> If remote working was a point on the collective organizing table then management would be able to request mitigating actions to compensate for whatever they felt was lost because of WFH.
What you are missing is that there does not seem to be a "collective organizing table" that you speak of at Apple. An edict from above comes in saying staff need to return to office. Apple execs did not "request mitigating actions" they demanded it.
> This, on the other hand, is a single issue action, which involves no bargaining and places demands from 1 side without a corresponding opportunity to mitigate negative effects.
Any bargaining starts with needs and wants from both sides. Apple has made their demand to the employees telling them to return to office. Some employees are trying to organise to put forward a counter-demand. Apple execs could respond to said petition with an offer to come to the same table and negotiate, but it does not seem like they are at that stage yet.
What you are missing is that there does not seem to be a "collective organizing table" that you speak of at Apple. An edict from above comes in saying staff need to return to office. Apple execs did not "request mitigating actions" they demanded it.
> This, on the other hand, is a single issue action, which involves no bargaining and places demands from 1 side without a corresponding opportunity to mitigate negative effects.
Any bargaining starts with needs and wants from both sides. Apple has made their demand to the employees telling them to return to office. Some employees are trying to organise to put forward a counter-demand. Apple execs could respond to said petition with an offer to come to the same table and negotiate, but it does not seem like they are at that stage yet.