Apple stomped all over NYC store workers' union rights, judge rules Apple destroyed union flyers and interrogated its staff in New York City about their unionization efforts, a watchdog has ruled. In a decision issued yesterday, National Labor Relations Board judge Lauren Esposito said Apple broke American employment law in an "unprecedented manner" at its World Trade Center store. As such, …
Judge rules Apple violated workers rights in an unprecedented way and the result is they have to promise not to do so again and post a notice?
I bet Apple managers will unable to sleep soundly with those harsh punishments meted out. /s
Why is Apple allowed to monitor employees on CCTV in an area designated for them to be in when they are not on the clock?
Compared to that Europe is a worker's paradise, might explain why some Americans seem to think we are all communists.
Before you stand in front of a judge investigating the case, there is the discovery phase of a trial. Both the Prosecution and the Defence are entitled to see all the evidence from the other side ahead of standing in front of the judge and, in this case, the worker's lawyers will have asked for CCTV footage from Apple themselves.
The days of springing evidence on opposing counsel are long gone.
"The days of springing evidence on opposing counsel are long gone."
Opposing counsel maybe, but every once in a while you get to spring something on the plaintiff/defendant. Alex Jones found this out when his lawyer made a colossal blunder that gave the opposing side access to way more info than they intended and the opposing lawyer seemed to really delight in twisting the knife.
But without Jones' laywers' incompetence, there would have been no evidence springing (On both levels of not sending the wrong thing or on warning Jones ahead of time about their blunder).
Officially, opposing counsel did not have this evidence sprung upon them and plaintiff's counsel followed the rules to the letter.
IMO, this is how CEOs and other C-Suiters can justify their huge compensation packages relative to employees. If the company is convicted of doing something illegal, they get to spend time in prison on behalf of the company and/or pay the fine out of their own pocket. That, or fines need to be made proportional to a company's reported gross revenue for the previous fiscal year. Start fining a company 10-15% of their annual gross revenue and shareholders will absolutely start to take notice and demand the board take action to clean house. It has the added benefit of being much more equitable. Since the fine is proportional to the company's gross revenue, it hurts small companies just as much as big ones.
You know full well that it is EXTREMELY rare for anyone high up in US companies to get more than a slap on the wrist. The Theranos thing is an outlier and it is looking less likely that SBF will face much if any music for what happened with FTX. Lots of talk, very little action.
The Theranos case is a learning opportunity for con men (no gender implied). Don't rip off the rich and powerful they will bury you. As long as you stick to denuding the peons of their meagre wealth then you will get the traditional slap on the wrist.
In the States it's even more unbalanced as the supreme court is now shown to be just as corrupt as the rest of the government. Not that anyone should be surprised, after all look who does the selecting.
Precisely my point. We change the laws so that, in exchange for making several hundred times more in compensation than the average employee at the company, they are held criminally liable on behalf of the company. I'd also accept changes so that mean a company is prohibited from doing business or even forcibly shut down if convicted of criminal activity. Since companies are considered people now, under US law, try them like a meat sack humie, and if the jury comes back with a guilty verdict and the law calls for prison time, the company is prevented from conducting any business for the duration of that sentence. If it's a capital offense, the company is forcibly liquidated.
"they are held criminally liable on behalf of the company."
You still have to prove they knew. Plausible deniability is a major part of their "training".
"Here's a memo outlining the rules that MUST be followed re: break rooms and union flyer, but, you know, *wink* *wink*, *nudge*, *nudge*, that's only what we say in writing"
> "The managers who removed the flyers can, presumably, be identified from the CCTV. They were breaking the law, they should be held personally accountable"
Whilst true, this wasn't Tim Cook going into the break room and removing the flyers. I imagine some of these 'managers' would just be one level up from the floor staff, so not exactly C-suite, and would have just been implementing directives from above rather than acting on their own initiative on behalf of Apple. Although 'only following orders' is no defence, to go after them would seem to be using them as scapegoats.
In that case, the smarter ones would have some kind of paper trail showing these directives. The really smart ones would question the legallity of these directives, in writing (and should be relatively safe even in the US of A, since firing someone for not participating in a crime doesn't go over well).
They might be able to prove they were coerced into these illegal acts. If so, those "above" could be found culpable.
The less smart will only have verbal requests from above, and won't have questioned them. These unfortunate sods will be on their own, while their managers play the "no idea what you're talking about, such requests are illegal and would never have come from me" card.
Companies are indeed "free" to exploit their workers, customers, suppliers/vendors, the legal system (courts), tax law loopholes, and law/politics itself via lobbying... anything for the Almighty Dollar (of profit) -- Corporate America in summary.
I was hoping the pandemic's economic effects (lockdowns, et cetera) would provide a bit of a reset. Aside from some firms maintaining WFH flexibility (myself included), I'm not seeing it; almost the opposite.
I'm against unions because of capitalism. The idea of unions is great. The implementation of unions is just as money grubbing, profit focused, screw-the-employee as the corporate leadership they're supposed to oppose.
Being in a union does not confer moral might or ethical enhancement. A union leadership position confers money and power, and is no different than any other political office. Sure they don't DIRECTLY get paid the money, but neither does the MP or senator who somehow comes out richer than their official salary.
The IDEA of congresscritters is great. Then why are they such a pile of garbage? Because people in general suck. People with power and or money just suck harder.
Imagine this: When Amazon employees did the same, nobody got up in arms against Amazon. It is good to see that Apple now bears the brunt for its actions. While I admit that the merchandise at Apple is more expensive than that of, say, Amazon. It would seem that the employees of what used to be "typical" stores are under the microscope. Starbucks (and others) are finally starting to gain a foothold in the rabidly anti-union companies. Companies finally realize that reasonably paid employees are as honest as salaried employees. Companies must treat all their employees the same. Mcdonald's and the others will sooner or later have to come up with things like health insurance that really is health insurance, not some warmed-over cr** That is not health insurance but a sticker put on a package of garbage. I was talking with an executive from one of the mega stores and was surprised that even the executives are not getting what a typical worker gets from even an under-500 employer gets. If they don't, expect nationalized medicine will become forthwith.
The US has a very strange relationship with employees. This video gives a wonderful view into the mind of an employer in the US who thinks it is the customers job to make up for the fact the employees are hugely underpaid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lHPqVLmYKk
It is now expected to tip the person who hands you your pizza at a takeout pizza place. Not a delivery, not dine in, just put the pizza in the box and hand it to you.
As for nationalised medicine, never gonna happen as the drug companies, insurance companies and all the administrators and CEOs are making FAR too much money. They will never give up their profits. nor will the politicians that have allowed this mess to get this bad as they love the 'lobbying'.
https://www.talktomira.com/post/how-much-does-an-epipen-cost
https://www.simpleonlinepharmacy.co.uk/online-doctor/anaphylaxis-treatment/epipen/
Basically 3-6x the cost in the USA. And not because the UK govt subsidises the cost.
Mcdonald's and the others will sooner or later have to come up with things like health insurance that really is health insurance, not some warmed-over cr** That is not health insurance but a sticker put on a package of garbage.
Oh, you were talking about health insurance. For a moment I thought you wrote health insurance but meant food.
Cognitive dissonance in action. Capitalism is the reason trade unions exist. And have to exist.
Some union bosses may well be corrupt. money grabbing bastards. I'm not so sure. If they are, they're nowhere close to the venality and moral vacuum that can be found in just about every UK or US boardroom and government.
The problem you try to describe is much rather a more general problem with the way unions (nowadays) work in the US of A.
I am not against organizing a work force to be able to stand up against corporate exploitation, but there are far too many examples of unions turning into an extortion and work-avoidance scheme.
Organizing to get fair wages, working hours, work place safety, that are all fine and noble causes. But there are also unions that are dictating who can work, how much they can work and extort businesses, like it is the case with the longshoremen and in the movie/TV business here in LA, that is something that IMHO should be avoided at all cost....
As with so much that is initially intended to help employees it eventually becomes subsumed into a legal-and-HR beaurocracy that exists only to cover the arse of the organisation. Thus health and safety law ends up being about protecting the employer from lawsuits, and union rules end up being about protecting the union instead of its members.
>Employee takes a lunch break.
>Employee reads pro-union flyer which has been used as a french fry placemat & spilled coffee coaster for the past three weeks.
>Employee decides that appeals to them and joins the union.
Seriously. Management should have just left the flyers alone until they looked like absolute garbage. Heck, management should have just declared the peon's break-room as off-limits to management and let the entire place turn in to a trash pit. I've seen enough break rooms that become a pigsty because some people are slobs and refuse to clean up after themselves. If the room is yucky enough no one will use it and see the flyers.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
