is

Would Apple have introduced these perks without the union?

It's not the union that's preventing these things from going to the unionized workers. It's the company.

My guess is that Apple would prefer there not to be a union, so they take the carrot&stuck approach in response. Carrot new perks if you don't unionize. Stick we close the union stores.

But you have to ask what the state of things would be without the union at play. Does Apple decide to give everyone more perks just 'cause?


>Does Apple decide to give everyone more perks just 'cause?

No, in the absence of unions and regulations, companies provide more perks and compensation when they need to in order to higher or maintain workers.

Classic supply and demand. If you can't hire a worker for X dollars, you raise the salary to x + 1. Companies do it all the time when they can't find the workers that they need


Apple has 370+ stores across the country and 65,000 retail workers. Exactly one store is unionized. It’s safe to say that broad benefits decisions across the company aren’t being driven by this union.


The implication is that additional perks will make other stores less likely to unionize. One store successfully unionizing is certainly enough to cause Apple to take such measures, they're likely trying to prevent a domino effect.


A company of Apple’s size routinely adds and removes employee benefits. It’s not like they offered nothing before a single union consisting of a handful of employees showed up. To make this claim you need to look at a time span way longer than a couple of months to see if there’s an actual correlation.


I recall one particularly vivid experience with a customer who seemed to be dumb as a post. But he kept getting what he wanted, and it took some time to realize I'd underestimated him.

His superpower wasn't his wit, it was getting things he didn't really deserve. His bosses saw that, which is why he was in charge. He would ask for things that sounded very reasonable, and every time we said yes our profit margins went down.

Every boss who has loyal employees that make 10% less than they deserve gets recognition from the organization for getting things they aren't really entitled to. That's why your 'nice' boss often seems to get stuck. They only succeed if you go out of your way to make them look good.


> Why was my raise X% but employees at other stores got Y%

If you believe in meritocracy this is a complete _negative_


If you believe in meritocracy then you would not join a union in the first place.


Belief in meritocracy continues to amuse.


Misunderstanding meritocracy as anything other than aspirational continues to frustrate.

We can’t achieve a true meritocracy. That’s not an argument against trying.


Sure, but if you believe it does not exist then why argue against systems that level the playing field and offsets it?


Because “systems that level the playing field” tend to make a system less meritocratic (and less fair), not more.


So I guess what you're saying is it's better to maintain the illusion of meritocracy instead of acknowledging and being honest with ourselves that pay is not commensurate to effort?


> So I guess what you're saying is it's better to maintain the illusion of meritocracy …

No, it’s better to strive for meritocracy and fail to achieve perfection, than to abandon the effort to reward merit entirely.

> … instead of acknowledging and being honest with ourselves that pay is not commensurate to effort?

“Merit” is not a synonym for effort, pay was never commensurate with effort, and it never should be.

We’re not trying to reward effort — we’re trying to reward results.


> We’re not trying to reward effort — we’re trying to reward results.

What makes you think we do that now?


You don’t believe there’s currently any correlation between merit and pay?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: