Apple Staff Complain About Plans for Return to Office Work in Letter to Tim Cook

[4jasontv]

I disagree. In spite of the skepticism, companies can elect to take care of their employees. Obviously there is a mutual benefit, but at the same time companies are not obligated to do so.

Disagree with what? HR and Legal are paid for by the company. No employee should ever speak with them thinking they are even remotely on their side. Their job is to protect the company. If an employee walks away happy that great but it's never a primary goal.

 

[triptolemus]

It isn't a court of law, but backing of claims most definitely is necessary.


I have no idea - that's why I'm not making claims about what happened, as statements of fact. That was the whole point.

It's not necessary. You can have a discussion. Of course none of us really know, and our opinion doesn't matter at all in the scheme of things. But yet here we are 31 32 pages into a thread still beating it around.

Some possibilities include:

• Apple management leaked it.
• Someone from employee group leaked it alone.
• The group collectively leaked it.
• The Verge hacked a server and stole it.
• It blew out the window going down the freeway on the way to deliver it.
• Someone from the group left it on the crapper at Starbucks.

I mean, of these, which is more likely? Drop the incessant need for facts. It's exhausting, particularly in a conversation with zero consequence. PRSI? Sure, facts matter. This thread? Not so much. Reasonableness is good.

 

[Stephen.R]

but when staff are simply a face on a screen and work is just digital content, different methods need to be employed.

If the outputs are "digital content", why would you need different methods to evaluate if they're achieving the required outputs?

 

[Stephen.R]

It's not necessary.

I don't make the rules, mate.

You can have a discussion.

Having a discussion means either presenting opinions, or explaining why the thing you're claiming is a fact, is a fact.

That's not related to the rules, it's just basic human nature.

If someone says "did you know dogs are actually related to ducks", most people are going to ask for some kind of backing for that claim.

Drop the incessant need for facts.

I asked one person to back up one statement they made, which was expressed as a fact. That person clarified that they were expressing an opinion.


Literally the only reason we're discussing this is because you chose to inject yourself into that conversation.

 

[eicarr]

A great opportunity for talented graduates and for Apple to obtain better/up-to-date skill set matches for current needs. Some workers lose interest in their jobs over time and it’s better for them to move on.

 

[Stephen.R]

Some possibilities include:

• Apple management leaked it.
• Someone from employee group leaked it alone.
• The group collectively leaked it.
• The Verge hacked a server and stole it.
• It blew out the window going down the freeway on the way to deliver it.
• Someone from the group left it on the crapper at Starbucks.

Or maybe it was a Russian extortion ring. First they get the laptop schematics.. then they get the... employee letter to the CEO.... next they'll have the lunch menu!


The whole point I was making, is that we have no idea how it was leaked, or why or by whom. So someone using their own assumptions about how/who/why, stating them as a fact and using it as some kind of "explanation" about how "they're doing it wrong" is absurd.

 

[4jasontv]

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) It seems like some people aren't promoting it. That's what we want to see active support.

2) There is no chain of command when it comes to disputing working conditions. Everyone should know, from customers to other industry leaders, what is going on.

3) It is on the companies end to prove that the new return to office work is better for the employees than work from home. The companies are in employees debt.

4) It's not before COVID. Everything changed and businesses lost power over employees. Those days are gone it would serve them well to recognize it.

5) Being safe is an inherent worker right. It's safer to be at home than in an office. Period. Stop. No government or health official can deny that being exposed to others carries ZERO risk.

6) This letter should spark other employees from other companies to release they should be standing up to return to office demands.

7) What Apple wants should always be second to what is best for the safety of its employees. Apple is in no position to make demands, and frankly should be asking the employees if they want a bigger office.

8) As long as it is reasonable and does not put the employees at risk. This demand to return to office is neither.

9) Being able to quit one's job is not a justification for abuse. Would you tell an abused spouse they are free to get a divorce? Absurd.

10) Apple is in the employee's debt. They should be begging for opportunities to pay it off.

11) Apple broke that contract when they asked them to work from home.

12) Fired employees have the right to sue for wrongful termination.

13) Apple owes all its employees far more than they have in stockpiled cash.

14) This shouldn't be a discussion. It's a shame that the letter writes as it might be. Apple is being instructed.

15) Safety isn't a special privilege. Apple DOES owe them and any return-to-work protocol should occur at Apple's expense.

 

[I7guy]

Disagree with what? HR and Legal are paid for by the company. No employee should ever speak with them thinking they are even remotely on their side. Their job is to protect the company. If an employee walks away happy that great but it's never a primary goal.

Employees should definitely reach out to HR, that is what they are there for. The reference to Legal/corporate attorneys was with respect to them guiding the company on the decisions companies would make with respect to their employees.

 

[4jasontv]

Employees should definitely reach out to HR, that is what they are there for. The reference to Legal/corporate attorneys was with respect to them guiding the company on the decisions companies would make with respect to their employees.

NO! Absolutely not. If an employee has a concern about their working conditions or their rights on the job they should hire a lawyer. HR's job includes ensuring that laws aren't being broken, but they do so from the companies side. If one brings an ongoing issue to HR the employee can expect the issue to be addressed, but HR isn't going to go back and find all the employees who were affected and help them get compensation. Instead, they are going to figure out how to 'fix' the issue without admitting fault so they are not responsible for compensating victims.

Your second point is my point. They are guiding the company on the decisions with respect to the employees. They are NOT providing guidance for the employees. They work for the company and their allegiance is 100% to them.

 

[I7guy]

1) It seems like some people aren't promoting it. That's what we want to see active support.

2) There is no chain of command when it comes to disputing working conditions. Everyone should know, from customers to other industry leaders, what is going on.

3) It is on the companies end to prove that the new return to office work is better for the employees than work from home. The companies are in employees debt.

4) It's not before COVID. Everything changed and businesses lost power over employees. Those days are gone it would serve them well to recognize it.

5) Being safe is an inherent worker right. It's safer to be at home than in an office. Period. Stop. No government or health official can deny that being exposed to others carries ZERO risk.

6) This letter should spark other employees from other companies to release they should be standing up to return to office demands.

7) What Apple wants should always be second to what is best for the safety of its employees. Apple is in no position to make demands, and frankly should be asking the employees if they want a bigger office.

8) As long as it is reasonable and does not put the employees at risk. This demand to return to office is neither.

9) Being able to quit one's job is not a justification for abuse. Would you tell an abused spouse they are free to get a divorce? Absurd.

10) Apple is in the employee's debt. They should be begging for opportunities to pay it off.

11) Apple broke that contract when they asked them to work from home.

12) Fired employees have the right to sue for wrongful termination.

13) Apple owes all its employees far more than they have in stockpiled cash.

14) This shouldn't be a discussion. It's a shame that the letter writes as it might be. Apple is being instructed.

15) Safety isn't a special privilege. Apple DOES owe them and any return-to-work protocol should occur at Apple's expense.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but working for a company is a privilege not a right. If you believe employees in professional positions can bully management, imo, you are very off-base. While in 2021 a company should be be receptive to ideas from the employees, there is no obligation for companies to follow through.

Maybe you work for a company where employees dictate how the companies operate, but that is not the case for large corporate entities such as Apple. That doesn't mean in certain areas, there isn't management discretionary powers.

For companies not to try to make employees happy is folly for the company, but the company management has to do what they see is best for the company.

 

[I7guy]

NO! Absolutely not. If an employee has a concern about their working conditions or their rights on the job they should hire a lawyer.

Your second point is my point. They are guiding the company on the decisions with respect to the employees. They are NOT providing guidance for the employees. They work for the company and their allegiance is 100% to them.

I disagree. In my opinion, if an employee hires an attorney to fight for a complete WFH policy when the company guidelines are in the office, it won't end well for the employee. In most professional positions employment is at will.

 

[4jasontv]

I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but working for a company is a privilege not a right. If you believe employees in professional positions can bully management, imo, you are very off-base. While in 2021 a company should be be receptive to ideas from the employees, there is no obligation for companies to follow through.

Maybe you work for a company where employees dictate how the companies operate, but that is not the case for large corporate entities such as Apple. That doesn't mean in certain areas, there isn't management discretionary powers.

For companies not to try to make employees happy is folly for the company, but the company management has to do what they see is best for the company.

There are laws protecting employees. There are morals that people should follow. There are changes that need to be made.

That's where I am getting this.

 

[4jasontv]

I disagree. In my opinion, if an employee hires an attorney to fight for a complete WFH policy when the company guidelines are in the office, it won't end well for the employee. In most professional positions employment is at will.

So you believe in managing with fear and control. I think a lot of companies do that. But this is something that needs to trump at-will employment. You can't put someone in a dark room filled with black mold or lock them in a building with no exits. And you can't ask someone to be in a room full of people who may be sick if reasonable accommodations allow them to perform that duty out of office. Simply wanting them in the office isn't a reasonable justification.

The fact that they even asked is why they need power taken away from them. Employees shouldn't have to question if they will be retaliated against just because they are seeking all they are due.

 

[I7guy]

There are laws protecting employees. There are morals that people should follow. There are changes that need to be made.

That's where I am getting this.

Can you point to any law in any state in the US that guarantees that an employee can work from a location of their choosing, contrary to company policy?

 

[I7guy]

So you believe in managing with fear and control. I think a lot of companies do that.

Hence why they need power taken away from them. Employees shouldn't have to question if they will be retaliated against just because they are seeking all they are due.

The "whistleblower" act you refer to has nothing to do with a WFH policy. And imo, in that scenario an employee will generally lose.

It's not that I believe in managing with fear and control, it's I believe working for a company is not a right and the company has a right to set any policy they want, as long as they adhere to all laws. WFH is not a right for an employee, it's a privilege.

I guess at this point we are going around in circles. Apple is a big company, many divisions, departments, jobs, one size doesn't fit all with respect to employee policy. But Tim Cook is well within his rights to move the needle toward a return to office policy.

 

[4jasontv]

Can you point to any law in any state in the US that guarantees that an employee can work from a location of their choosing, contrary to company policy?

I have pointed to many comparable laws.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

If the outputs are "digital content", why would you need different methods to evaluate if they're achieving the required outputs?

Depends on the job I suppose. I’ve witnessed where working from home has worked and where it hasn’t and been part of trying find a solution that benefits everybody. I think everybody agrees face to face with colleagues is the better than communicating via Teams and if the pandemic is here to stay and the vaccine rollout remind successful, there is no reason why companies can’t request employees return to the workplace.

I like the idea of mixing it up so employees can work from home once or twice a week and that is something I often do.

 

[4jasontv]

The "whistleblower" act you refer to has nothing to do with a WFH policy. And imo, in that scenario an employee will generally lose.

It's not that I believe in managing with fear and control, it's I believe working for a company is not a right and the company has a right to set any policy they want, as long as they adhere to all laws. WFH is not a right for an employee, it's a privilege.

But the company has a responsibility to ensure working conditions are safe. WFH is safer than the office. In the past year, we have seen that it's reasonable to offer this to many employees. Removing the WFH option increases employee risk without providing any clear benefits to them.

WFH should be a right. I am not claiming there is a law that gives them the right. But if companies don't act like there is one, than there will be.

 

[Stephen.R]

I think everybody agrees face to face with colleagues is the better than communicating via Teams

... do you mean everyone in your team/department/organisation, or.. just, everyone, everywhere?

there is no reason why companies can’t request employees return to the workplace.

Just as there is no reason employees can't petition their employer to work remotely.

 

[I7guy]

But the company has a responsibility to ensure working conditions are safe. WFH is safer than the office. In the past year, we have seen that it's reasonable to offer this to many employees. Removing the WFH option increases employee risk without providing any clear benefits to them.

If the CDC says the environment in the US today is safe, are you going to say they are wrong?

WFH should be a right. I am not claiming there is a law that gives them the right. But if companies don't act like there is one, than there will be.

WFH absolutely should not be a right; it should be at the company's discretion.

 

[4jasontv]

there is no reason why companies can’t request employees return to the workplace

I didn't realize it was a request. How many times will they have to be told no before companies drop the issue?

 

[4jasontv]

If the CDC says the environment in the US today is safe, are you going to say they are wrong?

WFH absolutely should not be a right; it should be at the company's discretion.

The CDC did not say the environment was safer than continuing social isolation. They didn't say that because it would be fundamentally untrue. If they did say that then yeah, they are wrong.

 

[Stephen.R]

Depends on the job I suppose. I’ve witnessed where working from home has worked and where it hasn’t and been part of trying find a solution that benefits everybody.

I still don't understand what you were trying to say about 'different methods' for monitoring digital output?


If the output is..... some digital thing. Code, Documents, Photographs of cats, whatever..


How does the location of the worker in question, affect how you evaluate their output?


I completely understand that some people will no doubt be more productive in an office environment, and sometimes those people won't know that intrinsically - they'll potentially need some guidance about their work output not being sufficient, and make a choice or whatever. But that's completely unrelated to what you're talking about.

You're suggesting that people who want to work remotely somehow need "different methods" to evaluate their output. Unless you're going to capitalise on them working remotely and put "Home Made!" stickers on everything they create, I don't see why you would expect the output to be any different, or why it would need any different measurements.

My clients don't ask for extra unit tests because I'm writing their code in my house rather than in their office.

 

[jhwalker]

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 Coo

I’m 100% on Team Remote Work. I’m so much happier working at home now. I’m saving thousands of dollars a year on gasoline, and reclaiming 5-10 hours of my life per week from not having to commute. From an employer’s perspective, I’m more productive, too, and I’m never late getting to work or to a meeting. Luckily, my company has been very accommodating, and embraced working from home, so we’ve been able to reduce our office space lease from an entire floor of a large building to a couple of small offices, saving us close to $150K a year.

Same - I've been working from home for over 20 years, and my productivity is just fine.

I'd really hate to think what would happen if I were forced to come back into an office full time :/

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

... do you mean everyone in your team/department/organisation, or.. just, everyone, everywhere?

Generally but obviously using my own experiences and those of people I know as a metric

Just as there is no reason employees can't petition their employer to work remotely.

They can, but if the company have gone above and beyond to ensure the workplace is safe with all Covid measures put in place, I don’t see why people can’t return to work. It’s a different story if the company haven’t bothered to ensure this of course.

If it’s a case that employees just like working from home because it saves them money and is easier for them, I don’t see that as an excuse. If they have a medical reason and are shielding, that’s a different story.

In a lot of companies there will be those who don’t have the luxury of being able to work from home due to their role not being office based too and having a chunk of the workforce working remotely offsite permanently would not bode well for morale IMO. Some have worked throughout the pandemic and had no choice but to come into the workplace and now I think it’s time for companies to revise safety measures and make it safe for all to return.