April 14, 2026
mrsiraphol/Depositphotos.com
Should Apple be Closing its First Unionized Store?
Apple is closing its first-ever unionized location in Maryland — one of only two globally — and faces charges that the location’s closure came about because the store’s workers had formed a union.
In 2020, over 100 Apple employees at the Towson Town Center store in Maryland voted to join the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers (IAM) union. The move was touted as a historic win for organized labor, with unionization activity afterwards seeing a revival.
Starbucks’ first unionized store didn’t arrive until 2021, and now approximately 5% of its U.S. locations are unionized. The first REI and Trader Joe’s unionized stores arrived in 2022, and now 11 REI and four Trader Joe’s have unionized. A second Apple store unionized in Oklahoma City in 2022, and both locations have secured contracts with Apple.
Apple also announced it was closing two other stores — at Trumbull Mall in Trumbull, Connecticut, and The Shops at North County at Escondido, California. It insisted that all closures were tied to each mall’s deteriorating condition.
In a statement to MacRumors, Apple said: “Following the departure of several retailers and declining conditions at Trumbull Mall, the Shops at North County, and Towson Town Center, we’ve made the difficult decision to close our stores at these locations.”
At Towson Town Center, a Tommy Bahama location closed last December — and a Banana Republic, Madewell, and Wockenfuss Candies exited this year. A report from the Baltimore Sun said the mall “suffered in recent years from youth violence,” but also cited “regional experts” calling out tariffs and inflationary pressures as potential causes of the closings.
Apple said Trumbull and North County staffers will be able to continue their roles at nearby Apple stores while Towson employees “will be eligible to apply for open roles at Apple in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement.”
🧵The IAM Union is outraged by @Apple's decision to close its Towson, Md., store—the first unionized U.S. Apple retail location—and abandon both its workers and a community that relies on it for critical services and its unique access to public transit. https://t.co/T0hmuQoBRi
— IAM Union (@IAM_Union) April 9, 2026
In a statement following the announcement, IAM representatives said they were “outraged” that Apple would “abandon both its workers and a community that relies on it for critical services and its unique access to public transit.”
The union further said Apple’s claim that the collective bargaining agreement prevents employees from relocating to other stores ”is simply false and raises serious concerns that this closure is a cynical attempt to bust the union.”
Apple Not Alone in Facing Scrutiny Over Closure of Unionized Stores
Apple is not the only store accused of closing stores to prevent unionization pushes.
REI was charged with union busting last October after announcing the planned closure of unionized stores in Boston and New York City. Trader Joe’s in 2022 was similarly accused after closing its only wine shop in New York City just days before a union election. Both retailers indicated the stores had been underperforming.
Starbucks faced charges of union busting last September after announcing plans to close more than 400 stores, included 59 unionized locations. In March of this year, the coffee chain heard the same accusations after revealing plans to close another five stores in its hometown of Seattle, including four unionized cafes. Starbucks has said each stores’ union status was not a factor in their shutdowns.
“Starbucks continues to fail its hometown,” the union said in the statement about the recent Seattle closings. “After laying off thousands of corporate employees, opening a new office in Nashville, and closing its flagship stores, CEO Brian Niccol is yet again upending the lives of employees and disrupting customers with no notice or justification.”
Starbucks, Trader Joe’s and REI have yet to finalize any contracts with unionized workers.
BrainTrust
Neil Saunders
Managing Director, GlobalData
Scott Benedict
Founder & CEO, Benedict Enterprises LLC
Cathy Hotka
Principal, Cathy Hotka & Associates
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
What’s the likelihood that Towson Town Center’s unionized status was a major factor in deciding to close the store? Should it be?
Do you see such a closure as a potential blow to store employee morale across the chain?
Poll
Loading …
The closure of Apple’s Towson Town Center location should be viewed first and foremost through the lens of retail fundamentals, not labor retaliation. Apple has been clear that the decision was tied to declining mall conditions and the departure of other retailers, and notably, Towson was one of three mall-based stores closed at the same time, including non-union locations. That context matters. Retailers routinely evaluate store performance, traffic trends, and long-term viability, and mall-based stores across the industry have been under pressure for years.
That said, the unionized status of the store inevitably raises questions. Labor groups have argued the move could be retaliatory, but from a practical retail standpoint, it is far more consistent with a broader pattern of portfolio optimization and shifting away from underperforming mall locations. In other words, while the optics are complicated, the underlying driver appears to be real estate performance and changing consumer traffic patterns, not an intentional effort to punish organized labor activity.
From a morale standpoint, any store closure can create uncertainty across the organization. Employees may question whether other locations are at risk or whether external factors—like unionization—play a role in decision-making. However, the impact is likely contained if leadership communicates clearly that closures are tied to business performance and strategic priorities. Apple’s broader investment in new stores and continued retail expansion helps reinforce that this is not a retreat from retail, but a reallocation of resources.
Ultimately, this situation reflects a broader retail reality: stores close when they no longer meet performance expectations, regardless of other factors. While the union angle adds complexity to the narrative, the more likely explanation is that this was a legitimate business decision tied to a struggling mall environment. The key for Apple—and any retailer in a similar position—is ensuring transparency, so employees understand the “why” behind the decision and remain confident in the long-term health of the business.
I understand why business tycoons want to retain as much wealth as possible. I don’t understand why they think their store associates should make as little money as possible.
Scott Benedict’s thoughts are likely accurate, but this story keeps playing out around the country. Coincidence? I think not.
So let’s just it is because they unionized. Shouldn’t they have done better than other stores because they had so much benefit? Does this say something about when the numbers drop? Let’s say it is all the mall. Other brands are dropping left and right. Does this show Apple kept the store open longer than they should? I think the closure is more because of the mall than anything.
We don’t, and likely never will, know the “real” reason – assuming it’s other than what they claim – but we do know it’s bad optics.
It might make for good headlines to blame these closures on unionization, but if you analyze the foot traffic figures for the locations in question it is evident that they have been in decline for some time. There is also uncertainty over the future of some of the locations. Apple is simply doing what every good retailer should: regularly pruning locations to get rid of underperforming shops before they become an issue. That’s unfortunate for those that work there, but it’s prudent business.
The union has to make a lot of noise about it, but it isn’t about whether the store should close or not. Do you think there was a discussion with Apple on how to keep the store open? Probably not, because the union would have come to the same conclusion. Close this store, just like some of the other non-performing stores.
The center is in decline. The departure of core tenants and the decline in foot traffic were certainly critical factors in Apple’s decision. That said, the presence of the union likely influenced just how long and how much investment Apple made in any turnaround strategy for the store.
The question for Apple team members, union and non-union, is how collective bargaining can really shield against the impact of business decisions.
For Apple, the key is to be transparent about its actions and to support the brand’s carefully curated image of a premium, employee-friendly workplace. Transparency here means more than a press release — it means proactively communicating to the remaining store teams how location decisions are made, which metrics were considered, and what support looks like when a store closes. For a high-touch segment like tech sales, Apple needs happy team members to deliver its legendary friendly service.
Retail location closure can be a blow to morale, especially if there’s no vision for next steps. But retail businesses are open to make a profit. Yes, serving the community, and brand presence are important too. If foot traffic is off, sales are off, rent and labor costs have increased, the cost of theft is unsustainable, retail businesses have the right to close.
Be assured, despite all the noise, a retailer is not going to close a store if it is performing…union or not.
More Discussions
Are ‘Better-For-You’ Product Tweaks Enough To Anchor a Kraft Heinz Turnaround?
Can Kraft Heinz continue its upward trajectory by tweaking its legacy lineup to match today’s tastes?What Could a RadioShack Retail Comeback Look Like?
RadioShack appears to be mounting some degree of growth in B2B and DTC.Will Increased AI Security Halt the Selective Rollback of Self-Checkouts?
Can computer-driven, AI-based security improvements help to lessen self-checkout rollbacks?
The closure of Apple’s Towson Town Center location should be viewed first and foremost through the lens of retail fundamentals, not labor retaliation. Apple has been clear that the decision was tied to declining mall conditions and the departure of other retailers, and notably, Towson was one of three mall-based stores closed at the same time, including non-union locations. That context matters. Retailers routinely evaluate store performance, traffic trends, and long-term viability, and mall-based stores across the industry have been under pressure for years.
That said, the unionized status of the store inevitably raises questions. Labor groups have argued the move could be retaliatory, but from a practical retail standpoint, it is far more consistent with a broader pattern of portfolio optimization and shifting away from underperforming mall locations. In other words, while the optics are complicated, the underlying driver appears to be real estate performance and changing consumer traffic patterns, not an intentional effort to punish organized labor activity.
From a morale standpoint, any store closure can create uncertainty across the organization. Employees may question whether other locations are at risk or whether external factors—like unionization—play a role in decision-making. However, the impact is likely contained if leadership communicates clearly that closures are tied to business performance and strategic priorities. Apple’s broader investment in new stores and continued retail expansion helps reinforce that this is not a retreat from retail, but a reallocation of resources.
Ultimately, this situation reflects a broader retail reality: stores close when they no longer meet performance expectations, regardless of other factors. While the union angle adds complexity to the narrative, the more likely explanation is that this was a legitimate business decision tied to a struggling mall environment. The key for Apple—and any retailer in a similar position—is ensuring transparency, so employees understand the “why” behind the decision and remain confident in the long-term health of the business.
I understand why business tycoons want to retain as much wealth as possible. I don’t understand why they think their store associates should make as little money as possible.
Scott Benedict’s thoughts are likely accurate, but this story keeps playing out around the country. Coincidence? I think not.
So let’s just it is because they unionized. Shouldn’t they have done better than other stores because they had so much benefit? Does this say something about when the numbers drop? Let’s say it is all the mall. Other brands are dropping left and right. Does this show Apple kept the store open longer than they should? I think the closure is more because of the mall than anything.
We don’t, and likely never will, know the “real” reason – assuming it’s other than what they claim – but we do know it’s bad optics.
It might make for good headlines to blame these closures on unionization, but if you analyze the foot traffic figures for the locations in question it is evident that they have been in decline for some time. There is also uncertainty over the future of some of the locations. Apple is simply doing what every good retailer should: regularly pruning locations to get rid of underperforming shops before they become an issue. That’s unfortunate for those that work there, but it’s prudent business.
The union has to make a lot of noise about it, but it isn’t about whether the store should close or not. Do you think there was a discussion with Apple on how to keep the store open? Probably not, because the union would have come to the same conclusion. Close this store, just like some of the other non-performing stores.
The center is in decline. The departure of core tenants and the decline in foot traffic were certainly critical factors in Apple’s decision. That said, the presence of the union likely influenced just how long and how much investment Apple made in any turnaround strategy for the store.
The question for Apple team members, union and non-union, is how collective bargaining can really shield against the impact of business decisions.
For Apple, the key is to be transparent about its actions and to support the brand’s carefully curated image of a premium, employee-friendly workplace. Transparency here means more than a press release — it means proactively communicating to the remaining store teams how location decisions are made, which metrics were considered, and what support looks like when a store closes. For a high-touch segment like tech sales, Apple needs happy team members to deliver its legendary friendly service.
Retail location closure can be a blow to morale, especially if there’s no vision for next steps. But retail businesses are open to make a profit. Yes, serving the community, and brand presence are important too. If foot traffic is off, sales are off, rent and labor costs have increased, the cost of theft is unsustainable, retail businesses have the right to close.
Be assured, despite all the noise, a retailer is not going to close a store if it is performing…union or not.