No I read and understood the article, I’m afraid I haven’t made anything up. I like how you don’t seem to want to abide by the evidence portrayed in front of you in this article and instead twist it to make Apple appear innocent. Which to do so is to ignore the word ‘audit’ in the report.
And the employee was still employed and paid in full. Not to mention saving commuting costs, etc. It's not solely for Apple's benefit, both parties gained from the arrangement.
You wrote:
Well, it’s not currently being done, is only planned to be done AND Apple has stated their position against it for any work done for them. So, if it ever happens, THEN it can be said that the fact is that Apple supports it. As of now, it’s not the truth.
Apple has also mentioned here that they’re VERY clear on what they expect of Teleperformance and has called this out. There is no “both ways”, it’s the same action in both cases (even though one is not even being done yet).
The company could have paid employees for a year off. That would be one-sided for the employee. They could have paid for mortgages to cover the home office they expected people to have. That would have been still benefiting the employer, but less one-sided.
And exactly how is Apple NOT innocent? I'd love to hear your response. Was Apple the one telling their WFH employees that cameras are required in your home to watch your every move? NO. Did Apple tell the supplier to mistreat their employees? NO. Apple cannot force any supplier to treat their employees the "Apple way". And using a supplier doesn't not mean they support the supplier's employment rules. If that is what you're saying then YOU are twisting things.
So, we’re in agreement that employers don’t blindly trust every employee, they initially perform background checks, follow up with references and other forms to verify the evidence that someone CAN be trusted. Over time, they continue to build on this trust via other checks and processes (were they in the office when they said, did they finish that task on time and to the correct level of accuracy, hopefully NOT videoing their every move). This helps to build the faith that the employer has in the employee, but any good employer will never stop verifying, no matter how much faith they have in the employee.
Did you read all the way to the last paragraph, where it becomes pretty clear these are all steps being taken by some call center company, and not Apple itself?
Based on what?
Slavery has been outlawed in the US since 1865 or so, which doesn’t seem to stop American companies from using slave labor abroad, while presenting itself as super woke to an American audience.
Apple undoubtedly benefited more than its employees during the pandemic. It's not even close.
did you read the part where this was not requested by Apple and Apple's contract specifically forbids this type of practice? What, no? Oopsie. Seriously, this contractor needs to pull the contracts and offer Apple compliant language in its contracts, or be discontinued. Now amazon, watch out for those guys
