Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I think you're missing the point that American companies could hire Asian workers at a cheaper hourly rate.
Not at all. Americans will have to compete. Make the extra wages valuable for companies. If you think we can't, that's sad.

Look at it this way: American Exceptionalism always talks about "freedom", right?

Well...talk about our chickens coming home to roost! The perfect expression of "free market competition" in action.

...let's see if we can put our money where our mouths have been.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1Peace
I will add to this conversation, I know a lot of Apple employees personally... and they're all really good people. They do their jobs extremely well, they're very proud of what they do and their main focus is to produce the best product they can so that YOU will be happy owning it.

I have to be honest it pisses me off a little to see so many on this forum just dumping all over Apple employees like they're garbage or something.

Life aint fair, stop trying to make it fair, if employees of Apple end up with a workplace agreement that makes them happy then you should be happy for them and pursue your own hopes and dreams, expecting the same courtesy in return.

Seriously, some of you worry me deeply.
 
All of that can be accomplished remotely just as effectively. I got a new job and switched teams during the pandemic. Our team bonds are quite strong and I know all of what you listed. I even play some games with some of the team members after work.
Yup, I switched jobs and didn't even meet the new team for I don't know how long, until we needed to hit a site for a job. It doesn't matter, we all work together well, even chat after hours often. This works.
 
In general I do share your views about the impact of informal interactions. However, I (partially) disagree with the “Zoom” part and the need for physical presence for informal exchange. I guess the issue is the assumption that a Zoom call is necessarily something formal. However, you can have informal exchange over digital formats as well.

The whole young generation shows how digital formats can be used for complete exchange, even on a global scale. I got to know wonderful and interesting people over digital that I’d otherwise never met in the physical world. Throw in a couple of team diners or parties to reinforce the bonds and you’re set.

There are even advantages in meeting “at a virtual water cooler” for chit chat, as you could include people not present on site. Maybe your buddy Joe has moved to another (faraway) town and he would be just the right one to bring in his experience and point of view. You’d most probably not be able to make him come over for an informal chat at the water cooler. But you could have a good chance to get him into an online meeting. Perhaps even on short notice.

The issue I’ve found is that these informal things don’t happen. I may randomly run into someone in a break room, but you really can’t randomly run into someone on zoom. And even when you do decide ”hey, let me have a quick zoom chat with sally” it ends up being a big to-do of exchanging available times, sending out a meeting invite, etc. It’s never “right now.”
 
As I have said before. Not everyone is suited to work from home. And not all professions are suitable to work from home. But as a single, no distractions individual as a Senior Software Engineer that recently turned a spare bedroom to a full office, I have doubled my productivity vs when I am in the office. When/if we are forced to go back to the office, I might not write a letter but I will definitely talk to my boss about it. I have pretty much decided I want to work remote at all times.

And this is what I'm getting at. It works for YOU. If the company wants people to return to the office, it's not working for them. The subtlety here is important. People like to point to their own personal productivity and throughput but the company's total value and performance is not about a single vector of productivity.

If it works for the company, and they want to do 100% remote, more power to them. But there are many valid reasons for companies to want people to come back. For the most part, it's because they don't want the work to be transactional. Low risk in a startup. The bigger the company, the more complex it gets.
 
So for every 1 person at Apple that wants to keep working from home, there are 100 equally qualified tech workers who aren't emotionally weak and are updating their resumes and are looking at available local residential real estate in neighboring Cupertino.

I know it.
You know it.
They know it.
Tim Cook knows it.
I agree 100%. I would give the letter employees one chance to get on board and if they bocked, terminate them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PotatoLeekSoup
I will add to this conversation, I know a lot of Apple employees personally... and they're all really good people. They do their jobs extremely well, they're very proud of what they do and their main focus is to produce the best product they can so that YOU will be happy owning it.

I have to be honest it pisses me off a little to see so many on this forum just dumping all over Apple employees like they're garbage or something.

Life aint fair, stop trying to make it fair, if employees of Apple end up with a workplace agreement that makes them happy then you should be happy for them and pursue your own hopes and dreams, expecting the same courtesy in return.

Seriously, some of you worry me deeply.
Too many people don’t try to be happier or better things, they want to make sure everyone has it as bad as them or worse. That’s how they derive their value. Either someone is below them they can look down on, or someone above them should be happy with what they have and shut up.

That’s the real core behind anti-worker sentiment—“why should someone flipping burgers have x!?!”—no matter which workers are being discussed.
 
Since Apple's median employee pay is $57,783, I doubt many of those you are referring to were among the signatories of this letter.
That’s salary. You’re forgetting the money spent on each employee for benefits, vacation, perks, etc etc. My income varies but I once got a peak at the cost of my employment. It was almost 3x my salary after including retirement, insurance, etc etc. Daily wages are only a snapshot of the picture.
 
I have been trying for the last 10+ minutes since you posted to try to figure it out. I don't show my feet on Zoom, I don't look at someone's shoes in person. I am not sure what the metaphor is supposed to mean, which is why I asked.
The conversation has lost all meaning and context at this point. WFH might be more productive than being in the office but the details of the situation matter.

Fortune 50 or fortune 50 wannabe? 5 employees or 50,000? Company business….regulated industry? Types of jobs; IT or non-IT? Excerpt or non-excempt? Etc
 
My 1.5 or so years of working remotely wasn't living in a bubble as a 14 yr old. We collaborate, plan, and execute on-site ops with internal and external partners equally as effectively. And when I'm on-site, it's all Webex/Teams/etc anyway. When not needed on-site, there's no difference between us planning or working on planning or ops in a cube, or from the home office. I don't need to see someone's micro expressions to know if they've done their jobs, either the network is functioning or it isn't. Just speaking from my experience though. I don't know what you've directly observed of course.
That's fair. I painted with a broad brush, but it's not to say it can never work. Size of org and nature of business matters. Consultants and sales rarely go back to the home office - they've always been remote but accountable to a greater authority (e.g. customer).

I can say from experience, the larger the org, the more people and culture matter to the org, and it's not just for show. It's much harder to keep everyone on mission when there's 10,000 people than 100 people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ctucci
The reluctance of going back to work in office is a direct indictment of living in the Bay Area. People don't want to pay million dollars on a 600 sq foot house.
 
Apple need to flexible about WFH. An allowance of two weeks per year is pathetic.

Google and other companies that are flexible about home working would be more than happy in taking disgruntled Apple employees.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1Peace and motulist
Are you freaking kidding me? Complaining because they have to come into work a measly THREE days per week? Is this from the Onion or is this real? Fire their butts and replace them with others. That way they can stay home 7 days a week.
Are you freaking kidding me?
Complaining because they want to be productive? They want fire extinguishers? They want 40 hour work weeks?
 
Too many people don’t try to be happier or better things, they want to make sure everyone has it as bad as them or worse. That’s how they derive their value. Either someone is below them they can look down on, or someone above them should be happy with what they have and shut up.

That’s the real core behind anti-worker sentiment—“why should someone flipping burgers have x!?!”—no matter which workers are being discussed.
Good points... And yeah, you're right, this is no different a conversation than when a bunch of boomers scream "They want $15 an hour to work the drive through??? When I was their age I made a buck an hour and I didn't complain one time! Bootstraps and stuff!"
 
Are you freaking kidding me?
Complaining because they want to be productive? They want fire extinguishers? They want 40 hour work weeks?
What the letter employees said doesn't correlate to what you posted here.

We are formally requesting that Apple considers remote and location-flexible work decisions to be as autonomous for a team to decide as are hiring decisions.
We are formally requesting a company-wide recurring short survey with a clearly structured and transparent communication / feedback process at the company-wide level, organization-wide level, and team-wide level, covering topics listed below.
We are formally requesting a question about employee churn due to remote work be added to exit interviews.
We are formally requesting a transparent, clear plan of action to accommodate disabilities via onsite, offsite, remote, hybrid, or otherwise location-flexible work.
We are formally requesting insight into the environmental impact of returning to onsite in-person work, and how permanent remote-and-location-flexibility could offset that impact.

It looks to me like they are trying to build a case (through Apple survey) that going back to work would create disability and overt impact on the environment, even though they were doing all these things before the Pandemic.

Translation = It is all a load of lazy crap.
 
  • Love
Reactions: kerr
It’s a metaphor, figure it out. Again zoom is great and a paradigm shift has occurred because of it. That doesn’t mean that having a workforce in the office isn’t better than zoom.
I think that their point is that it’s functionally the same. I have yet to see one legitimate example here of how face to face is better.

Considering all the issues working from home avoids it’s actually better than face to face.
 


A large group of Apple employees are opposing the company's plans to require three days of in-person work a week from September, according to a internal letter seen by The Verge.

appleparkempty.jpg

In the detailed letter sent yesterday afternoon, addressed to CEO Tim Cook and the company's executive leadership, the Apple employees said that they want a more flexible approach where those who want to work remotely are able to do so.



Earlier this week, Tim Cook sent a note to Apple employees explaining that they will need to return to the office for at least three days a week starting in September. Teams that require in-person work will return to the office for four to five days a week, but most employees will still be able to have two days of remote work. Employees will also be able to work entirely remotely for up to two weeks every year, but the remote work requests will need to be approved by managers.



The new remote working policy is a distinctive easing compare to the company's previous working from home policy, but some Apple staff believe that the new plan does not go far enough and is "not sufficient in addressing many of our needs."

Benefits of more flexible work highlighted by the employees included diversity and inclusion in retention and hiring, tearing down previously-existing communication barriers, better work-life balance, better integration of existing remote workers, and reduced spread of pathogens.



The letter reportedly began in an Apple Slack channel for "remote work advocates" with around 2,800 members. As many as 80 employees are said to have been involved in writing and editing the note.

The letter summarised its formal requests as follows:



See the full letter at The Verge for more information.

Article Link: Apple Staff Complain About Plans for Return to Office Work in Letter to Tim Cook
So the lives and families of the people who have been working, now having to push the buttons those engineers once did, in the offices and labs since almost day one after WFH began don't matter? Where are they in your email? Entitled snot nosed brats.
 
Perhaps indeed related but on the macOS side Catalina must have been developed well before the epidemic began and is a pretty poor one too. They just have weak releases once in a while.

Anyway, that campus does not look like a pleasant place to be unless you like your open offices on a massive scale and somewhere far outside town. Obviously the people in favor of having everyone return to the office will be managers and others who's job is to be in your face all day. Usually same ones who think removing all partitions makes people 'connect' more. I guess setups like these at least boost the sales of noise cancelling headphones.
I wonder if it is one of those open office spaces where they dictate where to place everything on your desk.
 
What the letter employees said doesn't correlate to what you posted here.

We are formally requesting that Apple considers remote and location-flexible work decisions to be as autonomous for a team to decide as are hiring decisions.
We are formally requesting a company-wide recurring short survey with a clearly structured and transparent communication / feedback process at the company-wide level, organization-wide level, and team-wide level, covering topics listed below.
We are formally requesting a question about employee churn due to remote work be added to exit interviews.
We are formally requesting a transparent, clear plan of action to accommodate disabilities via onsite, offsite, remote, hybrid, or otherwise location-flexible work.
We are formally requesting insight into the environmental impact of returning to onsite in-person work, and how permanent remote-and-location-flexibility could offset that impact.

It looks to me like they are trying to build a case (through Apple survey) that going back to work would create disability and overt impact on the environment, even though they were doing all these things before the Pandemic.

Translation = It is all a load of lazy crap.
It’s not the same world as before the pandemic. Everyone should realize they are at greater risk simply by being in an office. Some, such as the immune compromised, could die. You have to make the policy apply to everyone to allow privacy with respect to medical issues.
 
The reluctance of going back to work in office is a direct indictment of living in the Bay Area. People don't want to pay million dollars on a 600 sq foot house.

I live five miles from Apple’s HQ. Before the pandemic, it would frequently take 45 minutes to get from there to here during rush hour in the evening. (I pass it on the way home, because traffic tells my GPS to wind all over the place to get home from where I now work). Zillow zestimates my house at $2M, for 2400 sq ft on an 8000 sq ft lot (It was around a third of that when I bought it 20 years ago). There are certainly downsides to living here. Many up-sides, too, of course.
 
It’s not the same world as before the pandemic. Everyone should realize they are at greater risk simply by being in an office. Some, such as the immune compromised, could die. You have to make the policy apply to everyone to allow privacy with respect to medical issues.
Unless the letter employees have developed a physical disability or potential life threatening allergy etc., I don't see how they should be given exemptions.

Why is it the world suddenly has to change post Pandemic. I find that to be an easy excuse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PotatoLeekSoup
Apple need to flexible about WFH. An allowance of two weeks per year is pathetic.

Google and other companies that are flexible about home working would be more than happy in taking disgruntled Apple employees.
While some work assignments along with VTC allow good interaction with management, I still see people that work remotely becoming less valuable because management can't interact with them on a regular basis. Its kinda you're known, but become someone the manager doesn't communicate that often as they do with other local staff to their work site.
This south SF bay area where the main Apple campus's is indeed returning back to normal, even if we all wear masks when appropriate. So give or take a few more months WFH just won't utilized as much as before, that is just the way it is moving. :)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.