Well, it is an anti-union tactic. You're selecting which employees get [new positive thing] based on whether or not they're in a union. If they want to avoid such light they should only base the additions off department/team.

I do agree that they should be focusing on renegotiations, what's currently happening is they're letting a lot of reporters get away with framing the situation as a "loss" for the union.

I don't fully grasp your irritation regarding the focus on the union itself, it's supposed to be a representation of the workers as a baseline.

Its not anti-union, its just how contracts works.

If union negotiates X,Y,Z into their contract and a year later the company offers an upgraded Z2, the union doesn't get it because it’s not in their contract.

That’s just how labor negotiations work.

Generally, companies don't have to ask unions for approval for anything that is universally beneficial for the union members, obviously no one would say no to improvements. Union contracts are there to stop changes that might be hurtful for the members, not benefits.

Have you participated in a real union somewhere before and read through the bylaws and such?

I have been a member of a union and I know how collective bargaining works.

An employer is never going to give a union a freebie. Just like a union would never give the employer a freebie. Why? Because the very nature of a union involves bargaining over a fixed contract for a period of time.

And every time a new contract negotiation happens the union will want X and the employer will want Y. Why would either side give the other something without getting something in return? That's just bad negotiation.

They haven't negotiated a contract yet. Apple, completely by coincidence I'm sure, announced these new bennefits that union workers won't get a few days before the Oklahoma store voted to unionize.

How do you know the union workers wont get those benefits if a contract hasn’t been signed?