Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Responds to Accusations of Executive Creating 'Toxic Workplace'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Lots of people mentioning Jobs acted this way. Really? But you’re implying that Apple was successful because he acted this way? That’s the error right there. Maybe it’s true that Apple succeeded IN SPITE of the fact he was like that and not BECAUSE he was like this. Walt Disney is a perfect example of someone who built an amazing company without this crap. Glad these former employees are speaking out.
And trials rarely tell the whole truth anyways. He could be WORSE than described and still come out looking fine with the right lawyer. See: OJ Simpson.
Not responding to TurbineSeaPlane directly, but replying because (s)he linked to the original reporting. I'd encourage everyone to read the story. It's pretty short & really helped me understand what's going on.
The accused is going to be given the presumption of innocence when claims are made. That's just the way it works & should work. The process will play out & if he is found guilty, then he will be terminated, and Nike will be required to compensate those who were mistreated.
In this case, there are 9 or 10 people who have made claims, but they are some pretty wildly diverging claims. Some are about sexual harassment, others are about verbal abuse. From the article some of the claims seem to be well substantiated, but others appear to be much less so.
The settlement apple entered into isn't some smoking gun of wrongdoing, at least from what is reported in the article. It might well be, but the article certainly provides no proof of that. It describes Mr Blahnik sending a text message that the recipient 'considered inappropriate & unsettling'. The article doesn't say what was in the message, so we don't know how bad it really was.
The recipient did hire a lawyer, but never filed a lawsuit. The lawyer entered mediation with the company, and they reached a settlement. From that, it's hard to say what actually happened. It 100% could have been that Apple paid out big to avoid publicity in this case, but it's also possible that the person who hired the lawyer settled for very little money. We just don't know.
The claims of workplace bullying seem to be much less substantiated in the article. The woman profiled stated that she had a great first year at Apple, but the line she shared from her annual review seems like it could be read eather way & is like one of those generic lines that managers use for people who haven't excelled, but aren't terrible either. 'Her first year had been marked by significant growth and acheivement.' It's possible she was a rockstar on the team, but if that was the case, I'd assume the annual review would have had more effusive praise. She also received a smaller pay increase than male colleagues, and raised a concern about that before anything came about with her speaking to investigators about the other case. She has filed a lawsuit and it will be heard, and if she was indeed punished for speaking out, then she will likely win. Like the rest of us, I have no idea what happened there. It's possible that she received less of a raise than her male colleagues because she was being discriminated against. But it's also possible that she received less of a raise because she was a lower performer. The article does not mention if she received a lower raise than other female colleagues, and it also doesn't share anything from her annual review aside from the one line above.
I am glad she will get her day in court, but I'm also glad that Mr Blahnik gets his day as well. To say that he needs to be fired, without knowing any of the details of the cases seems premature. With all that being said, running a group of ~100 employees & having 10 of them file complaints about you, even if it is over a decade long timeframe, does seem like a red flag, of at least not being a good people manager.
Some of his alleged comments do seem to cross a line and if they are proven to be true, I'm sure he will be shown the door. But I'm glad that the presumption of innocence exists.
Last edited:
I read the entire article later. The dude is just straight up unprofessional. Deeper accusations need to be proven in court though
True, but allegations (many of which come from anonymous sources, without any cross examination, also do not prove that it happened.
The two people who said that he said that are anonymous. Maybe he said it, maybe he said something that was misconstrued or any number of other possibilities. If it happened as described it certainly sounds unprofessional.
Or maybe Apple has spoken to all the people, not just the person who is suing and a few anonymous sources, have seen all the actual performance reviews (not just the claims of the person suing) and they do not believe the accusations.
Maybe because you only pay attention in those cases? The charge of sexual harassment was made by someone who went to mediation and settled. Since there was no public record and none of the claims in the article directly even quote him, it is pretty difficult to have much of an opinion on that charge. The rest of the claims have to do with “bullying” and “yelling” at an employee who has had a set of negative performance charges documented against her. She claims that this was done because they planned to fire her since she was claiming sex based discrimination. There is way too little information in the article for me to form a solid opinion on the case.
The last time I commented on a case in which someone was accused of stealing and people said: “S/He must be guilty.”
The presumption of innocence is a fundamental tenet of our legal system, and is pretty important to me.
These people are not whistleblowers. Only one of them is suing and one went into mediation (with no public information of the resulting settlement). The others quoted all left Apple without any evidence that they reported anything. We know know nothing about them at all.
You know that because you have spoken to them and the others involved and you are sure their anonymous statements are absolutely true and not just disgruntled snowflakes who did not want to work hard? Since the article does give much detail about any of the other claims of the ten who left, it is really hard for me to evaluate anything.
Wow, you know a lot about some anonymous people sniping from the sidelines. Maybe the women who filed the lawsuit is everything you say, or maybe she is a spoiled child who cannot believe that anyone did better work than she did and deserved a bigger raise than she did.
Or maybe the person suing is the toxic one and they dodged a bullet when she left.
Maybe people like her are the problem and she is why one would get customer hostile decisions. Again, no where enough information in the article to form an intelligent opinion.
I love that you already know everything about a person whom you have never met, based on some anonymous sources and allegations by a former employee who is suing.
He may be a terrible person and it will all come out in a trial, or this would all be false accusations. I have no idea, and until there is some public testimony, I do not expect to know.
It's not, but it is pretty telling that, whenever there are sexual harassment allegations, some dudebros jump in to yell, "but what if it didn't happen?". OK, great, but overwhelmingly, it does happen. All the time. The big problem with sexual harassment claims is not false accusations; it is, on the contrary, underreporting. And that's true in part precisely because some dipsh1t just has to point out that they do not believe the story.
Mr. Blahnik is innocent until proven guilty in front of a court. Individuals, however, are free to make judgments based on what we already know.
No one is calling for him to be legally sentenced.
But not being proven guilty does NOT mean someone is innocent.
I am so tired of y'all screwing up this and the definition of free speech.
The amount of energy you spent defending an alleged abuser with MULTIPLE allegations is wild to me.
Just because it can't be proven in court doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Did you read the actual article, not just the macrumors summary of it? Most of the claims are not about sexual harassment (one person claimed he was harassed, went to mediation and settled, so we will never know what actually happened, as he has not said anything and all we have are some anonymous others saying they say an inappropriate text). The other claims state that 10 people left after mental health leaves and that the woman suing claims she was subjected to being yelled at and did not receive as big a raise as some other male employees. I have no way of judging the sexual harassment claims as there is almost no information. He may have gone to mediation because his case was so clear cut that he knew he could get a giant payout without a public trial, or he may have gone to mediation because his case was very weak and figured that he would do better under the relaxed rules of evidence. We have no idea and are unlikely to know unless it happens again and there is a public trial.
Since you are sure “it” happened, would you tell us what the “it” was? From the article we get that there was an iMessage that two anonymous people said they saw and was inappropriate (neither said what the text was), and that Mr. Blahnik complimented him on his appearance. Were those compliments inappropriate (I have no idea, no one says anything about what they were). It is possible that they were harassment, certainly. Is it possible that they were completely reasonable and innocent and that he was simply uncomfortable because they came from another male, also certainly possible. You seem sure you know what happened, and my simple question is based on what?
There will be no trial on the sexual harassment claims as they were adjudicated via mediation. Most people on here, are making judgements based not even on the actual article, but based on MacRumors summary of it. The article itself is mostly based on the claims of an employee who left after deciding that staff in her group were building a documented case against her for poor performance. The author of the article does not even speak to most of ten people who it is claimed left because the work environment was “toxic”. While you are focused on the sexual harassment claim, it is the thing we know the least about and has nothing to do with most of the rest of the article, but seems included mostly to bias the public against the accused (in which, based on the reactions on here, it certainly seems effective).
I have no idea if the claimant in the lawsuit is a model employee who was paid less because she was female (as she claims), or if she was an entitled, lazy, snowflake who could not handle a real job and was about to be fired based on poor performance. We only have her claims (and not even much evidence of those in the article). If the case does go to trial (which seems likely at this point), we should find out a lot more.
It's wild to me that people assume the courts prove innocence.
Which we know they almost always do not.
What is wild to me is how quick you are to condemn him with as little evidence as in in the article. There is a claim of sexual harassment about which we know almost nothing as the author does not really talk to the accuser in the case, only some anonymous people who saw the “inappropriate” message without relaying what it said, and a completely unrelated case of an employee who quit because she felt she was going to be fired. There are 10 people whom we are told left the company after mental health leaves, but the author does not quote. There is a freelancer who said Mr. Blahnik was too harsh in talking to the employee who is suing.
Without a lot more information, and maybe some from others who were not provided to the author by the complaint, I cannot see how anyone can claim an informed opinion.
Equally, just because there is an accusation backed by several anonymous sources, does not mean it did.
Oh, so Mister "innocent until proven guilty" is now putting words in my mouth. Interesting.
HR issue resolution is very complex. I’ll give you an example of how difficult it is to get rid of someone, particularly in a government agency.
First offense. Employee couldn’t get to work on time to save his life. Multiple warnings, time card audits found fraud. Hourly employee had a 15 minute window to get to the office after which the employee had to dock 15 minutes of PTO. Reprimanded and required to pay back about 30 hours. Used access badge swiped as evidence, but it’s wasn’t a time card swipe. Technicality.
Employee put on a PIP. Employee is great for about six months to get out of the PIP. Installed a time card swipe machine. Next thing we notice is he stops swiping time card here and there. Says his card doesn’t work. Reprimanded again. Couldn’t prove the hours. So no pay dock.
How we got him? He had a supply allowance each year due to a major construction project. $400 a year. He got other people to give him their vouchers that they didn’t use for whatever reason. We estimated that he purchased about $3000 in products with other people’s vouchers. We had tape from the store where he returned items for cash. We also required his workgroup to park in a lot that required a parking card so we would know when he was coming and going. Turned out he was leaving during the day for lunches in a position where you are not allowed to leave work because of job responsibilities. Late? LOL. Every day for six months.
When we busted him, he claimed harrasment and sued. People say things in the workplace once they get comfortable around people. Of course, this clown never said anything offensive to anyone (yeah, right). But boy, everyone in the office was a piece of crap as far as this guy was concerned. Ultimately he lost, but he flew just enough under the radar to get away with things. Totally destroyed the morale of the entire workgroup by dragging most of them into his games. The guy was a total fraud and because of how things work, it took use nearly two years to get rid of this clown and thousands were spent investigating. Some people just know how to game the system. Total people pleaser and absolute narcissist.
In the end, we paid him $100k to settle his claim and go away. It was just easier that spending thousands more in court.
First offense. Employee couldn’t get to work on time to save his life. Multiple warnings, time card audits found fraud. Hourly employee had a 15 minute window to get to the office after which the employee had to dock 15 minutes of PTO. Reprimanded and required to pay back about 30 hours. Used access badge swiped as evidence, but it’s wasn’t a time card swipe. Technicality.
Employee put on a PIP. Employee is great for about six months to get out of the PIP. Installed a time card swipe machine. Next thing we notice is he stops swiping time card here and there. Says his card doesn’t work. Reprimanded again. Couldn’t prove the hours. So no pay dock.
How we got him? He had a supply allowance each year due to a major construction project. $400 a year. He got other people to give him their vouchers that they didn’t use for whatever reason. We estimated that he purchased about $3000 in products with other people’s vouchers. We had tape from the store where he returned items for cash. We also required his workgroup to park in a lot that required a parking card so we would know when he was coming and going. Turned out he was leaving during the day for lunches in a position where you are not allowed to leave work because of job responsibilities. Late? LOL. Every day for six months.
When we busted him, he claimed harrasment and sued. People say things in the workplace once they get comfortable around people. Of course, this clown never said anything offensive to anyone (yeah, right). But boy, everyone in the office was a piece of crap as far as this guy was concerned. Ultimately he lost, but he flew just enough under the radar to get away with things. Totally destroyed the morale of the entire workgroup by dragging most of them into his games. The guy was a total fraud and because of how things work, it took use nearly two years to get rid of this clown and thousands were spent investigating. Some people just know how to game the system. Total people pleaser and absolute narcissist.
In the end, we paid him $100k to settle his claim and go away. It was just easier that spending thousands more in court.
Sorry if I misread your post. I took your statement “Individuals, however, are free to make judgments based on what we already know.” to include you and based on your statement: “OK, great, but overwhelmingly, it does happen. All the time. The big problem with sexual harassment claims is not false accusations; it is, on the contrary, underreporting. And that's true in part precisely because some dipsh1t just has to point out that they do not believe the story.” to read that you thought it happened.
Instead of trying to intuit what you meant, I will simply ask you if you think he has morally and ethically wrong (not asking you to adjudicate the legal case)?
There's a difference between "there sure is a lot of smoke here" and "I'm sure it happened". I'm not sure. I hope a court finds the truth.
Ok, but you understand that despite all your discussion of sexual harassment in your post, no court is going to be looking at that at all (that was settled through mediation (with no details even leaked). The case before the court is mostly a pay discrimination case, and possibly a retaliation case, very little of which involves him.
And it’s also really telling that those people never do the same thing for someone accused of stealing or any other crime. Just this specific area, it’s a huge concern to them
I wonder why
That isn't relevant for my personal impression of the person having gone down due to the article. I don't care what judges decide; I'm neither the plaintiff, the defendant, nor someone who has ever worked with him at Nike or Apple, and this thread isn't a courtroom drama.
I am bummed 1) that someone who's contributed good ideas to the Apple Watch, and seemed above-average by Apple's already high standards at introducing Fitness+, turns out to (likely) be a sex pest and abuser, and 2) that Apple seems to mostly prioritize wanting the story to go away.