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

[seek3r]

OMG, who pays you? Apple. Apple is the company you WORK FOR, who PAYS your salary.... don't like, move on.

If you don't like working there move on; many would love to. What is happening in this world, no respect.

That’s exactly what many of these folks will do if they dont get more flexibility and it will be Apple’s loss more than theirs, they wont have trouble finding other work but recruiting in tech can be tough and expensive right now.

I don’t understand people who think you should just take what’s offered and shut up without pushing back for better work conditions. The company makes more money from you than they pay you, or it wouldnt be worth employing you, so why not make sure they give you what works? As I said earlier I love my job but I work to enable the rest of my life, not the other way around, the more flexible my work is the better.

Also, do you like weekends, child labor laws, sick leave, workplace harassment protections, workplace safety laws, etc? Congrats, the same argument you’re making here was made against workers advocating for those things too.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

That’s exactly what many of these folks will do if they dont get more flexibility and it will be Apple’s loss more than theirs, they wont have trouble finding other work but recruiting in tech can be tough and expensive right now.

I don’t understand people who think you should just take what’s offered and shut up without pushing back for better work conditions. The company makes more money from you than they pay you, or it wouldnt be worth employing you, so why not make sure they give you what works? As I said earlier I love my job but I work to enable the rest of my life, not the other way around, the more flexible my work is the better.

Also, do you like weekends, child labor laws, sick leave, workplace harassment protections, workplace safety laws, etc? Congrats, the same argument you’re making here was made against workers advocating for those things too.

I’d say Apple HQ offers some of the nicest if not the nicest working conditions in the world. The hybrid proposal Apple have made here to allow employees to work part from home and part at work is incredibly generous and wasn’t an obligation on their part. When we talk about fighting for better working conditions we refer to better ventilation, safe working equipment, better pay, etc. Not luxury office space in one of the most expensive and best equipped buildings on the planet. Sure the employees can fight for what they deem is better but I hope they don’t get it. When employees hold a company to ransom like this with unreasonable demands, I think it’s best to stand firm and let them seek a better place to work for them and the company.

 

[jk73]

That’s exactly what many of these folks will do if they dont get more flexibility and it will be Apple’s loss more than theirs, they wont have trouble finding other work but recruiting in tech can be tough and expensive right now.

I don’t understand people who think you should just take what’s offered and shut up without pushing back for better work conditions. The company makes more money from you than they pay you, or it wouldnt be worth employing you, so why not make sure they give you what works? As I said earlier I love my job but I work to enable the rest of my life, not the other way around, the more flexible my work is the better.

Also, do you like weekends, child labor laws, sick leave, workplace harassment protections, workplace safety laws, etc? Congrats, the same argument you’re making here was made against workers advocating for those things too.

Much of this is a straw man. Nobody here argued that workers “should just take what’s offered and shut up.” The point was that these Apple workers come across not only as whiny and entitled but as a bunch of scammers. Arguing for WFH is one thing; arguing that not allowing 100% WFH is somehow “non-inclusive” is pure garbage. These people are trying to publicly shake down Apple management by throwing out the latest P.C. buzz words. A smart CEO fires them all to send a message — or orders them all into the office starting tomorrow to call their bluff.

 

[seadragon]

Sounds like you are feeling personally attacked.

Not in the least. Just stating my opinion.

 

[Mellofello808]

My friends live in Japan.

The wife started the interview process at Twitter, in February 2020. She got hired on in early March, and basically came into the office a few times before they sent everyone home.

Has been fully remote ever since.

She actually hates it, and is patiently waiting to stay long enough where it doesn't look bad to have left.

Spending every waking hour in a tiny Tokyo apartment isn't what she signed up for. No kids, and not much Social life.

Meanwhile my friend works for Google in Seattle. They are still fully WFH, but word is from up high that the day is rapidly approaching for everyone to be back in the office mostly full time.

He is dreading it, since it is an hour bus ride each way to their campus out of the city. He also has grown accustomed to being with his kids. Plus his home office is setup perfectly.

He is desperately trying to change departments to one that still will allow WFH, even at a pay cut, and a serious risk to his future potential with the company.

Even though they both have polar opposite views of how they personally feel about WFH, they both have blue chip tech company resumes, so they can both move to a company that has a WFH policy that fits them better.

 

[Silverstring]

arguing that not allowing 100% WFH is somehow “non-inclusive” is pure garbage.

Oh really? Tell that to the millions of people who have severe mobility issues, or suffer from low or no vision, or are sensitive to external stimuli, or any one of many issues that may cause commuting or working in an office surrounded by others extremely difficult, if not impossible.

Now, you may argue that none of these issues affect this particular group of Apple workers, and you might even be right…but that’s a different argument.

it absolutely is “non-inclusive” to deny work opportunities to people who could make meaningful contributions in particular positions (conducive to remote work obviously, like programming, not all jobs ever) if those particular obstacles were removed.

Claiming that these people either A) don’t exist or B) that they’re all just opportunistic grifters says more about you than them

A smart CEO fires them all to send a message — or orders them all into the office starting tomorrow to call their bluff.

Are you a CEO?

I’m definitely not suggesting that a CEO should concede to many or most of worker requests/demands, but even that said a “smart CEO” of a company with such a high PR profile certainly would not risk alienating a large portion of their workforce (and potentially customers, not to mention risking litigation) by initiating a mass firing in a highly competitive industry/area at the snap of a finger like that.

Apple/Cook may choose to hold firm to their line, but if they do, their response to the pushback will be more measured.

A “smart CEO” knows that it isn’t prudent to flex their authority in such unnecessarily showy manner just because they can. It would hurt recruiting, morale, productivity, public/investor confidence, project status…literally hundreds of things.

Apple isn’t some, say, family restaurant who’s owner runs it like their own personal fiefdom with unchecked authority. There are many more factors to consider at the scale of a company like Apple.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Apple should tell these employees their demands have been reviewed but the very generous proposal Apple outlined initially still stands. Issue a new contract for them all to sign and those that don’t should go to a consultation period to discuss their issue and possible redundancy. The company I work for did this recently when bonuses were restructured. It was decided you had to properly earn it to get full payment and some entitled employees kicked off. Ironically it was the ones who underperformed and thankfully were made redundant. I know so many places now that have removed their WFH policy completely, therefore have no sympathy for the people at Apple kicking off over what is immensely generous IMO.

 

[atupuxi]

Apple has been offering on-site Covid-19 testing for employees returning to its offices and has also been providing mail-in testing kits for both retail and corporate workers. Apple recently added a new feature to its Maps app to help users find vaccination sites.

 

[jk73]

Oh really? Tell that to the millions of people who have severe mobility issues, or suffer from low or no vision, or are sensitive to external stimuli, or any one of many issues that may cause commuting or working in an office surrounded by others extremely difficult, if not impossible.

Now, you may argue that none of these issues affect this particular group of Apple workers, and you might even be right…but that’s a different argument.

No, it’s not a “different argument.” It’s the exact argument we were having here, since there’s no evidence these Apple workers suffer from “severe mobility issues.”

it absolutely is “non-inclusive” to deny work opportunities to people who could make meaningful contributions in particular positions (conducive to remote work obviously, like programming, not all jobs ever) if those particular obstacles were removed.

Claiming that these people either A) don’t exist or B) that they’re all just opportunistic grifters says more about you than them

No, it doesn’t. Absolutely no one is entitled to WFH or to otherwise dictate their working conditions.

“He who pays the piper calls the tune,” etc.

Are you a CEO?

Yes, but not of a tech company.

I’m definitely not suggesting that a CEO should concede to many or most of worker requests/demands, but even that said a “smart CEO” of a company with such a high PR profile certainly would not risk alienating a large portion of their workforce (and potentially customers, not to mention risking litigation) by initiating a mass firing in a highly competitive industry/area at the snap of a finger like that.

You’re arguing that these Apple workers should get to WFH 100% of the time, but you believe “many or most” other “requests/demands” would be outlandish and should be refused? Such as?

A “smart CEO” knows that it isn’t prudent to flex their authority in such unnecessarily showy manner just because they can. It would hurt recruiting, morale, productivity, public/investor confidence, project status…literally hundreds of things.

Apple isn’t some, say, family restaurant who’s owner runs it like their own personal fiefdom with unchecked authority. There are many more factors to consider at the scale of a company like Apple.

Apple’s size is exactly why it’s a bad idea to allow a cancer to fester. It’s much easier to excise one cancer at the family restaurant than to excise hundreds or thousands of cancers that resulted from being perceived as a weak leader and having the inmates decide they should run the asylum.

 

[Ladybug]

I personally think Apple is being more than fair in this instance. People keep saying the need a hybrid solution however that’s exactly what Apple is offering.

All these workers signed on to be in the office 100% of the time. Now they won’t have to. Apple is under no obligation to allow 100% WFH.

Of course they are free to advocate for that but Apple must do what’s best for the company so good luck with that.

 

[dba415]

Interesting how Facebook is taking the opposite approach and allowing everyone to work remotely if they want to. Should be interesting to see which is better. Facebook will arguably be able to attract more talent due to flexibility while paying less. Apple will be paying more but potentially getting more productive and innovative employees.

 

[Mellofello808]

People act like high demand tech workers don't have any leverage in this situation.

Many of these employees are at constant risk of being poached by other companies. It will be a big incentive to allow WFH, if it is what their preference.

 

[jk73]

People act like high demand tech workers don't have any leverage in this situation.

Which people? Tim Cook?

Many of these employees are at constant risk of being poached by other companies. It will be a big incentive to allow WFH, if it is what their preference.

Whiny, self-entitled types are rarely in demand anywhere, except maybe Hollywood.

 

[seek3r]

Which people? Tim Cook?



Whiny, self-entitled types are rarely in demand anywhere, except maybe Hollywood.

We are literally interviewing someone right now who’s jumping from their current job because they don’t want to go back to working in an office, and we’re cool with them being fully remote. Someone we actually tried to hire a couple years ago and they didn’t want to jump at the time. So you were saying?

 

[Absolute Trainwreck]

Not offering full time WFH when it’s shown that in many jobs productivity increases or at a minimum stays the same is wrong. Anyone here who’s like “they should just fire them” and siding with a trillion dollar corporation over groups of employees who demand change should instantly forfeit every single workers rights benefit written into law in the last two centuries. I can’t tell if the mood in here is /r/hailcorporate or if it’s just usual macrumors people being highly biased towards apple, but there are some truly sad comments here that demonstrate a complete lack of sympathy for people in situations they will never understand, in favour of a faceless nameless trillion dollar mega-corporation. And one of them turns out to be a CEO as he claims, why does that not surprise me.

absolutely shameful. you wouldn’t be enjoying all the rights and protections offered to every worker if your side won in the past

 

[Abazigal]

People act like high demand tech workers don't have any leverage in this situation.

Many of these employees are at constant risk of being poached by other companies. It will be a big incentive to allow WFH, if it is what their preference.

That’s besides the point. I am simply saying - if these employees are indeed as highly-sought after as you make them out to be, and they have no issues finding employment elsewhere, and Apple is willing to let them go in favour of hiring another employee who has no qualms about working on-site…

What’s the issue? Everyone gets what they want in this scenario. The employee in question gets to work from home as he originally wanted, the company hiring him gets a skilled and experienced worker, Apple also lets go of an employee who isn’t happy with their policies (while also getting another employee who presumably will be).

At the end of the day, it’s not wrong for the employee to want to fight for what he perceives are better working conditions, and Apple is also under no obligation to accede to them if they don’t think these policies are in the company’s best interests.

I am simply calling it as it is.

 

[jk73]

We are literally interviewing someone right now who’s jumping from their current job because they don’t want to go back to working in an office, and we’re cool with them being fully remote. Someone we actually tried to hire a couple years ago and they didn’t want to jump at the time. So you were saying?

That’s great. Apple, on the other hand, isn’t interested in full-time WFH. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. If people want to WFH, they can seek alternate employment. Everyone wins.

 

[jk73]

Not offering full time WFH when it’s shown that in many jobs productivity increases or at a minimum stays the same is wrong. Anyone here who’s like “they should just fire them” and siding with a trillion dollar corporation over groups of employees who demand change should instantly forfeit every single workers rights benefit written into law in the last two centuries. I can’t tell if the mood in here is /r/hailcorporate or if it’s just usual macrumors people being highly biased towards apple, but there are some truly sad comments here that demonstrate a complete lack of sympathy for people in situations they will never understand, in favour of a faceless nameless trillion dollar mega-corporation. And one of them turns out to be a CEO as he claims, why does that not surprise me.

absolutely shameful. you wouldn’t be enjoying all the rights and protections offered to every worker if your side won in the past

We already went through this. Apple isn’t doing this to spite its workers.

 

[Absolute Trainwreck]

We already went through this. Apple isn’t doing this to spite its workers.

I never said that, not sure if you just skimmed through or actually read it. They don’t do it to spite anyone, they do it because they don’t want to back down on legacy policy and are absolutely stuck to traditional ways of doing things for no reason other than they’re all very old and not progressive enough for the industry

 

[Abazigal]

I never said that, not sure if you just skimmed through or actually read it. They don’t do it to spite anyone, they do it because they don’t want to back down on legacy policy and are absolutely stuck to traditional ways of doing things for no reason other than they’re all very old and not progressive enough for the industry

I guess, if that's the process that will allow them to continue making great products, I as a consumer really have no reason to complain. Sometimes, the old ways are old for one key reason - they work.

Perhaps you are right in that it may be legacy policy holding them back, and maybe that might change in the future, but it's also a process that Apple will have to gradually work towards, to minimise the disruption to their product development process. It's not something that you can just snap your fingers and will into existence overnight, any more than blackberry could overhaul their OS overnight after the first iPhone was announced.

Personally, I am still of the opinion that WFH is more a way of navigating the current pandemic situation, and not the revolution in the way we work that everyone is making it out to be, simply because not every company is wired to function in such a decentralised manner.

 

[Absolute Trainwreck]

I guess, if that's the process that will allow them to continue making great products, I as a consumer really have no reason to complain. Sometimes, the old ways are old for one key reason - they work.

Perhaps you are right in that it may be legacy policy holding them back, and maybe that might change in the future, but it's also a process that Apple will have to gradually work towards, to minimise the disruption to their product development process. It's not something that you can just snap your fingers and will into existence overnight, any more than blackberry could overhaul their OS overnight after the first iPhone was announced.

Personally, I am still of the opinion that WFH is more a way of navigating the current pandemic situation, and not the revolution in the way we work that everyone is making it out to be, simply because not every company is wired to function in such a decentralised manner.

If a company isn’t wired for remote work for technical reasons then that’s something they need to work on to stay competitive. If a company isn’t wired for remote work for productivity reasons or physical requirements then that’s different and they’re entitled to make demands on that within reason.

in Apple’s case, I don’t know the numbers for sure but the vast majority of software teams in companies across most industries can 100% switch to WFH with no to increased productivity (there are studies specific to WFH and productivity that back this up) plus the obvious savings on driving, parking, insurance, hours a day stuck in traffic, emissions from loads of cars that would otherwise be in the garage.

my 2c, beyond this I think it’s clear that there are different trains of thought here and it doesn’t seem likely that anyone on either side is gonna change their view on this

 

[jk73]

I never said that, not sure if you just skimmed through or actually read it. They don’t do it to spite anyone, they do it because they don’t want to back down on legacy policy and are absolutely stuck to traditional ways of doing things for no reason other than they’re all very old and not progressive enough for the industry

Apple isn’t doing this out of spite, they’re doing it because Tim Cook is stupid?

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Not offering full time WFH when it’s shown that in many jobs productivity increases or at a minimum stays the same is wrong. Anyone here who’s like “they should just fire them” and siding with a trillion dollar corporation over groups of employees who demand change should instantly forfeit every single workers rights benefit written into law in the last two centuries. I can’t tell if the mood in here is /r/hailcorporate or if it’s just usual macrumors people being highly biased towards apple, but there are some truly sad comments here that demonstrate a complete lack of sympathy for people in situations they will never understand, in favour of a faceless nameless trillion dollar mega-corporation. And one of them turns out to be a CEO as he claims, why does that not surprise me.

absolutely shameful. you wouldn’t be enjoying all the rights and protections offered to every worker if your side won in the past

Probably because many of us don’t see this rather generous offer by Apple as being unreasonable at all. I’m not at all biased towards Apple here and viewing this from my own views on working and what I see as right. A lot of companies are revoking the WFH option completely and a hybrid scheme like this one on this article is now common place across multiple industries. A company will be flexible as long as it is good for the business.

 

[pdoherty]

I never said that, not sure if you just skimmed through or actually read it. They don’t do it to spite anyone, they do it because they don’t want to back down on legacy policy and are absolutely stuck to traditional ways of doing things for no reason other than they’re all very old and not progressive enough for the industry

…and because they wrapped up a very large amount of their persona and capital on an expensive corporate campus.

Probably because many of us don’t see this rather generous offer by Apple as being unreasonable at all. I’m not at all biased towards Apple here and viewing this from my own views on working and what I see as right. A lot of companies are revoking the WFH option completely and a hybrid scheme like this one on this article is now common place across multiple industries. A company will be flexible as long as it is good for the business.

The reason the hybrid model they’re offering isn’t ‘generous’ is because it prevents *any* employee from moving to another cost-of-living environment, due to the need to be in the office.

 

[Absolute Trainwreck]

…and because they wrapped up a very large amount of their persona and capital on an expensive corporate campus.

Yup pretty much. That part isn’t their fault but having people WFH would save them money on electricity, kitchens, traffic, heating/cooling, etc etc. So at least there’s that lol