Apple Employees Reportedly Petitioning Against Plan to Return to Office 3x Per Week

[Arran]

"..... they are employees, and they have a responsibility to conform to the employment contract they signed not start rallying against it - their option is to resign and let someone do the job in the place the employer wants it done.....

I see “employment contract” being mentioned, but I‘d be surprised if anyone has an actual contract.

They‘ll have have accepted an offer letter, but it will have specifically stated that the employment is “at will” and does not constitute a contract. Meaning the employee can quit anytime for no reason and, equitably, the company can let them go anytime for no reason.

No obligations on either side. No recriminations on either side. That’s how at-will works.

So, with that understood, Apple could fire everyone yesterday with no legal blowback. But they haven’t. Wonder why?

 

[sirozha]

What was proven is that we people are resourceful, adapted and got work done no matter what adversity faced us. It doesn’t mean wfh is a panacea or the best all-around. Some companies may get rid of their off space and offset that against lost productivity loses.

It’s true that IT work and customer service can benefit from remote collaboration and save money by getting rid of office space, but that doesn’t mean in person work when needed is better and far more efficient.
..

Some situations fully remote will work some it won’t. Nobody is in a position to judge whether Tim Cook is filling space or not.

Nobody is in a position to say this? Like we don’t have a right to our own opinion on here?

 

[sirozha]

You are ignoring all the many very valid point people have raised in this thread...

Why shouldn't they?.... i cant reiterate them all but insurance, liability, equipment, lower wages as their wage was set allowing some commuting compensation, professional image (barking dogs and screaming kids in the background with customer facing roles), loss of team working, consideration for new employees joining (who trains them, where, how, and how do they ever find that belonging feeling in an empty office or working from home),
etc... etc.... etc....
Its not was clear cut as "if they can why shouldn't they"..... they are employees, and they have a responsibility to conform to the employment contract they signed not start rallying against it - their option is to resign and let someone do the job in the place the employer wants it done.....

They are not employees. They are people. You must be a true American. How many jobs do you work flipping burgers?

 

[VidPro]

We can’t use the word employee anymore? I need to add to do-not-say list.

 

[sirozha]

We can’t use the word employee anymore? I need to add to do-not-say list.

You can use any word you want. Employment in the US is a voluntary relationship. Either party can engage in a negotiation over the conditions and either party can terminate the relationship at will. So, the fact that they are “employees” doesn’t make them to be surfs or slaves. Tomorrow the employee can start a company and become an employer. It happens all the time with Apple “employees”. The argument that they must do as they are told because they are employees is retrograde. In the case of the most valuable Apple employees, Apple would sustain a loss if the employee leaves, and the employee is likely to gain quite a bit by getting a job at another tech company that values talent and not having the workspace filled with live bodies.

Now, if the employee is a retail one or a project manager, then they are dime a dozen. They really have no recourse and will do as they are told because they can be let go of by Apple with no impact.

I read dozens of posts under this type of articles saying that the person would kill for working for Apple. Those are burger flippers who don’t even understand the subject at hand. Let them apply to Apple. Maybe Cook will hire them to warm chairs at the spaceship, since not many Apple employees worth a damn are eager to commute to that office.

As for Tesla, Musk is a character. He runs the company as though he is still the owner. Many Tesla employees have large stock options grants that vest after so many years of employment. These people are on a hook, so they have a choice to make whether to oblige Musk and come to the office for a few more years ti get their stock options vested or leave and forego hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars. Everyone is going to evaluate the conditions against the pay and will choose the way they go with this sort of demand. It’s a free country. It’s not a free country for burger flippers; they must do as their boss tells them, as they can’t survive a week without a job.

 

[I7guy]

Nobody is in a position to say this?

Correct.

Like we don’t have a right to our own opinion on here?

Never said one didn’t.

 

[steve09090]

You can use any word you want. Employment in the US is a voluntary relationship. Either party can engage in a negotiation over the conditions and either party can terminate the relationship at will. So, the fact that they are “employees” doesn’t make them to be surfs or slaves. Tomorrow the employee can start a company and become an employer. It happens all the time with Apple “employees”. The argument that they must do as they are told because they are employees is retrograde. In the case of the most valuable Apple employees, Apple would sustain a loss if the employee leaves, and the employee is likely to gain quite a bit by getting a job at another tech company that values talent and not having the workspace filled with live bodies.

Now, if the employee is a retail one or a project manager, then they are dime a dozen. They really have no recourse and will do as they are told because they can be let go of by Apple with no impact.

I read dozens of posts under this type of articles saying that the person would kill for working for Apple. Those are burger flippers who don’t even understand the subject at hand. Let them apply to Apple. Maybe Cook will hire them to warm chairs at the spaceship, since not many Apple employees worth a damn are eager to commute to that office.

As for Tesla, Musk is a character. He runs the company as though he is still the owner. Many Tesla employees have large stock options grants that vest after so many years of employment. These people are on a hook, so they have a choice to make whether to oblige Musk and come to the office for a few more years ti get their stock options vested or leave and forego hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars. Everyone is going to evaluate the conditions against the pay and will choose the way they go with this sort of demand. It’s a free country. It’s not a free country for burger flippers; they must do as their boss tells them, as they can’t survive a week without a job.

Your view is akin to anarchy, which is pretty funny, and not all realistic to the actual situation of "The Real World" we live in.

Employers pay large amounts of money to gain access to facilities, equipment, systems and of course Employees. For a servant of the company (aka employee) to turn around and say, "yeah nah, I run the show now” which is what you are saying, is simply, not realistic.

The entire argument lost all credibility when you called Elon Musk a character. If employees are actual people as you said, then an employer is also a person. And that particular person has the keys to the proverbial Tesla. In other words, they run the game. It’s their game and the rest are players, as valuable as they are.

For those people who have negotiated a valuable deal to work from home, or those who don't have that ability for whatever reason I say, get back to work and be a responsible adult.

 

[steve09090]

Of course it is! If one can do one's job successfully from home, why shouldn't they? If Apple didn't have a very expensive new campus that was finished not long before the pandemic and they were still in the office space crunch they were pre-space ship, they would've ditched the idea to build it, reduced the number of rented buildings, and allowed WFH for people whose jobs could be accomplished via WFH. It would be logical to do so. Now, they're in a bit of a predicament because they have this huge building and a lot of people who have seen that they can do their jobs remotely from their house (even a house that costs less and is nowhere near Apple Campus) and they need to figure out how to navigate that.

Firing talented employees who are integral to key projects is NOT how that'll go, no matter how many people here on MR think that Apple employees will do whatever to stay there and work. It's not like they cannot just go work some other place where WFH is the standard. If they're the people Apple WANTS to keep, they are the people another company will bend over backward to get on their teams.

Why would it be logical to allow everyone to get out of bed in their moo-moo, roll over and turn on their MacBook Pro now, just because it happened during the pandemic. You’re saying that people are always as productive from home, as different to a specifically built workplace that was designed for face to face collaboration. This was done to increase innovation. Does this happen over teams? Of course not.

If talented people want to leave, then fine. Let them leave and have their forced 12 month lay-off as they would not be legally allowed to work for a similar company in that roll (as are most contracts for people of that type). And you think a company would take a new 'highly talented' gun employee that left employment because they refused to work in a designated office? Wow…. America really is Great! 😂

I'm not ignoring what people are saying... I'm arguing that those points aren't particularly valid.

It costs a company less to allow an employee to work remote than it does to host them in their corporate offices.

Rubbish. First, because you’re ignoring the actual real world costs to physical and mental health saying they are not valid compared to a desire for a moo-moo life. And second, have you heard of economies of scale, hot desking? Despite that being true, Working from Home ALWAYS should include an individual workplace assessment to test the suitability of that potential new workplace, as the employer is still responsible for it. The correct equipment needs to be delivered, set up and maintained. All whilst little Johnny throws his cornflakes over that new $300 chair. Costs anyone?

Do you really think Apple is allowing unprofessional people to be on calls, disrupting other people's work? Come on. It's like you think the typical Apple software engineer lives in a tiny house with 12 other people and doesn't have a dedicated room for a home office. In fact, if they moved to a place with a lower cost of living during the pandemic, that salary likely went way further on housing and they have a pretty sweet, private setup.

And there lies the reason you’re fighting for this so much. You enjoy your setup and don’t want to give it up. People decide to move all the time to get a better life. That usually means they either negotiate with their employer to work elsewhere, or they leave there job and get a new one. People don’t have the right to dictate to the employer what their conditions will be. If you don’t like the conditions, leave. If you can negotiate, then more power to you in your sweet private setup!

So, people should give up the option to save on commute costs, food costs, and clothing costs, etc... to keep another business thriving? Why?

For all the people working from home, there is a local area where they DO spend more time now and those businesses are seeing an uptick in revenue, I'm certain. Are we suggesting some businesses are more worthy of others? If a business isn't getting enough traffic, it needs to adapt, close, or find a new location.

It's not self-centered of me, for example, to prefer to keep my local shops and restaurants thriving instead of some an hour away. Nobody owes some restaurant their business.

Why? Because it’s an option. Negotiate it or don’t. It’s ultimately not the choice of the employee. Are they going to give back some of their pay?

And whilst Mum and Pop stores may be getting a larger % of the local revenue, Mum & Pops in the city are going bust. As altruistic as people say they are, they're saying it because it’s convenient for them, not because they're thinking of the local shop.

One hand: It’s not self centred of me. Other hand: Nobody owes some restaurant their business. Seriously?

Again, this type view, argued in this way, is entirely selfish by a person because they feel entitled. And they claim that just because of a world wide pandemic that temporarily changed the world by forcing us into lockdown that it must now, be that way. That’s not true.

 

[IbisDoc]

Let’s see. You have a problem that they don’t have to pay for gas, vehicle wear costs, lunches, wardrobes, etc. And that’s your argument? You’ve gotta be kidding. Or are you jealous of them wearing underwear?

Hope your Zoom meeting was muted when you were ferociously keyboarding that response.

 

[steve09090]

Let’s see. You have a problem that they don’t have to pay for gas, vehicle wear costs, lunches, wardrobes, etc. And that’s your argument? You’ve gotta be kidding. Or are you jealous of them wearing underwear?

So that’s your reason? You prefer working in your underwear?

It’s funny how people have become so entitled whilst working from home. The type of isolation and and lack of human contact has impacted people mentally in many ways. It seems like integration back into the real world would be a good thing.

 

[bunnicula]

Why would it be logical to allow everyone to get out of bed in their moo-moo, roll over and turn on their MacBook Pro now, just because it happened during the pandemic. You’re saying that people are always as productive from home, as different to a specifically built workplace that was designed for face to face collaboration. This was done to increase innovation. Does this happen over teams? Of course not.

If talented people want to leave, then fine. Let them leave and have their forced 12 month lay-off as they would not be legally allowed to work for a similar company in that roll (as are most contracts for people of that type). And you think a company would take a new 'highly talented' gun employee that left employment because they refused to work in a designated office? Wow…. America really is Great! 😂

Rubbish. First, because you’re ignoring the actual real world costs to physical and mental health saying they are not valid compared to a desire for a moo-moo life. And second, have you heard of economies of scale, hot desking? Despite that being true, Working from Home ALWAYS should include an individual workplace assessment to test the suitability of that potential new workplace, as the employer is still responsible for it. The correct equipment needs to be delivered, set up and maintained. All whilst little Johnny throws his cornflakes over that new $300 chair. Costs anyone?



And there lies the reason you’re fighting for this so much. You enjoy your setup and don’t want to give it up. People decide to move all the time to get a better life. That usually means they either negotiate with their employer to work elsewhere, or they leave there job and get a new one. People don’t have the right to dictate to the employer what their conditions will be. If you don’t like the conditions, leave. If you can negotiate, then more power to you in your sweet private setup!


Why? Because it’s an option. Negotiate it or don’t. It’s ultimately not the choice of the employee. Are they going to give back some of their pay?

And whilst Mum and Pop stores may be getting a larger % of the local revenue, Mum & Pops in the city are going bust. As altruistic as people say they are, they're saying it because it’s convenient for them, not because they're thinking of the local shop.

One hand: It’s not self centred of me. Other hand: Nobody owes some restaurant their business. Seriously?

Again, this type view, argued in this way, is entirely selfish by a person because they feel entitled. And they claim that just because of a world wide pandemic that temporarily changed the world by forcing us into lockdown that it must now, be that way. That’s not true.

That was sure a whole lot of words to say "I don't like it that other people do fine working from home."

I've been doing it for over a decade and I love it. I wouldn't go back to another cube farm, another open office space, or another "team building" event designed to make people think a corporation is a "family" ever again.

 

[sirozha]

Your view is akin to anarchy, which is pretty funny, and not all realistic to the actual situation of "The Real World" we live in.

Employers pay large amounts of money to gain access to facilities, equipment, systems and of course Employees. For a servant of the company (aka employee) to turn around and say, "yeah nah, I run the show now” which is what you are saying, is simply, not realistic.

The entire argument lost all credibility when you called Elon Musk a character. If employees are actual people as you said, then an employer is also a person. And that particular person has the keys to the proverbial Tesla. In other words, they run the game. It’s their game and the rest are players, as valuable as they are.

For those people who have negotiated a valuable deal to work from home, or those who don't have that ability for whatever reason I say, get back to work and be a responsible adult.

Your problem is that you think the employee is a servant of a company. Of course, those in involuntary servitude are to do as they are told. However, slavery has been abolished for over 150 years in the US. No one needs to feel as a servant unless his job is a servant. Employees are not servants of a company. Where in the world did you get this concept from? Unbelievable.

 

[sirozha]

Hope your Zoom meeting was muted when you were ferociously keyboarding that response.

I don’t use zoom.

 

[sirozha]

So that’s your reason? You prefer working in your underwear?

It’s funny how people have become so entitled whilst working from home. The type of isolation and and lack of human contact has impacted people mentally in many ways. It seems like integration back into the real world would be a good thing.

My mentality is only now starting to recover from all the morons that I used to have to work with at the office and who would constantly create distractions and noise that prevented me from focusing on my projects. I’ve already quit my job over the boss’ demand to come to the office before the pandemic even started. I’m now working again for the same company 100% remote and no one is even asking me or my coworkers to come to the office anymore. In fact, the company is letting go of office spaces as the leases expire and is saving tens of millions of dollars annually.

 

[steve09090]

Your problem is that you think the employee is a servant of a company. Of course, those in involuntary servitude are to do as they are told. However, slavery has been abolished for over 150 years in the US. No one needs to feel as a servant unless his job is a servant. Employees are not servants of a company. Where in the world did you get this concept from? Unbelievable.

Servant definition: "one that serves others a public servant especially : one that performs duties about the person or home of a master or personal employer."

Slavery definition: "condition in which one human being is owned by another."

Employees by definition are servants of a company. Why do you think they call a person working in a government role, a public servant? Servant is an old term for what are now called employees. It’s the same thing. If you are tied to a specific employer, you become an employee/servant of that employer.

That was sure a whole lot of words to say "I don't like it that other people do fine working from home."

I've been doing it for over a decade and I love it. I wouldn't go back to another cube farm, another open office space, or another "team building" event designed to make people think a corporation is a "family" ever again.

More power to you. What you have done is ignored the real world with regards to reasons why what you have, cannot be the norm for the majority of people. Things like cost, physical and mental health, the type of environment the employer believes is necessary for their business. What I am are actually saying is that this world is complex, and the simplicity of saying 'coz I like it, so I’m doing it' is ridiculous.

If you can do your job remotely, that’s awesome, but it is not the norm and not conducive as the best workplace for most, despite being convenient.

In regard to your comment about what you think I like, you’re wrong. I have always said it’s negotiation, and if Apple believe a 3/2 mix works then that’s fine too. My wife works at home, and it’s super convenient, but every time she is required in the office, she jumps on a plane, travels a couple thousand kilometres and does it.

I support WFH, but not people who feel they are entitled to it when it’s not practical for the employment. I think it is incredible, but not surprising that many people seem to feel like they are entitled, and those who do, ignore factors that are actually important just to selfishly suit themselves. Human nature, eh?

 

[steve09090]

My mentality is only now starting to recover from all the morons that I used to have to work with at the office and who would constantly create distractions and noise that prevented me from focusing on my projects. I’ve already quit my job over the boss’ demand to come to the office before the pandemic even started. I’m now working again for the same company 100% remote and no one is even asking me or my coworkers to come to the office anymore. In fact, the company is letting go of office spaces as the leases expire and is saving tens of millions of dollars annually.

Mental health can work both ways, and if the work place is more functional with you working from home and them working in the office that’s a good thing. You’re probably very good at your job, and it works for you. It’s great that you have an employer who respects that.

I’ve said all along that it works in many circumstances, but that’s at the discretion of the employer in negotiation with the employee.

 

[iPhoneFan5349]

This comes up as being lazy but I agree with them. In my company we work from home, it would suck if they asks us to go back when it’s not needed

 

[iPhoneFan5349]

Mental health can work both ways, and if the work place is more functional with you working from home and them working in the office that’s a good thing. You’re probably very good at your job, and it works for you. It’s great that you have an employer who respects that.

I’ve said all along that it works in many circumstances, but that’s at the discretion of the employer in negotiation with the employee.

It should be at the discretion of the manager. Company wide policies like this comes in a bad way because most of the time the managers don’t want to go back and couldn’t care less if their team works from home or not. So making them go back just because reasons when the manager doesn’t want to, didn’t ask it and doesn’t needed makes people mad. Why should a VP order them what to do? The VP is not working with the team to make that kind of decisions. It’s like when I authorize vacations for someone and then my VP wants me not to even when he’s not the one that is going to cover for that person.

 

[sirozha]

Servant definition: "one that serves others a public servant especially : one that performs duties about the person or home of a master or personal employer."

It’s hard to reason with you because you keep moving the goalposts. A person who is employed as a servant, IS a servant. A Public Servant is an idiom - it has nothing to do with being a servant. Employees of a company are not servants. I wonder if you own a small company and think that your employees are your servants? Did you travel to the 21st century from 200 years ago?

 

[sirozha]

Mental health can work both ways, and if the work place is more functional with you working from home and them working in the office that’s a good thing. You’re probably very good at your job, and it works for you. It’s great that you have an employer who respects that.

I’ve said all along that it works in many circumstances, but that’s at the discretion of the employer in negotiation with the employee.

I just told you that the company is getting rid of office spaces and NONE of my coworkers work from the office anymore. Everyone is 100% remote, and I haven’t heard anyone asking for a desk at an office. No one wants to waste their lives in traffic. We all see each other and talk to each other and text to each other multiple times per day over web collaboration tools. In the meantime, we pay for our own offices, our own desks, our own air conditioning, our own coffee, our own monitors, chairs, electricity, we clean our own rooms, we pay for pest control, etc. The employer issues laptops and pays for the collaboration tools and other software. The company is saving tens of millions of dollars, and people don’t waste company money chatting at a coffee machine for hours instead of doing work, so they are a lot more productive. No one makes anyone sit in the chair for 8 hours. No one cares how many hours you work as long as you do the work assigned to you. No one cares which hours of day or night you choose to do your work. You do have to be on scheduled meetings, but the rest of the day you can work whenever you want. What matters is how you accomplish the work and not how many hours you are warming the chair or what hours of the day you choose to do you work - be it day or night. It’s your choice. Only responsible adults can work remotely. Those who need a manager to stand over their shoulder or they stop working - those ones get let go quickly.

Also, I work with people around the entire world. UK, UAE, Singapore, India, China Australia, New Zealand, etc. All sorts of time zones. Sometimes I have to be on a call at 5:30 AM. Sometimes I have to be on a call at 10:30 PM - depending on the time zone of my coworker I am on a call with. Last night, there was an emergency, and I had to answer emails at 2:00 AM and then at 5:30 AM I was asked to get on a call to help fix an issue in Sydney, Australia. No one will tell me I can’t take an afternoon off to go spend time with my child. No one cares. My director trusts me to do the work they need me to do around the world, and I can take any time off I need to take as long as it doesn’t interfere with project timelines. Two months ago, I told my director I was taking my family for summer to Québec, and I would be working from our house there. He said, “Of course, no issues.” I worked from Québec for 6 weeks. There was no difference for my company. Why would they care where I am as long as I do my work? This is the new way of working and living. I’ve been doing this for over 10 years now - way before the pandemic opened the eyes of CEOs how people want to work and how profitable this new way of working is for most companies.

 

[avz]

A Public Servant is an idiom - it has nothing to do with being a servant.

This is very true. And with a few very rare exceptions they are corrupt, self-serving and serve the interests of the enemy states for their own gain.

 

[sirozha]

This is very true. And with a few very rare exceptions they are corrupt, self-serving and serve the interests of the enemy states for their own gain.

When people complain about governments being inefficient and corrupt, I only say one thing. The government is only as good as the people who are hired to work there. Pay better than corporations (not so hard to do in most cases) employ the best talent, and you will get a very well functioning government. Pay low salaries, hire all sorts of losers, and you will get an extremely inefficient government.

When people complain about how incompetent governments are and how incapable they are if running anything, I remind people of the US armed forces, police, firefighters, etc. They are all part of the government. People are usually reluctant to say that the US armed forces suck because they are run by the government. Or the firemen suck because they are employed by the local government.

Most of our government is so inefficient because they can’t compete for talented people, so they employ those who can’t find a job elsewhere. Hence, the incompetence.

 

[Smearbrick]

Yes, people have become more entitled. Time for a wake up call.

I guess all those people who worked for peanuts, 7 days per week, and in appalling, dangerous conditions in the pre-labor movement days were entitled as well?

Things change. Time for your wake up call.

 

[avz]

When people complain about governments being inefficient and corrupt, I only say one thing. The government is only as good as the people who are hired to work there. Pay better than corporations (not so hard to do in most cases) employ the best talent, and you will get a very well functioning government. Pay low salaries, hire all sorts of losers, and you will get an extremely inefficient government.

When people complain about how incompetent governments are and how incapable they are if running anything, I remind people of the US armed forces, police, firefighters, etc. They are all part of the government. People are usually reluctant to say that the US armed forces suck because they are run by the government. Or the firemen suck because they are employed by the local government.

Most of our government is so inefficient because they can’t compete for talented people, so they employ those who can’t find a job elsewhere. Hence, the incompetence.

Don't get me wrong.

Protecting the government is actually a very classy and conceptually smart thing to do. This is why everybody understands that "orange revolutions" are for the conceptually dumb and uninitiated people who will always be played for a fool and make sure that their country is going down the drain.

Therefore fighting with the government corruption and sabotage is a very difficult and extremely fine balance. It requires all the people upping their level of conceptual competence and skills. Without this people simply will not know what processes are designed to help their country and which ones are designed to destroy it.

Going back to the topic it is requires the same wisdom from the people to know when to say no and when to say yes, otherwise you might as well allow yourself to be bullied and used as an experiment to see the compliance of the society and its readiness for the digital concentration camp especially in a situation of the declining living standards, just because you signed a contract and the boss is always right.

I know that it can be very difficult for people(especially the ones who were fighting against the lockdowns in the first place) to grasp the idea that fighting for a right to work from home(essentially remaining in a lockdown) can be an efficient weapon to make sure that there are no lockdowns(and other experiments) in the foreseeable future.

 

[bsolar]

You’re missing the point. Apple is giving people the opportunity to work in a place that they dream to work in. To do work they love doing. If they don’t want to work they’re abiding by Apple’s conditions, they should resign. Apple has a duty to pay a fair wage. You think people living in the Midwest of America are paying so much less for rent? I’m originally from the Midwest the city I am from costs about $1500 per month for a one-bedroom apartment that’s nice. Not luxurious but nice. The average pay there is $56,000 annually. Do the math, I would rather make $150k and pay $3k for rent than earn $56k and pay $1500 for rent.

In every employment's relationship there are both parties requesting something to the other party. It's absolutely normal to negotiate the terms of employment and it's absolutely normal - from both parties - to request a re-negotiation of the terms of employment when situation change.

Of course they could resign instead of trying to negotiate with Apple different terms of employment than previously agreed and that would "cut the chase", so to speak, but I don't see why they should not first attempt to negotiate new terms for themselves first, with Apple still perfectly legitimately able to refuse if they ultimately decide to stick to their original policy.

You are also assuming Apple is the only employee able to give them the kind of job and salary you are talking about. Of course if that's the case Apple would have a greater bargaining power, but it's not necessary true.

If people want to work from home, they’re bringing in the potential to be classified as an independent contractor. It doesn’t benefit Apple to potentially lose trade secrets by having people work as independent contractors, but it also doesn’t benefit Apple to hire employees who refuse to work in the office as a team.

Apple is still allowing some days of work-from-home, so the rationale that there are trade secrets involved preventing that kind of work is moot.

About working from home being a reason to be classified as independent contractor, from the US Department of Labor:

MYTH #9: I telework or work off-site, so I am an independent contractor.
FACT #9: You are not an independent contractor simply because you work off-site or from home.

What got Apple to where it is now is a unique structure of a flatter hierarchy. I agree Tim Cook and the executives take all the money for themselves. Your prerogative is different than Apple’s. Their leadership is paying money to have people work at the headquarters as a team.

In a flatter hierarchy the teams should be empowered and able to decide for themselves how to better perform their job. If a team argues they are able to perform the job remotely without sacrificing quality, productivity and corporate culture, management should interfere only if they have very good reasoning supporting said interference.

There are good reasons to do so, but in my experience arbitrary limitation of work-from-home tends to be supported by unsupported claims of less productivity or dubious claims of "corporate culture".

Yes it’s hard to hire people who have the talents and supply and demand will balance. Maybe it’s time for Apple to finally pay its executives less so they can pay their employees more. But that isn’t the gig here. If everyone threatens to quit because Apple isn’t paying them enough, Apple will respond. But that isn’t what you’re arguing. You’re saying that people should decide the corporate rules and work wherever and whenever they want. That’s not the way corporations work. If you want that, start your own corporation. If you want to work from home only, then start a union and dictate what the company must allow employees to do. But you will end up making less pay.

The corporate rules should and will be decided by whoever has executive power for that kind of decision at the company. In some cases it's the team itself, in most it's some sort of upper manager or management structure. In the case here it's definitely Apple's upper management.

What I am saying is that there is a chance of negotiating a different policy between the parties before getting to threatening to quit or quitting outright and in this negotiation Apple still retains the right to decide the ultimate policy, no matter what the arguments the employee bring to the table, but it can also change idea if the employees are convincing enough.

Seems to me people moved away from Silicon Valley and are now living on 3x wages of where the costs are less and they don’t want to move back. I read that’s a lot of what’s happened in San Francisco. So they’re arguing a point because they want to work from home or they want to work from home wherever they decide to call home.

That would be an good argument for Apple to ask to renegotiate an employee's salary working remotely in a much less expensive area than before.

The world doesn’t work that way. Liberal mindset will only get you so far when even Apple is a corporation with conservative mindset ensuring its executives and shareholders make the bank. If they don’t care about you, you’re not that valuable to them. Go somewhere that you’re valued. Go somewhere that shares your values. Work and live on less money in a cheaper city. Lots of ways to do it.

There is nothing "liberal" in asking to negotiate your terms of employment: it's a fundamental aspect of at-will employment together with the idea that if you disagree with the terms you can find a different job somewhere else. But why not attempt a negotiation first?