Remote workers are 14-24% more productive... good for the company. Teams are often scattered around the world and already meet over Zoom-like technology... so they are already “forced” to collaborate that way.
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 Staff Complain About Plans for Return to Office Work in Letter to Tim Cook
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is awesome, good on them. Work life balance with both partners working is impossible, let alone if you want children or need to care for your parents or a child with a disability. Life shouldn’t be miserable.
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.
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
and any talk of pay without including bennies is half the picture. Sweet can’t lose Stock purchase plan, very sweet 401k match, profit sharing,medical and dental that is primo, huge accrual allowance, food, Sabbatical, and ones I’m sure they’ve added since I haven’t worked there (25 years).
Anyone trying to make Apple Cupertino/Silicon Valley employees out to be the suffering proletariat is harshly fooling themselves.
I’m tech support WFH since well before Covid. WFH is not only not for everyone, over the longer term it isn’t going to be mentally healthy for many. However, providing 2 days a week WFH with 3 days a week in the office? That is optimal all the way around, IME.
Well now they know better, times have changed. If you are a couple both working full time, work life balance is incredibly difficult. If you have children you don’t even get to parent them properly, let alone children with disabilities or if you are a carer of your parents. We should be encouraging a better quality of life, after all isn’t that a goal we all share?
Companies only think about their self interest. It's the lack of caring for the individual that is the real problem.
That’s why companies pay people to work for them, not the other way around.
Compensation is only for the work not as a sign of caring employees. Whenemployees risking themselves to workplace everyday negotiating various challenges can never be compensated by the Employer. At the same time employees also selfish at times leaving one job and join another organization if they offer better Compensation. Both cannot blame each other as both are as selfish as the other....
Apple isn’t even demanding they return full time… they’re asking for 3 days a week. That means you still get the majority of your days at home (including weekends), and you still work for Apple, and you still get paid the same salary (or more) that you negotiated when you were full time commuting. Seriously, if you aren’t happy with these completely reasonable 3-day arrangement, I’m sure there are plenty of engineers happy to take your place.
Not to mention… doing highly secretive engineering work is not conducive to an at-home work environment, and anyone with half a brain would’ve known this when they took a job at Apple. It can managed in a pinch yes, but it’s far from ideal.
Not to mention… doing highly secretive engineering work is not conducive to an at-home work environment, and anyone with half a brain would’ve known this when they took a job at Apple. It can managed in a pinch yes, but it’s far from ideal.
Does the median pay include employees in Apple Stores? If so, I think we can all agree that those employees will heavily skew the number while also not being relevant for this argument (sales people still need to work in-person to get paid, even now).
My guess is most people working at Infinite Loop are either engineers or senior-level-or-above managers, which probably puts their pay somewhere in the $150k (very junior engineer) to $500k++ range having worked in the tech industry.
It all started with work with no pay, i.e. slavery. Then moving on to pay some kind of minimum wage. 14 hours per day, 7 days per week. No vacation. Then gradually more rights over time. But not because the companies or people in charge cared about the individual. You see what I mean? And in many parts of the world, it hasn't moved on at all.
That a company pays me doesn't mean I have any life quality at all, or any time to enjoy life, at all. But if I complain about that, I am a spoiled brat.
Never said it was about the blame.
Apple wants people back at HQ because that’s presumably the organisational structure that allows them to best function.
Some employees want WFH because it’s in their vested interests to not have to travel to work. Sometimes, this may benefit the company as well in the form of improved productivity, but more often than it, it’s about themselves (eg: not needing to travel, can wake up later, dress down etc).
No shame in calling it like it is.
You do seem to have a very pessimistic view of the world.
My take is that an organisation is defined by the people within in. You can find different views of employees of an organisation from different departments, some positive some negatives. These perceptions are largely defined by the overall corporate culture and the behaviour of the people managing the department. Sweeping statements are extreme views IMHO.
That is why I said in my earlier post that if an employee’s view doesn’t align with the organisation, the best is to part ways, and I’ll add best amicably.
A commercial for profit organisation exists to make money. But it doesn’t mean employees have to be exploited to achieve that objective. There will be good organisation to work for, and there will be bad ones, and many more in between. That is just the way it is.
If I’m under the payroll of an organisation, it’s only right that I maximise my effort to make the most profit for the organisation. My effort should be recognised by my boss and I should be duly compensated. If I find I’m short changed, I’ll leave for greener pasture.
Last edited:
That is because it was typed on a Surface Pro.
Mgmt in companies sometimes work with HR and Legal for policies to help its employees. The company benefits and during the pandemic the employee benefits. So baloney on the self interest part.
There’s nothing wrong with asking, but when those turn into demands that’s when it’s entitlement.
I think many here are misunderstanding the position of us so-called dinosaurs.
1) We don't have a problem with employees airing grievances, asking questions or seeking better benefits.
2) We have a problem with the process chosen by the letter employees (eg. It is our opinion that they went to media and broke the proper chain of command)
3) Asking the company for proof of their new founded work expectations instead of providing validated proof to the employer that correlates to what the letter employees are allegedly experiencing
4) Demanding to be exempted from the new rules that weren't a problem before COVID
5) Working from home is not an inherent worker right as some here keep asserting
6) We are not saying that Apple shouldn't amend policy at times. We are saying that it should not be done under duress to placate a small group of workers who seem to have the notion that they are part of an unofficial Apple union and should be protected from what they perceive to be inherent rights pulled out of the unfiltered California air.
7) We are saying that if Apple believes it is important for employees to be at work 3 days a week starting in September, all employees should adhere to the new directive unless there is documented doctor supported reason why the letter employees can't be at work. It doesn't matter that some of you work from home for years or that you have seen many employers do differently.
8) Apple has a right to set policy
9) All employees have the right to determine at any time whether they wish to continue working for Apple
10) Apple is not obligated to acquiesce (under duress) to the demands of the letter employees nor should they do that for any person or group within
11) The letter employees signed a contract created in good faith by Apple. They should honor the contract
12) Apple has the right to fire the letter employees if they refuse to follow the September directive
13) Apple doesn't owe the letter employees anything. Apple has already gone above and beyond in keeping employees employed and with more benefits and ongoing help during the time of COVID
14) We haven't said nor do we believe that Apple should never change policy or that a meeting with employees can't be beneficial
15) The letter employees are entitled to receive fair renumeration and compensation for their work. They are not entitled to special privileges just because they think they are owed them and at Apple's expense.
1) We don't have a problem with employees airing grievances, asking questions or seeking better benefits.
2) We have a problem with the process chosen by the letter employees (eg. It is our opinion that they went to media and broke the proper chain of command)
3) Asking the company for proof of their new founded work expectations instead of providing validated proof to the employer that correlates to what the letter employees are allegedly experiencing
4) Demanding to be exempted from the new rules that weren't a problem before COVID
5) Working from home is not an inherent worker right as some here keep asserting
6) We are not saying that Apple shouldn't amend policy at times. We are saying that it should not be done under duress to placate a small group of workers who seem to have the notion that they are part of an unofficial Apple union and should be protected from what they perceive to be inherent rights pulled out of the unfiltered California air.
7) We are saying that if Apple believes it is important for employees to be at work 3 days a week starting in September, all employees should adhere to the new directive unless there is documented doctor supported reason why the letter employees can't be at work. It doesn't matter that some of you work from home for years or that you have seen many employers do differently.
8) Apple has a right to set policy
9) All employees have the right to determine at any time whether they wish to continue working for Apple
10) Apple is not obligated to acquiesce (under duress) to the demands of the letter employees nor should they do that for any person or group within
11) The letter employees signed a contract created in good faith by Apple. They should honor the contract
12) Apple has the right to fire the letter employees if they refuse to follow the September directive
13) Apple doesn't owe the letter employees anything. Apple has already gone above and beyond in keeping employees employed and with more benefits and ongoing help during the time of COVID
14) We haven't said nor do we believe that Apple should never change policy or that a meeting with employees can't be beneficial
15) The letter employees are entitled to receive fair renumeration and compensation for their work. They are not entitled to special privileges just because they think they are owed them and at Apple's expense.
Last edited:
This level of entitlement is both amusing and misguided. It's really not up to you to decide the logic of a return to the office. And honestly, whether it's logical or not, it's a decision the employer makes.
Employees have choice alright-work the way the employer lays out, or leave. It's that simple. No one owes you a job.
Employee safety; I cannot imagine a company more able to maximize employee safety. So long as appropriate measures are taken, an office like Apple's will be perfectly safe. And, I'm sure they have done extensive environmental surveys to ensure this.
The article very clearly says it's an internal letter addressed to the CEO and executive management/leadership team, and that it was sent to others within the organisation to sign on Friday.
There is zero reason to assume the same people who wrote it, also sent it to the media.
So, please provide some source to back up your claim that those who wrote the letter are the same people who "went to the media". If you can't I'll have no choice but to pointlessly request the local constabulary investigate this comment.
It is my personal opinion that one or more of the letter writers did alert the Verge and or other online based media about their letter. There is no reason to believe it wasn't done by someone in that group. I don't believe management would leak such a thing, although someone in management could have. I don't need to provide proof of my opinion. I am entitled to my opinion whether you like it or not.
*Off-topic remark removed.
I amended my post to make it more clear I was stating an opinion, which I was. You can look elsewhere for ammunition.
Last edited:
If enough engineers get annoyed Apple won't go belly up, but they'll lose their best talent to other companies. That big company I mentioned I used to work for earlier in the thread? They tried to force a lot of full time WFH people back to regional offices a few years back and lost a lot of their best people.
And yes, there is a scale difference as well as a subject difference here, it's a lot easier to find 10 talented people who are willing to follow basecamp's policy changes than it is in general for Apple to sift through and hire thousands of the most heavily recruited engineers when other top companies *are* offering the flexibility that these employees want. As I said earlier I've had recruitment attempts from Apple personally, and I'm not sure at this point I'd be willing to move to a company that didn't have full WFH options. My current employer hasn't told us plans yet but my group is a bit seperate from the rest of the company anyway and my boss has been very clear about flexibility (we were already rather flexible anyway) and openness to people staying fully remote should they choose. I would want that option in any future job as well, and it'll be easier to get post-pandemic.
I already have a couple big names on my resume, I don't need Apple if I were looking for a new job. I'm not bragging here, I'm pointing out that if Apple wants to hire folks like me there'll be a lot of people, like me, who are going to find their lack of options for remote work more distasteful than they would have before the pandemic. If they were to go ahead and fire everyone who signed this, as folks on this thread are suggesting (something I doubt they would attempt to do), that would turn that distaste into active dislike and avoidance. And Apple wants to hire the people who are most likely to be pissed off by that kind of action and most likely to be happy to turn down offers from Apple because of it.
As an engineer you need to be flexible and collaboration is a key function. Often this can be done remotely as many proved last year, but there is no substitute for face to face contact. Motivation is also something that benefits from physically being in the presence of your colleagues. 2020 was a tough year for everybody and many businesses had no choice but to adapt to a new way of working. However it’s time to try and transition back to normality as much as possible and what is best for the employee, is not always best for the business. If engineers are turning down roles because remote working is not allowed on a full time basis, then I’d be happy to let them walk.
There is nothing "inclusive" or "empowering" about staying at home and working. it is about "flexibility" and "convenience". This kind of language manipulation is abhorrent and is so common today, objectivity be damned.
If you want a job at (office of your choice) but are unable to go into the office. that is a personal choice. It is on you to remove the barriers to employment in your life that prevent you from working in an office setting. This is not an Apple exclusive issue, this applies to all employers.
If COVID lasted a 2 weeks, employers would expect you to return to the office. (the duration most businesses had to close if they had an infection exposure)
If COVID lasted a month, employers would expect you to return to the office.
If COVID lasts (lasted) over a year.... employers expect you to return to the office. The duration is irrelevant.
Apple isnt going to fire these people for signing this letter. That isn't their style. it is all about risk and reward. If you are top level talent that Apple can justify taking the risk on keeping you noting your dissatisfaction... So be it. If you are a mid or low level average talent... don't sneeze the wrong way because Apple will be watching you. The employees have the upper hand right now in the market (at least in my area) so the employees are leveraging their "capital" against their employers.
If you want a job at (office of your choice) but are unable to go into the office. that is a personal choice. It is on you to remove the barriers to employment in your life that prevent you from working in an office setting. This is not an Apple exclusive issue, this applies to all employers.
If COVID lasted a 2 weeks, employers would expect you to return to the office. (the duration most businesses had to close if they had an infection exposure)
If COVID lasted a month, employers would expect you to return to the office.
If COVID lasts (lasted) over a year.... employers expect you to return to the office. The duration is irrelevant.
Apple isnt going to fire these people for signing this letter. That isn't their style. it is all about risk and reward. If you are top level talent that Apple can justify taking the risk on keeping you noting your dissatisfaction... So be it. If you are a mid or low level average talent... don't sneeze the wrong way because Apple will be watching you. The employees have the upper hand right now in the market (at least in my area) so the employees are leveraging their "capital" against their employers.
Last edited: