Does the unionized store have a contract with apple already? If so, it would seem like until the contract is up, apple should continue operating under the terms of that contract with respect to the unionized store.
I suppose you could say it "makes sense" if you confine your field of view to one round of bargaining at one employer who is interested in minimizing short-term labor costs. But does it even make sense for Apple managers/investors on a longer time horizon? Is it part of an approach that's good for the wider world?
For better or worse we don't globally optimize during an adversarial two party negotiation. We seek a local equilibrium. It's hard to fault apple for this since any other model would ultimately require a reorganized society to work on a long term basis. Apple can't do that unilaterally.
And as for the idea of freely giving concessions to unions to avoid bad news cycles: it's been tried and the results are not always fiscally ideal.
