Apple Employees Continue to Fight Return to Campuses and Push for Better Remote Working Options

[pdoherty]

Might be a harsh new reality for some employees to gain that freedom of not coming into the office. Seems like it's a good trade-off. And of course you are being paid according to your zip code.

Their wages were set at least partially based on the cost-of-living where they were hired and reporting into work, so it shouldn’t really be a surprise when the company won’t just let them keep that higher pay when the employees vacate for cheaper places to live and WFH.

 

[DeepWebinar]

You can argue all you want about the reasons for remote working, but at the end of the day, it will be about performance in both the company and the employee. I think some perform well remotely, and others absolutely do not. It will probably be evaluated on a team by team basis

I think the concern that Apple will lose valuable employees is not as big of an issue as it’s being made out. Anecdotally and ironically, my friends (engineers, business analysts, designers) that work at Apple want to go back due to distractions at home.

Again, you care about the company, I care about the people. The more you type, the more it becomes painfully apparent. I disagree wholly with your values on this.

 

[I7guy]

Again, you care about the company, I care about the people. The more you type, the more it becomes painfully apparent. I disagree wholly with your values on this.

I’ve read some these posts and in the end the company employs the person, not the other way around. Employees that find their current company is not a good fit anymore thankfully have options.

 

[ipponrg]

Again, you care about the company, I care about the people. The more you type, the more it becomes painfully apparent. I disagree wholly with your values on this.

I care about both actually. I lead a team of mostly remote (per-pandemic) domestic software engineers, so I recognize the pros/cons of remote working. If it wasn’t obvious already, there is a middle ground hence why I said “team by team basis” because not everyone performs well in that environment.

 

[DeepWebinar]

I care about both actually. I lead a team of mostly remote (per-pandemic) domestic software engineers, so I recognize the pros/cons of remote working. If it wasn’t obvious already, there is a middle ground hence why I said “team by team basis” because not everyone performs well in that environment.

You can’t possibly care about both. The needs of each are diametrically opposed. A company’s goal is to exploit the labor of its employees in the most profitable way and your job is to keep them in line.

 

[DeepWebinar]

I’ve read some these posts and in the end the company employs the person, not the other way around. Employees that find their current company is not a good fit anymore thankfully have options.

Thank you for confirming that you care about companies, not people. I have nothing else to say to you.

 

[Abazigal]

And Google are trying to cut pay by up to 25% if their employees work from home. https://www.news.com.au/finance/wor...e/news-story/0f9e3a145f2cf5fdbf7155ac54985ee5

Kinda saw that coming. Part of the high wages was really to offset the high costs of living in Silicon Valley. Take that away, and there really is no reason for these tech companies to pay as much as they do when your expenses are lower elsewhere.

 

[I7guy]

Thank you for confirming that you care about companies, not people. I have nothing else to say to you.

People forget they are employed by companies to do a job. If one doesn’t like the direction the company is headed and the employee isn’t getting the fulfillment they want, then stick it out or leave. Really simple concept. I'm discussing professional, exempt jobs here.

 

[Abazigal]

You can’t possibly care about both. The needs of each are diametrically opposed. A company’s goal is to exploit the labor of its employees in the most profitable way and your job is to keep them in line.

Responses like this is how I imagine there are people who not only work 2 jobs remotely, but also openly skive and feel utterly remorseless about it. They think the company owes them a living, and if they can't get what they want from their job, they take what they feel they are entitled to.

Go read this story of tech workers who secretly work multiple remote jobs

It’s a risky bet

www.theverge.com

I can only say, if I were a boss, I would have no desire to keep people with such an adversarial mindset around on my payroll, who are actively acting against the interests of my company, and I can only hope they do not have such a "us vs them" mindset in their next job where they think the company is constantly out to get them.

 

[I7guy]

[...] and your job is to keep them in line.

Employees who think this way are not long term thinkers, not team players. If you believe your job is to keep your employer in-line, then go start your own business and be the boss.

 

[pdoherty]

Kinda saw that coming. Part of the high wages was really to offset the high costs of living in Silicon Valley. Take that away, and there really is no reason for these tech companies to pay as much as they do when your expenses are lower elsewhere.

Yep not sure why people are surprised when their wages, set to the CoL environment their offices were located in, will be adjusted to their new CoL when they move away to take advantage of WFH and cheaper housing.

 

[DeepWebinar]

Employees who think this way are not long term thinkers, not team players. If you believe your job is to keep your employer in-line, then go start your own business and be the boss.

Oof.

“Team player” and “long-term thinker” are terms fit for a boss/company, but don’t align with, nor are ever used in favor of, the employee’s needs. What is the company’s requirement to be a team player in the employees life? If an employee needs money due to issues with personal finances, say an unexpected medical bill or expense, is the expectation for the company to supply it on request? No. But why not? They have it, how are they being a team player? If an employee is fired, how will they pay their bills or have access to healthcare? Where’s the long-term thinking in their life?

You acknowledge in your language that the relationship is one of the employee being at the whim the company, and if they don’t like it, they can leave. You frame this as an exercise of free will on the employee’s part, obviously if they objected they would leave, but in a market where every company treats their employees like this, there are no options. Just different versions of this relationship, at different pay rates, working for different companies interests.

Companies and bosses are there to extract labor for profit and employees have to enforce boundaries, demand better conditions, and stand up for themselves in the increasingly limited spaces where that’s possible. No company or team is any different.

But you’re right, if I were a boss, I might think like a boss. But I’m not and I have no desire to ever be one.

Signed,
Someone who isn’t a “long-term thinker” or “team player” and yet has been a valued employee in the 4 jobs I’ve worked for the past 16 years

 

[DeepWebinar]

Responses like this is how I imagine there are people who not only work 2 jobs remotely, but also openly skive and feel utterly remorseless about it. They think the company owes them a living, and if they can't get what they want from their job, they take what they feel they are entitled to.

Go read this story of tech workers who secretly work multiple remote jobs

It’s a risky bet

www.theverge.com

I can only say, if I were a boss, I would have no desire to keep people with such an adversarial mindset around on my payroll, who are actively acting against the interests of my company, and I can only hope they do not have such a "us vs them" mindset in their next job where they think the company is constantly out to get them.

You know nothing about me or anything that I think or do and this response was baseless, overly emotional, and an unnecessarily rude attack.

My turn:

Responses like this are how I assume people who are corporate shills would respond. The kind of person with no backbone or sense of self. They think that their only responsibility is to cover their own needs and they are happy to leave anyone below them to starve because they’re bad people and total cowards. I can only say, if I met someone like this, I would have no desire to talk to them, befriend them, or engage with their childish insults.

Go ahead and report this comment, it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been attacked on this site/thread for disagreeing then reported for responding. I hope I’ve demonstrated that its not okay when people turn your position on something into an attack on their character.

 

[DeepWebinar]

People forget they are employed by companies to do a job. If one doesn’t like the direction the company is headed and the employee isn’t getting the fulfillment they want, then stick it out or leave. Really simple concept. I'm discussing professional, exempt jobs here.

Not when the entire job market operates in exactly the same way.

And those aren’t all the options, you’re forgetting about organizing, unionizing, making reasonable demands, and leveraging collective power.

 

[Abazigal]

You know nothing about me or anything that I think or do and this response was baseless, overly emotional, and an unnecessarily rude attack.

My turn:

Responses like this are how I assume people who are corporate shills would respond. The kind of person with no backbone or sense of self. They think that their only responsibility is to cover their own needs and they are happy to leave anyone below them to starve because they’re bad people and total cowards. I can only say, if I met someone like this, I would have no desire to talk to them, befriend them, or engage with their childish insults.

Go ahead and report this comment, it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been attacked on this site/thread for disagreeing then reported for responding. I hope I’ve demonstrated that its not okay when people turn your position on something into an attack on their character.

You seem to imagine I would be offended by this sort of remark.

I am not, I see nothing offensive about what I said, and that’s why I made it in the first place.

 

[DeepWebinar]

You seem to imagine I would be offended by this sort of remark.

I am not, I see nothing offensive about what I said, and that’s why I made it in the first place.

Maybe you didn’t understand it.

 

[I7guy]

Oof.

“Team player” and “long-term thinker” are terms fit for a boss/company, but don’t align with, nor are ever used in favor of, the employee’s needs. What is the company’s requirement to be a team player in the employees life? If an employee needs money due to issues with personal finances, say an unexpected medical bill or expense, is the expectation for the company to supply it on request? No. But why not? They have it, how are they being a team player? If an employee is fired, how will they pay their bills or have access to healthcare? Where’s the long-term thinking in their life?

You acknowledge in your language that the relationship is one of the employee being at the whim the company, and if they don’t like it, they can leave. You frame this as an exercise of free will on the employee’s part, obviously if they objected they would leave, but in a market where every company treats their employees like this, there are no options. Just different versions of this relationship, at different pay rates, working for different companies interests.

Companies and bosses are there to extract labor for profit and employees have to enforce boundaries, demand better conditions, and stand up for themselves in the increasingly limited spaces where that’s possible. No company or team is any different.

But you’re right, if I were a boss, I might think like a boss. But I’m not and I have no desire to ever be one.

Signed,
Someone who isn’t a “long-term thinker” or “team player” and yet has been a valued employee in the 4 jobs I’ve worked for the past 16 years

It's up to the employer to foster an environment where employees thrive. But my point simply is it's a team effort, and the employers should do what they can within the bounds of the culture of the company. More power to those companies whose culture has that flexibility...some companies do and some don't. Sometimes it works better for a company to have their staff work onsite. But if the employer says no to a more flexible WFH policy and that decision doesn't suit the employee the employee has to make some decisions.

Saying you're a valued employee, and I'm glad you are, has little do with the premise of this discussion.

 

[I7guy]

Not when the entire job market operates in exactly the same way.

And those aren’t all the options, you’re forgetting about organizing, unionizing, making reasonable demands, and leveraging collective power.

The entire job market isn't operating in exactly the same way. Somewhere in one of the threads I did make mention that the comments referred to professional, exempt employees.

 

[Arran]

Employees who think this way are not long term thinkers, not team players. If you believe your job is to keep your employer in-line, then go start your own business and be the boss.

Ahem. The rules of the game changed. Admittedly, it was gradual and over d e c a d e s. You maybe didn't notice?

If you're an employee today then you are in business for yourself. We're all gig workers now. CEOs and other corporate execs went into business for themselves decades ago with: bulletproof employment contracts, renumeration, stock options, golden handshakes, gold parachutes, private use of the corporate jet. It goes on and on.

I don't begrudge them their riches. Booyah for them! I'm just following their example; their modus operandi. You should too. It's how success acts. We're all equals in this game of life, unless you chose to disadvantage yourself.

Now, if you genuinely think an employee is some sort of second class citizen, bound to a life of bowing and scraping then, okay, fine, live like that yourself if that gets you to sleep at night.

Sweet dreams.

 

[pdoherty]

Oof.

“Team player” and “long-term thinker” are terms fit for a boss/company, but don’t align with, nor are ever used in favor of, the employee’s needs. What is the company’s requirement to be a team player in the employees life? If an employee needs money due to issues with personal finances, say an unexpected medical bill or expense, is the expectation for the company to supply it on request? No. But why not? They have it, how are they being a team player? If an employee is fired, how will they pay their bills or have access to healthcare? Where’s the long-term thinking in their life?

QFT. It’s an expected part of the system, that employers expect things like loyalty and sacrifice from employees but employers rarely/never do the same for employees. People need to just stop discussing this issue disingenuously pretending it goes both directions, when it obviously doesn’t.

 

[I7guy]

Ahem. The rules of the game changed. Admittedly, it was gradual and over d e c a d e s. You maybe didn't notice?

If you're an employee today then you are in business for yourself. We're all gig workers now. CEOs and other corporate execs went into business for themselves decades ago with: bulletproof employment contracts, renumeration, stock options, golden handshakes, gold parachutes, private use of the corporate jet. It goes on and on.

I don't begrudge them their riches. Booyah for them! I'm just following their example; their modus operandi. You should too. It's how success acts. We're all equals in this game of life, unless you chose to disadvantage yourself.

Now, if you genuinely think an employee is some sort of second class citizen, bound to a life of bowing and scraping then, okay, fine, live like that yourself if that gets you to sleep at night.

Sweet dreams.

I think we agree in different wording.

You, the employee, do what's best for you. If you don't want to tow the corporate line, want a raise, don't like the commute, don't like your boss, don't like your company, feel you are being used then jump ship. Of course a lot depends on job function, seniority, position in management, salary, bonus, perks etc.

You may be a lucky one a believe your job and company are a valued partnership, believe you are getting paid your worth and like the perks and bonuses. Or you may believe your company is behind the times in benefits, unnecessarily draconian and there are greener pastures.

There are companies who value their employees, even big companies like Apple. If your company doesn't value it's employees, maybe find a company that does?

 

[1129846]

Responses like this is how I imagine there are people who not only work 2 jobs remotely, but also openly skive and feel utterly remorseless about it. They think the company owes them a living, and if they can't get what they want from their job, they take what they feel they are entitled to.

Go read this story of tech workers who secretly work multiple remote jobs

It’s a risky bet

www.theverge.com

I can only say, if I were a boss, I would have no desire to keep people with such an adversarial mindset around on my payroll, who are actively acting against the interests of my company, and I can only hope they do not have such a "us vs them" mindset in their next job where they think the company is constantly out to get them.

I former co worker of mine I know was pulling off this crap after he was fired from were I work. He was PIP at one job for being "slow and unavailable" and just road it out until they let him go and at job 2 he was nearing the point of being PIP. My understanding is the entire time he was looking for a 3rd job to do knowing he was about to lose one of his current ones to rinse and repeat. After we found that out we suspect he was doing the same crap while working for us and this was while he was in office and it only got worse after he went remote. Some times he would need to "travel" for a week or so and would take calls remotely. If you question his work he just went aggressive so it made some push back. In all honestly after we fired him thing were so much better and productivity went up a lot. A big part of it that was I was no longer having to spend so much of my time cleaning up his crap or dealing with his stuff so I could OMG do my job.

I know I personally am more looking forward to a hybrid model of work. I go into the office a few days a week as some things just work better in person plus it beats being at home all the time and I get some interactions with other people. Mind you right now the 170 person office I work in I will go in and be the only person there as everyone else is at home. I just go in once a week or so for a different place to work, the free food, free drinks and free beer and to get be able to transition back to going into the office when I know we are going to be required to a few days a week in 2022.

 

[1129846]

Oof.

“Team player” and “long-term thinker” are terms fit for a boss/company, but don’t align with, nor are ever used in favor of, the employee’s needs. What is the company’s requirement to be a team player in the employees life? If an employee needs money due to issues with personal finances, say an unexpected medical bill or expense, is the expectation for the company to supply it on request? No. But why not? They have it, how are they being a team player? If an employee is fired, how will they pay their bills or have access to healthcare? Where’s the long-term thinking in their life?

You acknowledge in your language that the relationship is one of the employee being at the whim the company, and if they don’t like it, they can leave. You frame this as an exercise of free will on the employee’s part, obviously if they objected they would leave, but in a market where every company treats their employees like this, there are no options. Just different versions of this relationship, at different pay rates, working for different companies interests.

Companies and bosses are there to extract labor for profit and employees have to enforce boundaries, demand better conditions, and stand up for themselves in the increasingly limited spaces where that’s possible. No company or team is any different.

But you’re right, if I were a boss, I might think like a boss. But I’m not and I have no desire to ever be one.

Signed,
Someone who isn’t a “long-term thinker” or “team player” and yet has been a valued employee in the 4 jobs I’ve worked for the past 16 years

You have a very aggressive stance. "Team player" and “long-term thinker” being boss/company terms is aggressive.
The company has its goals and wants. You the employee have your goals and wants. They are rarely if ever the same. That being said they not mutually exclusive. Generally they tend to be complementary to each other. As long as they all line up then it is not an issue. I long ago stop being willing to sacrifice my own goals for my employer. I know they will drop me if it is in there best intrested so yeah I will also do what is in my best intrest. That being said team player and long-term thinker is also people I want to work with. By team player they can help me out on things I can not do myself and I can trust they will get them done. Long-term thinker is more of a quality thing in my world. They are looking to do best practice and high quality things as guess what they might be maintaining it for a while if they do not leave. Plus a company is not going to want to have someone around who only thinking super short term so it is in their (employees) best interested to keep their job thinking that way. THat and it is a lot nicer to just go to another place when everything is of high quality.
For example I want to make a high quality iOS app that people enjoy to use. Company i work for is wanting to get an app out that their users so they can make more money. Well guess what those different goals line up pretty well. They also pay me a good paycheck so I am cool with that. Now if they started changing and went against some of my values or started hurting my goals yeah I would start looking and jump to someone else with zero regrets.

 

[DeepWebinar]

You have a very aggressive stance. "Team player" and “long-term thinker” being boss/company terms is aggressive.
The company has its goals and wants. You the employee have your goals and wants. They are rarely if ever the same. That being said they not mutually exclusive. Generally they tend to be complementary to each other. As long as they all line up then it is not an issue. I long ago stop being willing to sacrifice my own goals for my employer. I know they will drop me if it is in there best intrested so yeah I will also do what is in my best intrest. That being said team player and long-term thinker is also people I want to work with. By team player they can help me out on things I can not do myself and I can trust they will get them done. Long-term thinker is more of a quality thing in my world. They are looking to do best practice and high quality things as guess what they might be maintaining it for a while if they do not leave. Plus a company is not going to want to have someone around who only thinking super short term so it is in their (employees) best interested to keep their job thinking that way. THat and it is a lot nicer to just go to another place when everything is of high quality.
For example I want to make a high quality iOS app that people enjoy to use. Company i work for is wanting to get an app out that their users so they can make more money. Well guess what those different goals line up pretty well. They also pay me a good paycheck so I am cool with that. Now if they started changing and went against some of my values or started hurting my goals yeah I would start looking and jump to someone else with zero regrets.

Aggressive? Really? That’s not an aggressive stance at all. I don't disagree with most of what you said. My main difference is fighting for what’s fair for me and fellow working people are my primary concerns. The company’s goals are to make money, my goals are better working conditions for myself and my coworkers, and conditions can always be made better. If the company doesn’t respect that, I push back. I don’t leave because that’s not helpful for my coworkers who can’t make the same jump as easily as I can. I don’t have kids or a house, those that do can feel, or actually be, stuck in their role.

An iOS developer is a very different job than most. You have to understand that your work places you firmly in a position to make these decisions more easily than most. Mine does too, I’m not doing the grunt work I had to when I was younger for next to no pay. But there are people at my company that do and my values dictate that I need to speak out for them.

And part of that is being a valuable employee myself, but my goal isn’t to be valuable for the same reasons my company wants me to be valuable. So many of these responses sound like people think I’m saying that I don’t work. It’s the opposite. I like my work, it’s challenging and I get my own personal satisfaction out of it, and being a good employee gives me more leverage to fight for my values. But I don’t want to be a good employee because the company wants me to be.

At the end of the day, I don’t think we disagree all that much.

 

[DeepWebinar]

QFT. It’s an expected part of the system, that employers expect things like loyalty and sacrifice from employees but employers rarely/never do the same for employees. People need to just stop discussing this issue disingenuously pretending it goes both directions, when it obviously doesn’t.

Well said! I resent the impulse so many people have to label someone as a “bad employee” (and by extension a morally questionable person) for recognizing this. I don’t see how not submitting to the rhetoric of the place that pays you disqualifies you from being worthy of employment/having your needs met.