> Yeah, but it’s good for workers. The union members sacrifice for the greater good and are still benefiting the worker (just jot them). So they are resulting in better worker benefits.

In the short term it's good for the workers. After it kills off the union, it'll go back to being bad.

But anyone can still unionize at any time, so it isn't much lost.

LOL, LMAO

It's hard to form a union in the US. Companies do things like retaliating against organizers, messing with the election process, forcing workers to sit through mandatory HR briefings etc. Most unionization attempts are fought by companies who refuse to give countenance to the idea that employees should be able to delegate the business of negotiation. American business practice is to keep employees feeling as if they're in competition to each other for the affections of management. The moment workers try to avail themselves of the benefits of a corporate model (specialization, delegation, efficiency) it's treated as some sort of betrayal.

Fine then, forming a union for apple employees would be no harder than it was before.

> Fine then, forming a union for apple employees would be no harder than it was before.

Which was, very hard. It takes a long time and a lot of effort.

> American business practice is to keep employees feeling as if they're in competition to each other for the affections of management

… they literally are in competition with each other, though.

If I provide more value to my employer than other employees, I’m worth more, and can negotiate for more.

It depends on the job. If you're part of a team then cohesion and harmony matter as well.

Aren't Apple's retail workers relatively well off in most ways? (compared to others in similar jobs obviously)