Picketers outside proposed Apple Store on Walnut
Picketers outside 1607 Walnut Street. Photo taken by Hughe Dillon.
Laborers’ union members are picketing the Apple Store-to-be at 1607 Walnut Street, according to the above camera photo from Philadelphia’s paparazzi legend Hugh Dillon.
“[The picketers are] against owners of [those] prepping the [building] for the Apple lease,” reports Dillon. “They [are] using non-union workers. They stress it’s not against Apple, as Apple is using union workers.”
In December we reported that this, the first official Apple store to be located in the city, was hiring.
11 Responses to “Picketers outside proposed Apple Store on Walnut”
Leave a Reply
Streetsmart on February 8th, 2010
Great to see the unions supporting economic development in Philly. Not sure why anyone outside the city would be reluctant to open a business here. And by the way – no, it ain’t like this everywhere else. Scare businesses away – raise taxes on the remaining residents and businesses – that’s our recipe for success? Genius. When’s the next Bolt bus outta town?
Brian on February 8th, 2010
what a-holes.. so nobody in the city can shop around for the best price, lets just open our bank accounts to the goddamn union prices…
get a clue unions
concerned on February 8th, 2010
I’m concerned about the attitude both Streetsmart and Brian have. It concerns me even greater that this is the opinion larger shared by the tech community and the entrepreneurs paving new grounds in this city.
The article was clear, they’re not picketing against apple, apple products, or apply supplies, they’re standing up against unfair (and most likely unsafe) working conditions.
I’m surprised so many in the tech industry don’t support such actions. We’re in an industry where we’re constantly expected to work long hours and weekends, without compensation. We’re forced into tools and processes which we know to be counterproductive. We essentially get bought off by larger corporations, to concede writes to us granted by labor laws.
I’m not saying unions are perfect. Anyone who has studied the history of labor unions in the US knows that they have been plagued with problems ranging from poor leadership, to mob-controlled money laundering operations.
The point is simple: unions have fought long and hard so that we can enjoy our weekends and work eight hour days. They fought so we can get access to acceptable conditions and fair compensations for our operations. The game of capitalism is exploitation. You have to exploit something, that’s how you make it in the market.
Collectively, we exploit emerging technology, but that doesn’t mean everyone follows the same trend. In fact, it’s easy to pull many examples across industries where people and the natural resources of developing countries are the items that get exploited.
Rather than complain about unions, or make weak arguments about how they’re hurting business or your ability to participate in the market as a consumer, I challenge you to shape the unions.
I for one, never feel settled unless I’m constantly agitating something: from bending and developing new technologies, to fostering new social movements.
Imagine if everyone at IndyHall unionized… or if PSL was a cooperative institution like a credit union. Well hell, that’s some power that could push and pull local politics however it saw fit. It also means that we could enroll in cheap health insurance plans, and really foster new company growth by removing some barriers to entry.
We’ve already seen the power our local community (ie: Philly being listed as a top startup city).
Just food for thought. And I invite anyone to continue the conversation on here or on another location.
gray67 on February 8th, 2010
You presume that unions are able to change. As we have seen over and over again, unions are the antithesis of change. Any system based on seniority pretty much means that the people in charge will be those who have the longest time at the institution, which means that they have the most to lose when it comes to new skillsets. Unions are a throwback to guild mentality, where the most experienced workers produced the “best” products. And how well do you think the typical guild responded to changes in technology that either reduced the time it took to produce their product or made it possible to improve the product through unskilled labor?
I’ll support unions when they start showing that they are receptive to change and are willing to adapt to new technologies that obsolete some jobs but potentially open up others. The whole point of a union should not be to preserve as many jobs as humanly possible by slowing down progress. They should be at the FOREFRONT of new technologies and processes, showing how union labor means higher skilled, better trained workers. Instead, you have the stereotypical five man crew where one guy works and four supervise. Why? Because the four guys supervising have “paid their dues” and should be paid $30/hr to stand around bitching about how they don’t get paid enough and occasionally yelling at the poor sap in the hole doing the digging.
Furthermore, show me a union that is receptive to new membership. I’m not talking about mass recruitment campaigns – I’m talking about some guy off the street who isn’t related by blood or politics to a union member who can join the plumbers’ union as an apprentice. It doesn’t happen. Why? Cause the unions (like the guilds) want to keep everything in the family. Well we all know what happens when you keep everything in the family – you get inbreeding and thus the consistent dumbing down of each successive generation.
Unions can go rot for all I care. Yea, they had their day. And yea they did do a lot to help make work more fair. But those glory days are behind them.
concerned on February 8th, 2010
Clearly, you feel very strongly about this discussion gray67, I’m excited to see that.
While you and I differ on the views of labor, I appreciate you bringing your view to the discussion, because it’s an important one to be heard.
You open up your reply by saying, “You presume that unions are able to change.” The point you then deliver is that unions have little or no momentum to adapt because of their rooting in family ties, and worse, they lack the motivation to change this.
This is a very real problem in unions, but I disagree with their inability to change. Take for example, New York City, which has seen a complete overhaul of some of their largest unions. They are now under completely new leadership, and forging a new path for that city.
I’d also like to draw similarities to the current business atmosphere Philadelphia. There is no side-stepping that business communities are established networks of connections and relationships. Entry into these networks is difficult, and usually involves paying dues (something as small as an introduction, to something as large as spending a lot of money to make your venture appear flashy and successful). There is no room for the little guy, unless it looks like you’re going to be an all-star or make someone else in the network wealthy.
But the scene here in Philadelphia has changed. Enter DreamIt (the bridge into this network), PSL (the grassroots program and community), IndyHall, and others.
Specifically, I’d like to use PSL as my example. Here is a decentralized group, with a strong mission statement and an autonomous community. They decided to forge their own community, rather than jump hurdles to make it into the established business community. So much momentum has built up behind PSL that it’s now a prominent force, that is leveraged by the pre-existing community.
There is nothing stopping anyone from forging a new idea, for political or community reasons. If you hate the current union, fine, get a group of people together, create a charter, and apply to be recognized as a union. And if you get turned down because of a pre-existing union is too similar, then you take to reorganization. You use the same unionizing tactics to restructure the union, and swing union members to your side, one by one.
Later in your reply you, you lay a claim that the unions “should be at the FOREFRONT of new technologies and processes.” I agree with you, they most certainly should. But the people developing such technologies have to be considering the unions as their customers. Any great business person will tell you: have a strong go-to-market strategy, be clear and concise about proposition value. If your company targets end-consumers, and not unionized workers, then we can’t expect unions to somehow magically adapt their consumerism. That’s not how capitalist markets operate (although it’d be amazing to witness this, a true feat of consumerism evolution).
Later in the same section, you make a common argument about “one guy with a shovel, four catching a tan.” I won’t spend too much time here, because I think in general it is a weak argument, for no other reason than it is a question and study in motivation. That’s not to say your observation is incorrect, it most certainly can be seen, but you’re employing a sweeping generalization fallacy.
Again, I think people are trending to arguing about specific instances or locals of unions, and less about unionized labor and its purpose.
Multiple people have effectively established the point that there are problems with modern unions, but this is improving daily (again, take a look at recent changes in NYC).
The point is unions serve a strong purpose, and that’s to keep exploitation from reaching the mass population again. Our major cities were built on union labor, children no longer have to sweat in crawl spaces, I can deny working any uncompensated hours, I get to enjoy my weekends, I can pursue any tasks outside of work that I want to, I can expect my employer not put me in dangerous conditions, and so on. We owe our modern working atmosphere to the struggle early unions fought, and I for one will not let their efforts go to waste or go unnoticed.
Furthermore, unions showed this country what grassroots, bottom-up, community based organizing was capable of. We’ve now adapted that knowledge to show what sort of bottom-up decentralized organize can achieve.
This is less about saving a dollar and more about participation. In a country where money rules politics, I’d like a strong say in how money and labor get used. I’d like to think that everyone else who embraces democracy would like a fair say in those things as well.
armando on February 8th, 2010
as if unions aren’t capitalist entities themselves….
concerned on February 8th, 2010
There was no argument made to suggest they aren’t.
It is again an agreement of motivation. Is the union being led by a someone concerned with getting rich, or labor. If it’s the former (which it often is the case in crippling locals), then you have a real problem (which has been discussed in other replies).
I challenge you to expand upon your reply. Bonus points if you rope in credit unions. Extra bonus points and space bucks if you use PFCU as your example.
Streetsmart on February 8th, 2010
Concerned – the “Unfair/unsafe” mantra is used on every union picket line and it simply means there’s a non-union shop operating. If truly unsafe, OSHA or L&I would stop the job. The only thing ‘unfair or unsafe’ is that the union shops aren’t working this particular aspect of the job.
Interesting discussion points, so let’s discuss. Few question the benefits unions have brought to the American worker (5-day workweek, safer working conditions, workers comp, employee-healthcare, among others), but the bigger problem is this – Philly’s construction unions in particular (note – I’m not talking hospitality/service unions, etc., but specifically the building trades here in Philly) have an expectation that construction is only done by union workers. Their compensation (looking nationally now, as I have done analysis for a variety of agencies and organizations) is extreme for the Philadelphia real estate market. Cities like NYC, Chicago, and San Francisco have high R/E costs and can pay high construction labor costs. Here, low R/E costs and high construction labor costs make business prospect here not net out. Anyway – as a result – businesses leave the city or just decide Philly’s not the place for them. So – in a world where jobs can go anywhere (not only to India, but just over the city line) – yes – the high cost union construction and the picket lines and the inflatable rat is adversely affecting Philadelphia’s ability to thrive.
concerned on February 8th, 2010
Narrowing the argument to just the construction union here in Philly is a discussion worth having.
Now we’re talking the mismanagement of a single union.
I support labor unions across the board, but I am often upset and sometimes disgusted at the construction union’s inability to put community and people before cost and convenience. Conditions for a single group only get better if everyone works to make them better.
Back the the “unfair and unsafe”:
This is a hairy line to argue against. Even in union jobs (related to construction), there is a recent trend to bend the rules, and work in dangerous conditions to win bids on contracts. A fine example are high rise window washers here. One oh whom recently lost their life because it was too windy to safely do the job, but the union was unwilling to give up the bid.
It’s not even if the conditions ARE unsafe at this current site. If no one challenges it, and certain people are able to exploit it, it’ll be exploited, because that’s what a smart business person would do. We live in a profit driven system, not a people driven system.
I see actions like this one less about the particular instance, and more about keeping awareness up.
Again, I’d like to be clear. I do think the construction union here is poorly managed and the members of that union would do good to reorganize and take back control, via mass participation.
Andrew T on February 9th, 2010
I’d be curious to see how much cheaper the company is prepping the building using non-union as opposed to union work. A plumber came to fix something in my apartment a few months back. He was independent and charged $80 an hour. He said $120/hour rates are standard for unions.
concerned on February 8th, 2010
gah, that should say “argument” not “agreement”