Apple Introduces Major Retail Changes, Including New Pro-Level Positions and Credo

[kdarling]

In my experience...

You only have to write down a credo, if it's no longer clear by your actions what your company is about.

 

[ConnYoungy]

In my experience...

You only have to write down a credo, if it's no longer clear by your actions what your company is about.

Disagree. That's like saying you don't need to write a shopping list because you should just remember all the important things you have to buy.

 

[kdarling]

Disagree. That's like saying you don't need to write a shopping list because you should just remember all the important things you have to buy.

People don't pay attention to long credos precisely because they're too long to remember

Which means that management has to paste posters with the credo list all over the place.

Are you a manager?

 

[eww7633]

Therefore pay them the Genius rate for doing repairs. Repairs of Mac vs repairs of mobile devices are just as involved, but in different ways.

Well, I think I would know, seeing as how I've done them both.

You aren't swapping out logic boards on iOS devices, or disassembling iMacs for display replacements, etc. Modular iPhone repairs are usually done in less than an hour, and a Mac repair can take a week or more sometimes. So not as involved, and takes much less expertise.

 

[smorrissey]

what do you mean by credo? like in the church?

 

[smacrumon]

Well, I think I would know, seeing as how I've done them both.

You aren't swapping out logic boards on iOS devices, or disassembling iMacs for display replacements, etc. Modular iPhone repairs are usually done in less than an hour, and a Mac repair can take a week or more sometimes. So not as involved, and takes much less expertise.

Blast from the past. Just a way for Apple to pay employees even less.

 

[aristobrat]

Blast from the past. Just a way for Apple to pay employees even less.

This position does less than the Genius position, so it's paid less. It's a net raise for the employees that move into it, and it results in Apple spending more on labor than they currently do.

Using your logic, every lesser-paid position under the CEO level is just a way for Apple to pay employees less.

 

[smacrumon]

This position does less than the Genius position, so it's paid less. It's a net raise for the employees that move into it, and it results in Apple spending more on labor than they currently do.

Using your logic, every lesser-paid position under the CEO level is just a way for Apple to pay employees less.

Previously employees would move into the higher paid position as their next step, NOW they will need to go through another step at a lower paid position to get to the higher paid position. It's a way to reclassify high paid positions, reduce the number high paid positions, pay staff less, reduce Apple's salary payments. Staff get paid less overall, while Apple increases payments to stock holders and executives. Let's just be honest about this, Aristobrat.

 

[aristobrat]

Previously employees would move into the higher paid position as their next step, NOW they will need to go through another step at a lower paid position to get to the higher paid position. It's a way to reclassify high paid positions, reduce the number high paid positions, pay staff less, reduce Apple's salary payments. Staff get paid less overall, while Apple increases payments to stock holders and executives. Let's just be honest about this, Aristobrat.

This new position is not a pre-requisite for the Genius position.

The number of existing Genius positions is not being reduced.

It will cost Apple more in labor costs than they currently pay. Employees taking this position will make more than they currently do.

Your thought is every repair person should be trained (and paid) to do the more complex and time-consuming Mac repairs, despite the fact that mobile devices are by far the largest category of products that Apple sells and are the the #1 reason people come into the store for a repair.

Apple could have just as easily given these new responsibility to the already existing sub-Genius position. There was no reason they had to create this position or pay it more.

 

[smacrumon]

This new position is not a pre-requisite for the Genius position.

The number of existing Genius positions is not being reduced.

It will cost Apple more in labor costs than they currently pay. Employees taking this position will make more than they currently do.

Your thought is every repair person should be trained (and paid) to do the more complex and time-consuming Mac repairs, despite the fact that mobile devices are by far the largest category of products that Apple sells and are the the #1 reason people come into the store for a repair.

Employees will be funnelled through this position instead of straight to a Genius. Lower cost for Apple.

Less Genius positions will be required over time. Lower cost for Apple.

The new positions are designed to cost Apple less over time.

 

[aristobrat]

Employees will be funnelled through this position instead of straight to a Genius.

In my experience working for Apple Retail, they didn't do that when they created the first sub-Genius position back in 2009, so I don't see why they'd suddenly start doing it now with this additional sub-Genius position.

When a Genius position opened at the store I worked at (and the stores I know of through my friends who moved on to other locations), it was just as likely to be filled by a current employee of any position (sales, training, back-of-house) as it would be filled by someone in the sub-Genius position.

Definitely not a funnel that everyone is required to go through before becoming a Genius. People still went "straight to Genius".

Less Genius positions will be required over time. Lower cost for Apple.

Less NEW Genius positions will be required. IMO, no way Apple can cut (or not grow) the current Genius count (based on the number of complaints I see posted on MacRumors about how long it takes to get a Mac appt. at the Genius Bar).

It's a higher cost for Apple vs. what they're paying now. Less of a cost than if they made every tech position a Genius. But more money than what they're spending today.

The new positions are designed to cost Apple less over time.

Apple could have addressed this situation TODAY ... for zero additional labor dollars ... by doing what most companies do, which would be to give the extra responsibilities (mobile repair) to the current employees (Family Room Specialists) for no extra compensation. Those folks have already been doing the troubleshooting. Instead, Apple is throwing in extra dollars to create a new position that pays more than the existing position (to compensate for the extra responsibilities). And your complaint is "that's not good enough"?

Where you work, do all employees work in the same position? Do you not have advanced skilled employees in higher positions, earning a higher salary?

 

[smacrumon]

In my experience working for Apple Retail, they didn't do that when they created the first sub-Genius position back in 2009, so I don't see why they'd suddenly start doing it now with this additional sub-Genius position.

When a Genius position opened at the store I worked at (and the stores I know of through my friends who moved on to other locations), it was just as likely to be filled by a current employee of any position (sales, training, back-of-house) as it would be filled by someone in the sub-Genius position.

Definitely not a funnel that everyone is required to go through before becoming a Genius. People still went "straight to Genius".


Less NEW Genius positions will be required. IMO, no way Apple can cut (or not grow) the current Genius count (based on the number of complaints I see posted on MacRumors about how long it takes to get a Mac appt. at the Genius Bar).

It's a higher cost for Apple vs. what they're paying now. Less of a cost than if they made every tech position a Genius. But more money than what they're spending today.


Apple could have addressed this situation TODAY ... for zero additional labor dollars ... by doing what most companies do, which would be to give the extra responsibilities (mobile repair) to the current employees (Family Room Specialists) for no extra compensation. Those folks have already been doing the troubleshooting. Instead, Apple is throwing in extra dollars to create a new position that pays more than the existing position (to compensate for the extra responsibilities). And your complaint is "that's not good enough"?

Where you work, do all employees work in the same position? Do you not have advanced skilled employees in higher positions, earning a higher salary?

We treat our employees well. Offer them true paths for progression. And pay them well for their work to keep them motivated, loyal and happy. We'd never take Apple's approach to save a few thousand dollars each year. We want our great and smart employees to stay. Apple simply runs its business like a McDonald's.

 

[aristobrat]

We treat our employees well. Offer them true paths for progression. And pay them well for their work to keep them motivated, loyal and happy. We'd never take Apple's approach to save a few thousand dollars each year. We want our great and smart employees to stay.

I didn't ask how you treated your employees. I asked if all of the employees where you worked held the same position, regardless of their experience and responsibilities (which is essentially what you're yelling at Apple for not doing with their retail tech employees). I've never seen a company do what you're saying Apple should do.

Was curious how it worked where you worked. Do all employees of a certain group (say, "IT") hold the same position? Does your company train every employee of a certain group to all perform to the same job and hold the same responsibilities? i.e. all of your IT employees are higher-skilled engineers or analysts, ... no lower-leved/lesser-skilled associates or specialists?

Apple simply runs its business like a McDonald's.

The numbers simply don't correlate to your thoughts. If Apple Retail had a big problem with motivation, loyalty and happiness, they wouldn't have an employee retention rate of 87%. It seems like despite being retail (with the crazy hours and customer interactions), they retain their employees at a rate equal to regular offices. How the HELL are they doing that if they're running their business like a McDonald's?

13% -- Apple Store employee turnover
80% -- average retail employee turnover
93% -- average McDonald's employee turnover

 

[eww7633]

Smacrumon has got a real axe to grind here for some reason for some reason. People who have actually worked for Apple have told you based on experience what they think, yet you just keep going. If you have some insider expertise here, please lay out your cards.