So, in essence, there is zero incentive for Apple to change its behavior.
That is because, in case of disagreements, an employee's prospect (losing 100% of their income) is a much worse negotiating position than a large company losing <1% of its workforce.
Is this not common in the US (illegal collusion on wages aside)?
It's always seemed strange to me that people will be reluctant to join unions, while employers are eager to join organizations.
Ftr at the moment I'm not a member of a union - as there's isn't really one that feels applicable to my current situation, and I have relativly good bargaining position.
> Research has found that 58 percent of major franchisors' contracts in 2016, including those of McDonald's, Burger King, Jiffy Lube, and H&R Block, contained agreements not to hire the workers of other franchisees
You mentioned "standard contracts".
I had a possible customer want me to toss my contract in favor of one they wanted. It said that I "will defend or settle any action brought against Customer" - basically, if they were sued for their use of my software then I would have to pay the court costs.
This is very unusual. I DDG-ed it, and found it likely came from a "subscription based contract database and resource center that helps over 300,000 lawyers and business owners draft and negotiate contracts more effectively", found at https://www.lawinsider.com/clause/ptcs-obligation-to-indemni..., with the example has "PTC, at its own expense, will defend any action brought against Customer based on a claim that any Licensed Product infringes a United States patent, copyright or trademark and ..."
So, along the lines of what you said, though from a vendor perspective.
BTW, I said "fuck off", though in polite terms. "This clause will require renegotiation of the price as I have not included litigation in the pricing. I can identify an appropriate insurance company and pass the costs to you."
In Europe there are multiple unions you can join for an employer. This competition keeps them working well.
In the US it's a single union per employer, and if the employer has one, you are forced to join it (and in some states you can decline to join, but still be required to pay fees). This causes lots of problems with corruption, and the union is more interested in their goals, than yours.
I am a recent member of the UAW (a more white collar local), and it's been insightful. I think unions are much weaker than people perceive. Their strengths are mostly superficial. Striking is something members don't want to resort to. Other than that all you can really do is rally and file NLRB complaints. The NLRB is a slow moving bureaucracy that any competent employer can usually effectively dance around. Rallying and building public support comes with all the pitfalls of politics, media, etc.
The worst part is actually my employer hates the union for no other reason than its an organization they can't control, so it makes the situation of being unionized a bit toxic unfortunately.
Unions on the other hand are allowed to join indefinitely, until they become multinational humongous forces like Teamsters.
So the balance of power is slanted in favor of Unions.
Here in slovenia, many worker unions were against the lowering the taxes on paychecks (higher net with same gross pay), because their political parties were against those, even if the workers themselves would benefit from those.
We also have some areas (eg. a government rail company), where you cannot even get a job, if you don't get approved by one of the two unions, which mostly means that you have to pay off someone in the union to get an approval (for a very cozy job).
What's worse, a company churning through employee after employee or a company captured by its union? Both can happen.
You can't lower taxes without some sort of tradeoff, which is usually a cut to services. I don't know the context here but it stands to reason that you are not giving the whole situation.
>We also have some areas (eg. a government rail company), where you cannot even get a job, if you don't get approved by one of the two unions, which mostly means that you have to pay off someone in the union to get an approval (for a very cozy job).
Corruption is going to exist without strict governance regardless of unions. I'm a unionized worker in the USA and no one needs to bribe their way into a job here. We have robust oversight and documentation of the hiring process.
Seems to be quite a lot of context missing. I think nearly everyone agrees they want to pay less taxes and take home more money. Now if lowering taxes does not result in more money then you don't need politicians and unions to make that case.
I'm guessing lowering taxes would result in more expensive, privatized services and voters figured that wouldn't work.
That isn’t to say it’s impossible for an ideologue to corrupt and seek out power for themselves (it happens often enough). It’s just to say that a capitalist is not driven to act by a deeply seeded belief. They’re only interested in winning the competition. You’re all but inviting corruption.
Employers don't have to recognize a union in Europe, employees can still join and avail of legal support or group actions by those employees that did join.
Similarly, if the majority of your workplace is in a union, you don't have to join, just don't be surprised they don't bother defending your case if you end up a victim of unfair dismissal. Your employer may be unwilling to offer you employment terms different to what the union employees get because of the overhead for them, but if you had that little leverage you probably didn't have the imaginary invididual negotiating power the anti-union crowd imagines anyway.
So it sounds like Apple's tactics weren't illegal but this new counsel wants to reverse precedent to make sure they are now illegal. Seems bizarre to try and change precedent from the side of the lawyers rather than the judges. Paired with the PR-tone of this article, it looks like an upstart lawyer trying to win the court of public opinion rather than a legal court.
You'll see increased lobbying from companies for increased migration to keep wages down.
After all strong hierarchys controlled by a godking are closer to a company anyway.
What has democracy ever done for us?
The labor movement gave us the 40 hour workweek, weekends off and the minimum wage. They're the reason you have time to opine online right now instead of working.
https://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-the-40-hour-workw... https://exhibitions.lib.umd.edu/unions/labor/living-wage
I find it funny, that here (my country, slovenia), we have right(ish) parties against immigration but more liberal workforce rules, and on the other side, we have both leftish and pure "communist" parties (even with a red star in the logo), supposedly "fighting for the workers" and at the same time supporting more immigration.