William Gallagher
The National Labor Relations Board claims that Apple has violated labor laws by refusing to give union workers the same benefits as other staff.
This new accusation follows a June 2023 ruling by the board concluded that Apple's anti-union practices at its World Trade Center store were illegal. The new complaint specifically concerns the Towson store in Maryland, where union staff say Apple has been "fighting us at every step."
According to Bloomberg, a regional director of the National Labor Relations Board filed a complaint on November 21, 2023. The filing claims that Apple announced a series of new benefits for staff at Towson in October 2022, but then refused to provide the package for unionized workers.
Following that alleged exclusion, the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers (IAM), filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board. IAMAW accuses Apple of using the new benefits to discourage staff from joining a union.
Apple has not commented.
The Towson, Maryland store was the first to have its union status officially recognized by Apple. In January 2023, the IAM began negotiating with the company over pay and conditions.
Christine McKee
Stephen Silver
Charles Martin
Malcolm Owen
24 Comments
Total Bullshit. Apple employees have the best pay/benefit plan in the industry. These idiots haven't a clue and are damaging the employment of their coworkers. They need to quit and go work at Starbucks or their nearest supermarket. They'd be better off bagging groceries.
Did the union workers have a contract for the benefits they received? If so, how can it be illegal for Apple to meet the terms of that contract? Or did the contract include a provision that says "we get any benefits anyone else does" as well?
If negotiations are ongoing for a collective bargaining agreement any current benefits are status quo and won’t change. Any new benefits must be negotiated for via the CBA. Apple did nothing wrong here.
I thought the purpose of a union contract was to lock in benefits with an employer so the employer couldn't make arbitrary changes. If you're a union employee, the contract says what you get. Isn't it disingenuous for a union employee whose benefits are defined and secured to say, "Wait a second. I also want what non-employees are getting"? Shouldn't those be negotiated? [Note: I've worked in the vicinity of union employees but have never been a union employee. My lesson from that experience was never to do any part of the union employee's job or suffer a grievance – even if they're not doing it.]