These are not hourly retail employees.
Aside from the fact that these are corporate development jobs and unlikely to be among their “lower earning employees“, I am curious what criteria you would use to decide when to eliminate non-productive employees? As long as the company is profitable and has lots of cash in the bank should they just keep people working on products they no longer make? Should they maintain employees at stores they have permanently closed but who do not want to transfer to other stores?
Again, why is it morally wrong to eliminate jobs that are non-productive? If a store has no longer needs 20 staff members, why should Apple keep them in what would be make-work (or no work) jobs?
This is corporate retail, i.e. people managing expansion and store planning at hq, not Apple Store employees.
So, they should just keep people forever that they don't need? It's a business, not a charity.
O, be some other name! What's in a name?
That which we call a
I take thee at thy word.🙄 Losing a job is losing a job, no matter how you look at it.
Yes, it means Apple has no plans to expand retail stores in the immediate future.
These tech companies basically ran a pandemic welfare program by providing hundreds of thousands of highly paid jobs that they didn't really need. I am going to guess that the benefits outweigh the layoffs.
Good question! I would love to know where the 30 on-site massage therapists that Google laid off ended up?
I wouldn't ask these kinds of questions to anyone whose business experience is limited to a lemonade stand (if lucky) when they were in primary school. Employees will rarely understand the business perspective, where most business owners used to work for someone in the past and know the experience on both side of the fence.
Delaware incorporations are dirt cheap (even for US non-residents - I got myself two of these), taxes are simple, all done online - start your own company, hire a bunch of people and then see how long you can remain "morally right" without switching to instant noodle diet.And so will those people who opt to apply and then win another position.
Clearly I understood it better. Or maybe, like other posters, you are ignoring most of it for some reason? I’m pretty tired of all the anti Apple Agenda on this site.
I fail to see how this answers @Alan Wynn 's question. If anything, this whole "businesses have to act in the best interests of shareholders" increasingly seems like a copout answer for anyone who only wants to bash a company blind and not interested in talking about the nuances of running a business.
It would be a “nothing burger” if Tim didn’t take a pay cut. It would be a “nothing burger” if they weren’t I a hiring freeze. There is something brewing deeper here than just a “nothing burger”. They are downsizing at a slow rate likely for an anticipated down. Apple knows or thinks they know something you don’t. This is not an urgent reaction but a calculated one that will slowly evolve over time.
A CEO that takes full responsibility should take a pay/compensation cut equivalent to the salary of any layoffs planned so that the laid off workers can keep their job. For example, if a company was planning on laying off 200 employees, each with an average $200,000/yr salary, the alternative is the CEO (or other senior exec) should take a $40,000,000 pay cut. For Tim Cook, that's less than 50% and 200 employees get to keep their jobs. Another alternative is to spread that cut out across the executive leadership team. That's a $2.8 million cut from each executive, if split evenly.
Among the least insightful posts I have seen in this thread. If any of these companies said they were laying off these people because they did not have the money to pay them, then one could begin to look at other cuts to find funds. However, none of these companies is cutting staff for that reason. All have said they are doing so either because they are over staffed in general or a changing directions and have staff in roles that are no longer needed. Why should productive employees take cuts to pay non-productive ones?
On the flip side “you people” seem to have an axe to grind. The more subjective truth is somewhere in the middle.
Why would someone keep employeed they no longer need (for one reason or another)? It makes no sense. Companies don't exist just to give jobs.
Gee tons of former employees say the same things….ya were lying. I’m sorry the truth shatters your cookie cutter world.
Your subjective view of your experience is your view. This may surprise you, but other Apple employees (current and former) have different views. In fact, enough feel that the compensation for the work they do exceeds the pain of doing it, and so they stay. This includes quite a few who are still there from NeXT (in its various forms). It also includes quite a few who have returned there after having worked at other places.
