Apple's union-busting practices violated employee rights at NYC store | Hacker News Reader

Apple's union-busting practices violated employee rights at NYC store

engadget.com

312 pointsgsibble164 comments

Once you start following/helping/participating in the labor movement it becomes clear that virtually every company will go to great lengths to stop a union from being formed and winning a contract, they will even break the law. The question for organizers is not "will this company do it?" but "what do we do about it when they do?"

> they will even break the law

This is probably true in the USA, as that laws seem to not be enforced. But if you enforce employee's protection laws companies will respect them.

Walmart is infamous for shutting down stores that unionize. This can be particularly devastating to the community because Walmart's whole schtick is to wipe out every other business in the area through "dumping" - flooding the market with stuff sold at a loss until they drive the other companies out of business.

So not only do a lot of people in town / the county lose their jobs, but they lose the only place to shop for a lot of things.

Result? Anyone who talks about unionizing gets reported, or simply ostracized. "Shut the fuck up, Jim. You wanna get the place shut down? We'll all be driving an hour to get our groceries."

Seems like the best game-theoretic strategy for small towns, would be to unionize whatever particular type of retail worker Walmart uses in advance, as a prophylactic to prevent Walmart from ever coming to town.

That will be brilliant. And transparent management of unions will be essential.

Most of them will. Some will still try to find a way around them or look for loop holes. But yes, the fact that most of them will respect them is a major win

I remember watching the walmart movie, and they had one part where walmart would not put security cameras in their parking lot. Robbery, rape and murder.

But one store did have cameras in the parking lot - for surveillance of employees trying to form a union.

Sounds like Apple won this no? They prevented the union, which has given up, and their only punishment is to be told to stop doing something they should not have been doing anyway.

Start giving fines as percentages of worldwide revenue like the EU does. Suddenly union busting won't seem to attractive if it costs 1% of worldwide revenue.

Yes, and indeed use revenue rather than profit like it is now, since now they still make profits and have zero incentive to stop doing what they’re doing.

While it does say the certain stores, like St. Louis, have given up due to Apple's antagonism, it also says: "Union efforts are slowly gaining ground at Apple stores across the country."

Precedent like this can help future efforts in other places, at the very least. And in general, little back and forth events like this is maybe the best we can hope for in this world where actual worker leadership/autonomism is farther away than Mars.

But yeah, at the same time, you can't help thinking still that Apple could probably just do whatever it wants indefinitely, and easily absorb these slaps on the wrist when they come about.

But wouldn't the precedent be "Apple won, unions lost"? No one would look at this and go "damn the union really handed Apple a can of whoop ass!"

Maybe, but Apple is the only one that really needs to worry about PR anyway. Workers just need to know what they want.

In terms of like broader cultural perception/what you see on the news, its a lost cause for workers anyway. But I don't see it as a problem long term: if you are doing something that makes the bosses angry and maybe incites certain PR efforts to, e.g., make it look like Apple "won" despite an overall hopeful, or at least nuanced, outcome, then it sounds like you are doing something right.

Workers in general really have nothing to lose in terms of public perception. Consider all the discourse around tipping. Or consider what people say on this very site in some threads about worker rights. In general, people implicitly or explicitly feel that if you are striking/in a union/living on tips/etc, you have already lost some game and are a sore loser for wanting more. And if you pay attention to the news, this general idea is regularly enforced. This is all especially true in the US, not to mention tech-adjacent sectors. But again, not really a problem per se, just a certain kind of indicator.

The precedent is that the NLRB has issued a warning past this point. Apple can respond however they want, but this is their shot across the bow.

But to my knowledge an NLRB warning is no effect. It isn't like after the 3rd warning, Apple enters Chapter 7 bankruptcy automatically.

If I was Apple's legal counsel, I'd be telling them we won this round.

You don't win any fight that ends in a concession. Apple was instructed to cease-and-desist; if they continue along their current path, they could be held liable for violating federal labor laws.

Their legal council is probably doing the same thing they did with the Uighur labor allegations and the Foxconn suicides - begging Apple to denounce it publicly and blame each instance rather than admit systemic abuse. It's pretty much all Apple knows at this point.

Issuing a cease and desist letter to a serial union buster is like telling Ted Bundy he needs to stop killing people. He probably agrees, but certainly isn't going to stop.

Ted Bundy's story ends with him dying in government custody, so I'd agree that it's an apt metaphor.

They’ve done so by breaking the law

I assume if it happens again they won't be so lenient.

Sounds like they were lenient the first AND second time. But this time they really mean it. Assuming anyone will put their head in the noose and try to unionise a third time...

Just goes to show how effective unionizing is. Power to those workers! They're a key part in making Apple one of the most valuable companies in the world. They deserve a fair share.

Indeed.

Companies hate unions because they increase labor costs and benefits.

Does anyone really think corporate anti-union talking points are in their workers' best interest?

Unions have their faults (e.g. bureaucracy), but corporations aren't fighting them for their employees' benefit.

> Unions have their faults (e.g. bureaucracy)

Corruption, protecting shit employees from being fired, seniority preference over merit, politics, wage caps for individual contributors (not just wage floors), dues, inefficient administrative overhead, to name a few others.

For a lot of workers, especially knowledge workers and pro services, the value proposition doesn’t make sense.

Companies fight unions for the efficiency of the machine, which may or may not benefit employees (depends on context, right?). Employees fight unions because the value prop looks like shit in many cases - at best a bargain with the devil - circumstances need to be pretty bad to make the deal, or the union needs to have captured the right to work (at company or industry) already.

I say all this as someone with a small union pension waiting for me and as someone who managed union employees. I’ve seen the good, the bad, and the ugly with unions.

>For a lot of workers, especially knowledge workers and pro services, the value proposition doesn’t make sense.

yeah, there's no needs for unions in tech. The most ambitious are spending 2-3 years at a job, switching jobs, and getting 20%+ pay raises as well as negotiating stock benefits and all the like. A union would do nothing for that kind of worker that they can't do in a matter of weeks by walking.

Well, Walmart non union workers still have their jobs while the ones that did unionize all lost theirs.

Well, if the States allow such practices it's super sad. Nobody gets fired when joining a union in Germany.

Railroad workers can face _prison_ here if they strike and the government doesn't want them to.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-signs-bill-block-us-r...

> WASHINGTON, Dec 2 (Reuters) - President Joe Biden signed legislation Friday to block a national U.S. railroad strike that could have devastated the American economy.

And of course, it's all for our own good!

Non-union workers get to keep their jobs with pay so low many need food stamps to survive. I think everyone loses, even the shareholders as the market for Walmart wares shrinks.

Bend the knee or perish.

What a shitshow. In Socialist Sweden this would be illegal grounds.

It's also illegal in the US as well. Just less protections, and thus harder to prove.

In capitalist Sweden with stronger labor laws.

> Does anyone really think corporate anti-union talking points are in their workers' best interest?

Yes, usually at least half the workforce.

But but but the monthly dues!!!

> Does anyone really think corporate anti-union talking points are in their workers' best interest?

Sure. What do the C-suite employees stand to gain from it other than a whole new set of headaches when they have to deal with the union?

Ideally more consistent and reliable workers, since they should be less likely to need multiple jobs to cover healthcare and rent.

"No one wants to work anymore" - [Insert most hated C exec here who has never gone hungry or had to worry about rent]

> corporations aren't fighting them for their employees' benefit.

But they are. The long-term profitability of the company is essential for ensuring the jobs of everyone. History is filled with the bankruptcies of unionized companies where the workers asked for more than what the market would support.

I hate to rain on your parade, but in my experience the union leadership were much more like a parallel track of management. They definitely played favorites and took sides in political battles to protect some people and hurt others. Everyone dreams that the unions will be neutral protectors of the workers. That wasn't what I saw.

> The long-term profitability of the company is essential for ensuring the jobs of everyone

Long-term profitability is the goal of company management? In my experience that’s often not the case. Short term profit going straight to shareholder dividend, seeking a sale at the highest possible price… Maybe I’m too cynical but it feels like these are the primary goals of corporate America these days. Boost, boost, boost then cash out. If anything a unionized workforce can help keep management on the straight and narrow path to long term profitability because unions make the short term cashouts more difficult.

I’m not going to try to claim that all union management is wonderful but a great number of employees in the US would still be in a better place represented by selfish, inefficient union bosses than left to the company’s whims.

History is filled with non unionized companies going bankrupt too, seems like an issue that affects both.

Corporations are Moloch. They do not have human interests in mine. They are setup to grow and spread like cancer. Unions at least give some grounding back to human needs rather than the never ending pursuit of profit.

Unionizing is hard. Apple blatantly roughs up organizing efforts and after months of nothing, all they get is a 'cease and desist' order.

"They're a key part in making Apple one of the most valuable companies in the world."

...

Yeah I’m not sure I agree with that statement either…

let go all of the employees that work for apple an see how long they are still in business. Don't think the CEO is making their iphones on the line

"Don't think the CEO is making their iphones on the line"

Neither are the people unionizing here...

We're talking about Apple Stores, not Apple in general. I'm sure Apple would be fine if they closed all stores.

The stores are a pretty critical component in their sales, marketing, and support cycles, and generally considered a big part of their current success.

I don't think so. Apple Stores are mostly a US thing.

Even in urban areas of America, Apple Stores are often far away in inconvenient locations. Look at the map of Apple Stores in Seattle; it's a pain in the ass to get to one without a car.

That's Apple's largest market, with 40% of sales.

They have stores in 26 countries.

More than half the people I know with Apple devices go to Apple stores for purchase & servicing. I'm from Germany.

The stores sure, but the individual retail workers definitely aren't, and are probably fairly replaceable.

> Don't think the CEO is making their iphones on the line

I didn't realize that anyone at Apple was making iPhones on the line. Last I heard it was primarily Foxconn, along with a few other companies. When did Apple get involved in the manufacture of them?

It’s actually mostly robots but (to your point) with humans at various stages.

This is a meaningless hypothetical because in no world is a highly successful company ever going to let go of all their workers. On the other hand, one can imagine in a less capital friendly world, nobody would partake in Apples 1996 junk bond offering that rescued them from bankruptcy. It's counterintuitive that a stupid investor who yolo'd their money could have a bigger impact than intelligent and hardworking workers, but that's exactly what happened. Without investment, these workers wouldn't be able to realize the potential that they had at Apple.

Virtually all companies oppose unionization. Am I to believe that all these companies are doing so out of sheer incompetence?

These companies need to remember that NLRB and unionization was an agreement to take harsh violence off the table.

In the old days, when First International and IWW was created, unionization efforts were to "set the bosses house on fire, with them in it", "pass out rifles to all workers and shoot up the bosses house", assaults, bombs.. you name it.

That's also where we have the paramilitary force, Pinkertons. They were hired by the bosses to do the same thing to the union organizers.

These companies have NO problem violating the meager federal law protections for workers. And to boot, there's basically no penalties. When things get bad enough, just watch for the "whoopsies", subvert sabotage, and direct violence against bosses and against property.

Companies have forgotten about the older pact with unions to remove violence, and then now commit economic violence (destitution, starvation, etc). Maybe they should be reminded?

Come on, nobody’s bombing Tim Cook’s house for flexible work schedules and paid parental leave at the Apple Store.

He is referring to the situation before / at the time unionization started. Modern unions are a peaceful reminder of the struggle for union rights. The US is pretty lonely among western nations in its treatment of workers right to organize and collectively bargain.

Not that I’m fully endorsing unions. In my particular part of the world (Netherlands) unions lack broad support but are the only laborers party bargaining collective labour agreements. The good thing is that those agreements are inclusive. The fun is where the unions members interest differ from genpop. You get things like union contributions paid for by employers, or worse like agreements that favor the old whom are more likely to be a member.

Oh, I was responding to this part of that comment, which is about the present day.

> Companies have forgotten about the older pact with unions to remove violence, and then now commit economic violence (destitution, starvation, etc). Maybe they should be reminded?

Sorry, following dangs guidelines and didn’t even register the not so subtle call for violence ;)

I was not calling for violence. But having companies continually violate the law, and having no real repurcussions does create a very BAD situation. People pushed into a corner react very badly.

And perhaps companies can go back to WHY the NLRB was created, and what the before-times was like. I particularly don't want to go back to that.

And you can be reminded with a history lesson and education, and not shooting up the bosses house. You all also broke HN guidance by assuming the worst of me too.

Okay, sorry again. It’s a nice conversational thread nevertheless. The interesting question is why the US followed a different trajectory irt unions than the rest of the west.

And the thing is that even people in dark corners usually don’t react darkly. That’s pretty much what saves civilization imho. That even the bottom 1% doesn’t go all out on the rest. People stand a lot of abuse and still keep their head up. I agree that workers right shouldn’t be an afterthought.

"and then now commit economic violence (destitution, starvation, etc)."

This is a new one. Thanks for sharing...

> That's also where we have the paramilitary force, Pinkertons.

Which is still around, though now a child company of Securitas.

Will you be the first to raise your guns and go to prison after?

I certainly wasn’t expecting to see a rousing defense of terrorism and violence on Hacker News today.

Let me make this blatantly clear. I am not advocating "shooting up the bosses house", arson, assault, etc.

I AM advocating education, by both employees and companies' legal council. Go study your union history. Teach it to colleagues. Understand your rights as non-union worker and union worker. And, unionize. (A company would consider that violent, given how they respond with illegal actions.)

And, you'd be surprised just how effective a PEACEFUL protest at the sidewalk at the bosses' house is. Ive seen a variation of that with a peaceful protest of our mayor doing dumb shit. The grievances got solved real quick.

> Let me make this blatantly clear. I am not advocating "shooting up the bosses house", arson, assault, etc.

So what did you mean by "Maybe they should be reminded?"

> I AM advocating education, by both employees and companies' legal council.

Reminding people of the "history" that violence and terrorism have (occasionally, arguably) been effective still comes across as an implicit threat. If you were advocating violence but trying to disingenuously pretend otherwise, you would have used the exact same words. I can and will assume good faith here, but you need to be a lot more careful about the implications of what you're saying here. Moreover, that kind of rhetoric normalizes the use of violence and terrorism to achieve social/economic/political goals.

At any rate, while we are having a dispassionate discussion of history, I would also point out that violence doesn't always work out for the left/labor side of the equation. Sometimes populists use public fear of that terrorism to justify right-wing authoritarian regimes. Sometimes those regimes start throwing the leftists out of helicopters. Sometimes catastrophic world wars break out between leftist-revolutionary dictatorships and right-populist dictatorships. And to me, the moral of that long and bloody story is that you do not normalize or advocate violence as a means of achieving social/economic/political goals.

No, it is in the best interest of companies extract as much labour value from workers for as little expenditure of payroll as possible. This is not in the best interest of the workers, however. The interests of the workers and those of the employer diverge on this point and both are working, rationally, for opposing goals.

If you’re in a fight and you have a weapon but your opponent is unarmed, of course you would oppose your opponent being given a weapon as that’s not in your best interest. Your opponent may see things differently, just as the employer and employees see things differently in this situation. Apple's opponent is currently unarmed, and Apple doesn't want to see them armed with the weapon of collective bargaining.

> Virtually all companies oppose unionization.

In the USA. It is different in other countries, it could be better in the USA also.

workers: *produce all the value*

owners: think you can negotiate? get fucked, workers!

noble bystander: hey, these workers are a key part of the value creation equation here!!

Meanwhile in China, all union except the state-driven ones are illegal.

Deng Xiaoping took away the right to go onstrike because "the communist party is owned by the worker and represents the best interest of the workers".

Same thing in Singapore. Unions were a hot bed of communism and radicalism leading to protests and riots.

Now there is one union - NTUC, and it's the only legal union.

China has raised more people out of poverty faster than any other civilization in history.

Except the people who were killed while doing it; but the fewer poor people to raise,the easier it is...

I don't think it shows this. I think it shows that companies expect unions to be a huge pain in the ass that they would go out of their way to avoid (even illegally), but it doesn't follow that unions are therefore effective at their stated purpose for the workers. That may or may not be the case.

Right. I happen to think it often is the case, but management resistance alone doesn't show it. In the world of anti-union PR where unionization hurts everyone but parasitic union organizers, we would also expect to see management resistance, so that can't distinguish between that world and ours.

Yes, but no need to exaggerate. My country has no Apple Stores and Apple is really popular here so I doubt they're key.

There was a time (the late 1990's) when Apple had relatively little access to the market outside of specialized stores and nearly zero control over how their product was presented to consumers. It wasn't so bad for maintaining the status quo since many of those stores were fiercely loyal to Apple.

I suspect that Apple looked back at what brought them to that point when they started growing again. I don't know what their thoughts regarding the specialized stores were, but I wouldn't be surprised if they blamed the larger retailers for the acceleration of their earlier downfall. Having your product first shoved to the back corner, while being shunned by salespeople who knew nothing of the product, then removed from the shelves altogether does not inspire confidence in consumers. Sure, those retailers may have been picking up Apple products when Apple turned around ... but what is to prevent a replay of the late 1990's if things cooled down again?

What I am going to suggest is that the Apple's popularity in your country is built upon Apple's popularity in other countries. While that popularity may not be the product of the Apple Store, Apple's ability to sustain that popularity likely is.

They are effective indeed, esp. as political donations go - who would've thought the carpenters union donates more to political initiatives than Oracle?

https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/top-organizat...

This doesn't seem shocking to me?

Per [0] Oracle has ~100,000 employees and $6B in income. Per [1] the United Brotherhood of Carpenters has ~500,000 members; per [2] (yes, I'm aware this doesn't cover all of the occupations represented by the union, and some members will not be in the US) they have a mean income of ~$60,000, meaning the total income represented by the union could be ~$30B. That the union barely edges Oracle for political spending suggest that they punching well below their weight, relative to income.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_Corporation [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Brotherhood_of_Carpente... [2] https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes472031.htm

Yeah but Oracle is a for-profit corporation and the union is funded by workers ... That money should be going to improve pay, benefits, working conditions, etc. Not funding political campaigns for causes the workers may not even support (its actually really difficult to even find out what/whom the Carpenter union is funding, just vague PACs). I'd rather see that money go back to the workers. Unions should disclose, if they don't already, how their money is spent (and not just 1 line item on their paycheck).

By that argument, Oracle is owned by shareholders, so that money should be either getting reinvested or returned to the shareholders, not funding political campaigns that their shareholders may not even support. (The rest of your comment can be similarly reinterpreted).

In reality, both organizations know that at the scale they operate (super-national), one of the legitimate means to advocate for their constituents' interests is to ~~bribe lawmakers~~ make political contributions, so they dedicate some of their resources to that.

That ignores individual donors. I assure you that execs and investors in oracle make up the difference.

And? You could say the same about the union. I imagine the groups individuals are donating to are way more diverse compared to the union or Oracle as a whole

Specifically Larry Ellison, who is a massive donor to right-wing political groups (and now part-owner of Twitter).

My MBA mostly pointed them to having the best marketing campaigns.

I never once read or had a discussion about the quality of the employees.

I suppose employees are the people making the marketing plans, but these aren't the people unionizing.

A huge part of the Apple marketing are their retail locations and "Geniuses." A great deal of the reason I bought my first Apple product was because of an employee in an Apple Store.

Hasn’t Apple abandoned the whole Genius thing? It seemed to me that the Genius Bar is basically gone. You can still get help, and they fix stuff, but it’s not what it was when Apple Stores opened 20 years ago.

I suspect the general level of tech competence in the public has improved combined with most sales being much simpler phones (vs computers).

Well dang, that's a huge bummer. To be fair I bought my first Apple product about 15 years ago.

apple were massively popular in canada long before we had any apple stores, and in fact I've never been to an apple store and still own apple products. I don't think what you're saying is true.

Apple stores started opening in Canada in 2005. This was two years before the introduction of the iPhone.

In like one city maybe. There's a difference between "Started opening" and actually contributing to the success of apple products. I'd bet apple sells many many many more products that they get apple store traffic.

They do now. However, iPhone sales through cell phone companies didn't start until 2007 when Apple teamed up with AT&T. A lot of their success with the iPhone started with how people experienced their products through their stores. Saying that their stores did not contribute to the success of the company would be absurd.

I highly doubt that's a huge part. My country has no Apple Stores and Apple is still very popular here.

While that is the case now, I'm talking about when the first iPhone was just about to come out. Apple barely has to bother with marketing now because of their huge success 10-15 years ago. Largely in part due to Apple stores on college campuses, in major retailers like Best Buy, and in city centers. It used to be that was the only way to learn about an Apple product. This was before the internet was widely available.

>Apple barely has to bother with marketing now because of their huge success 10-15 years ago.

What are you talking about? Apple is all over reddit, snapchat, instagram, facebook, TV/sports/youtube, they likely astroturf/hire reputation management on reddit, HN, and twitter.

The king of marketing doesnt stop, they double down.

Sounds like solid MBA logic to me. May as well lay some more people off.

But unironically if you sell Veblen goods.

You know, Apple's shareholders and corporate board could be entirely replaced by AI and it wouldn't hurt the profitability of the company... and think of all the money that could be saved! They could invest in moving their entire production line back to the USA and then wouldn't have to worry about supply chain disruptions, while also expanding their research & development division to keep ahead of the competition.

Why isn't this the top target for AI when it comes to replacing useless baggage in the corporate world?

Unfortunately you overestimate Apple's board compensation by at least 5 orders of magnitude...

Why doe Apple maintain retail stores anyway?

Having a place to go when one has a tech issue is a huge value addition for many Apple users.

Repairs can be expensive (the solutions will lean towards "replace the entire motherboard"). But help at the genius bar from a real human can also be free.

Compare this experience of what options one has if a hardware issue, or some software question, with a dell laptop.

Availability of help at Apple stores is one reason I steer non-tech relatives towards Apple products, and helps justify premium pricing.

Apple stores are a very substandard way of offering/providing support. Here is my real world example: I'm visiting my parents in suburban Pennsylvania when my laptop dies. I just looked up the nearest Apple Store, it's a 45 minute drive one-way, it would take an hour and a half in the car total just to get there, probably about $10 of gasoline too. Thankfully I had a Dell, so I called in the issue and later that day an independent repair man contracted by Dell came to my parents house and replaced the motherboard. Distance traveled by me: 0 miles.

And mind, this was in a fairly densely populated area of an east coast state in America. Apple stores are even further away in most parts of the world.

Here's another example, this time I had a macbook that needed a new battery. I was in Seattle this time, and had no car. The nearest Apple store was Apple University Village, and because I didn't have a car with me then it was a 30 minute bus trip (each way.) 1 hour total, and to make matters worse, I had to do this twice because the first time they told me they didn't even have the right battery in stock (even though I called first and had scheduled the first meeting.) So that's two full hours blown trying to get a new battery for my macbook, in one of the major tech cities of America. Abysmal!

Soo, your dell laptop died, and you decided to checkout how far away an Apple Store was? That's a very odd thing to do.

Apple Stores aren't the only way that Apple offers support, it's one of many. Just because it didn't happen to be convenient for one of your scenarios doesn't mean it's not convenient for thousands of others.

Also, from what I can tell, Onsite warranty support is a paid upgrade for Dells, not a default. I could be wrong on that, though, haven't bought a dell in a while. Apple does also support onsite warranty support for some computers if you pay more as well. So I'm really not sure what the point of your comment is.

> Soo, your dell laptop died, and you decided to checkout how far away an Apple Store was? That's a very odd thing to do.

Since I am comparing the two, it's not odd in the slightest. You're just trying to "gotcha" me without responding to the substance of my claim. To reiterate, making customers drive to an Apple store that is probably a fair distance away is substandard service. Having a repair technician come to you is the standard by which Apple's service should be judged. If Dell can do it, so could Apple. (I never buy upgraded service contracts, the Dell service was standard.)

And again, 30 minute bus ride to get to the Apple store in Seattle of all places. There is no Apple store in downtown Seattle. Apple Stores are a bad joke.

Doesn't Apple make good money on their "genius bar" services?

Because they are wildly successful and profitable?

I know I should be on the side of union organizers, but it's difficult to sympathize with them when they simultaneously try to portray themselves as David fighting Goliath, but also portray themselves as helpless victims when they get their flyers are taken down during break rooms and made to watch presentations.

I don't see a specific mention of what exactly they did that was violating the law. Employers are allowed to talk to their employees about why they don't think a union is in the best interest of everyone involved.

You are right though, it won't be a popular opinion, but a union's strength should not be impacted by taking down fliers in a break room. There are also laws saying that the company can't lie to employees about what a union could mean, but unions are not held to the same standard.

> You are right though, it won't be a popular opinion, but a union's strength should not be impacted by taking down fliers in a break room.

Why not? I don't see a way this makes sense unless we conveniently forget all about marketing, psychology and the like.

This is not some fancy new phone...this is an almost permanent obligation you are placing on the company, the employees and future employees. The decision to join a union should be placed on facts and only facts.

> This is not some fancy new phone...

Wow, so you seriously just ignore it all. Why do you think that humans are susceptible to marketing in the context of a phone, and not in unionization? Where is the difference?

> this is an almost permanent obligation you are placing on the company, the employees and future employees. The decision to join a union should be placed on facts and only facts.

Sure, but what if you suppress delivery of facts about unions while supplying your own counter-facts?

On company time/property...why is that wrong? Unions can approach employees anywhere off company property...but the company can only do it while on company property. Who has the advantage?

Now you are switching up your argument. Do you now agree that marketing etc. are also an important factor in these kinds of decisions?

> On company time/property...why is that wrong?

Earlier you said that employees should make these decisions on facts, and facts alone. It's wrong because companies have a lot of power to distort these facts because of company time/property. If you really want employees to make these decisions just on facts, why would it be bad for the company if unions are allowed to market in breakrooms etc.?

> Unions can approach employees anywhere off company property...but the company can only do it while on company property. Who has the advantage?

Very, very clearly the company. Because the company can also approach employees outside of company property, but the union can't on company property. This means the company has full control over more than half an employees waking hours, whereas unions have control over exactly nothing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com