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

[Silverstring]

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.”

There's no evidence they don't. My point was about inclusivity. Inclusivity doesn't mean, 100%, it means including different types of workers, not treating everyone like a monolith.

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.

They're not "dictating" their working conditions, they're using collective action to make a request.

Yes, but not of a tech company.

With your authoritarian mindset, I feel sorry for your employees (if you have any).

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?

Don't twist what I am saying. I am not arguing for 100% of everyone who works at Apple to work from home 100% of the time. I'm treating the situation with nuance and depth, which is what it calls for. Not some cowboy "oh yeah!?!? Question me?!?!? I'll fire all your asses!" BS.

My issue with your post is that you characterized the request as "pure garbage", as if it couldn't possibly have merit for anyone in any situation or position, then advocated a one-size-fits all "solution", with zero nuance with regard to the many factors at play. A "smart CEO" doesn't do that, but a short-sighted, power-insecure one does.

I assume, if you have employees, you pay them differing amounts? So you're already accommodating for different experience levels, different skills, different circumstances. Since human beings are different and roles are different, accommodating different work styles—again, provided that output is the same or better—in order to maximize each person's strength and potential, is simply another circumstance, part of the matrix of calculation/evaluation.

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.

Considering your workers requests—which is all I am saying should happen here—and accommodating where it makes sense to, is not "letting the inmates run the asylum". A group of people who find benefit working from home, with no measurable drop in productivity (and even increases for man!), is not a "cancer", it's an adjustment to the world as it changes, if not getting ahead of a shifting environment and gaining an advantage on your competitors...that's what a "smart CEO" does: considers the request, does some due diligence research, considers the results, then adjusts policy if potential positives are shown. A smart CEO doesn't stubbornly cling to the past because "that's how we've always done it here and that's how it is", just dismisses requests out of hand as "P.C." "pure garbage", doesn't actively distrust their employees and work from the assumption that they are grifters and "cancers", and worst of all, do an en masse firing as some kind of flex, like you suggest.

You characterized the letter/request (again, not a dictation) as uncalled for in a "how dare you question my authority by asking for an accomodation, worker bees!"-manner. If anything is a cancer, it's that mindset within a company's leadership.

...and again, before you twist what I am saying, I am NOT advocating for a 100% remote work policy for everyone at Apple. Apple may ultimately decide these new requests are not a good fit for them and reject them, which of course is their right. I'm simply saying that more measured and honest consideration of a collective request—even if again, ultimately rejected—such as this is smart business. Forgoing that in favor of some reactive, knee-jerk, empty display of power without consideration of the downstream reverabative effects...well, that's a stupid CEO move.

In such a fiercely competitive environment like Silicon Valley, you think it'd be good for your business to put out the message: "push back on any level, call into question any aspect of existing policy, and you'll be fired" is a good idea?!?! Sure, a bunch of people around the world who don't have the talent, skills, connections or education to work at Apple would love to have the salary/position, but there is always someone willing to do the same job for less—that's true for any job, so that argument is immaterial.

For people who do have the chops to be competitive for Apple Corporate positions, and are in many cases being actively recruited...putting out that message would be a great ticket to taking yourself out of the running for top talent that would go to more reasonable companies like Twitter or Facebook or Google. Massively business-damaging.

 

[seek3r]

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.

Except of course it’s not impossible they’ll change their policies or relax them if enough of their employees ask, collective action works. You do like having weekends, right?

I don’t think you guys who are all on board on the “employees should just take what their employer’s offer or leave, everyone complaining is a whiny new generation” realize that’s not the flex you think it is. Our grandfather’s and great-grandfathers literally threatened to burn factories down and had some pretty much pitched battles over worker’s rights to get where we are, and people had the same reaction that you are having to this.

Remote work *is* more inclusive, folks who have difficulty moving, disproportionately people who are poorer, disabled, or minorities, will have more access to jobs going forward. People who are traditionally discriminated against will have less worry over moving to less safe locations. People who are disabled will be able to more easily find work. Women/female bodied folks will have an easier time with pregnancy not derailing careers (hell, my sister has been working from home pregnant through the pandemic, if she couldnot have she would have had to take leave, and our leave policies even with the FMLA are terrible in the US). Significant WFH for those that can is the future, it’s been present in the tech industry already for decades and now it’s expanding sharply to a lot of other office workers. That’s not going to stop, and Apple employees are telling Apple that. Just because it doesn’t matter to you doesn’t make it unimportant.

If the last generation’s fight was over workplace safety this generation’s is over what a workplace even is, and how to make it work for more people

 

[jk73]

The thing the pro-Apple workers people keep missing is that the Apple workers apparently didn’t even attempt to negotiate privately. Tim Cook announced the new policy and they immediately tried to extort him through the press with their dumb “diversity and inclusivity” argument. That, alone, is a fireable offense.

 

[Absolute Trainwreck]

The thing the pro-Apple workers people keep missing is that the Apple workers apparently didn’t even attempt to negotiate privately. Tim Cook announced the new policy and they immediately tried to extort him through the press with their dumb “diversity and inclusivity” argument. That, alone, is a fireable offense.

And how would you know if they did or did not attempt to negotiate privately if it’s private?

regardless of your answer to that I just happen to know that the real answer is “uhh i dunno just thought it’d help push my agenda”

 

[jk73]

And how would you know if they did or did not attempt to negotiate privately if it’s private?

regardless of your answer to that I just happen to know that the real answer is “uhh i dunno just thought it’d help push my agenda”

Because they went to the media barely two days after Cook’s announcement.

Some of you people aren’t even trying with your arguments.

Tech workers, 2019: “We need to make big money because the Bay Area is expensive.”

Tech workers, 2021: “We need to make Bay Area salaries while living in Idaho because … uh … diversity and inclusion.”

Comical.

 

[Silverstring]

And how would you know if they did or did not attempt to negotiate privately if it’s private?

regardless of your answer to that I just happen to know that the real answer is “uhh i dunno just thought it’d help push my agenda”

Right, there's definitely some ideological projecting leaking from that response (and others).

Mockery of "diversity and inclusion" as if the concept itself automatically has no possible merit is quite the dogwhistle.

As is the power fantasy of firing whole swaths of people at the drop of a hat.

 

[jk73]

Right, there's definitely some ideological projecting leaking from that response (and others).

Mockery of "diversity and inclusion" as if the concept itself automatically has no possible merit is quite the dogwhistle.

As is the power fantasy of firing whole swaths of people at the drop of a hat.

The concept has no merit here whatsoever. The entire argument is a sham.

 

[Silverstring]

Because they went to the media barely two days after Cook’s announcement.

Some of you people aren’t even trying with your arguments.

Tech workers, 2019: “We need to make big money because the Bay Area is expensive.”

Tech workers, 2021: “We need to make Bay Area salaries while living in Idaho because … uh … diversity and inclusion.”

Comical.

Sure, if you think reducing an entire workforce, their mindsets, and their motivations to two pithy statements across two years of worldwide upheaval is a good and well thought-out "argument".

A complex, changing world requires in-depth thinking...not overly reductive ideological shorthand.

Comical.

 

[jk73]

Sure, if you think reducing an entire workforce, their mindsets, and their motivations to two pithy statements across two years of worldwide upheaval is a good and well thought-out "argument".

A complex, changing world requires in-depth thinking...not overly reductive ideological shorthand.

Comical.

It’s not an “entire workforce.” It’s a tiny percentage of disgruntled whiners.

 

[Silverstring]

The concept has no merit here whatsoever. The entire argument is a sham.

Ah, the 'ol "it's true because I say it's true".

You got us, can't argue with that!

Or, do you have detailed information about Apple's inner working, and the makeup of their corporate workforce? What the positions are, what people's individual situations are, how adaptable those situations/positions are (or are not) to remote work?

I suspect not.

 

[jk73]

Ah, the 'ol "it's true because I say it's true".

You got us, can't argue with that!

Or, do you have detailed information about Apple's inner working, and the makeup of their corporate workforce? What the positions are, what people's individual situations are, how adaptable those situations/positions are (or are not) to remote work?

I suspect not.

Tim Cook does.

 

[Silverstring]

It‘s not an “entire workforce.” It’s a tiny percentage of disgruntled whiners.

Did you not just use

"Tech workers" and the "Bay Area", which encompasses much more than Apple

...or did I imagine that?

You literally have no idea what the percentage is. You're projecting based on preconceived notions. If anyone is "disgruntled" here, it's you...against these workers.

Just say "Based on nothing but my own personal biases, this is how I feel". You're free to feel that way, but it isn't to be confused with a cogent argument, so why the pretense?

Otherwise, if you have evidence of this "tiny percentage" please present it. My guess is you think you and your beliefs are part of the "silent majority", even though the data says otherwise.

 

[Silverstring]

Tim Cook does.

Still doesn't mean its a "tiny percentage".

Cook made a decision, new information has come in with this worker's request. That's it. You're presupposing that the discussion has already taken place. If it had, the workers wouldn't need to go to the press.

...and if you think that the CEO of a company that size personally has that degree of ground-level insight into the day to day of the rank and file...then that might be the biggest false assumption you're making here.

 

[dba415]

Let's be real, the only reason why Apple is forcing everyone to go back to Cupertino is because they spent billions on a space ship looking office and need to prove that it wasn't a gigantic waste of money. Of course, one would argue that something so pretentious and extravagant was already a waste of money, but it being at 40% capacity would make it obvious.

 

[jk73]

Did you not just use

"Tech workers" and the "Bay Area", which encompasses much more than Apple

...or did I imagine that?

You literally have no idea what the percentage is. You're projecting based on preconceived notions. If anyone is "disgruntled" here, it's you...against these workers.

Just say "Based on nothing but my own personal biases, this is how I feel". You're free to feel that way, but it isn't to be confused with a cogent argument, so why the pretense?

Otherwise, if you have evidence of this "tiny percentage" please present it. My guess is you think you and your beliefs are part of the "silent majority", even though the data says otherwise.

What percentage of Apple’s workers signed the letter in question?

 

[jk73]

Still doesn't mean its a "tiny percentage".

Cook made a decision, new information has come in with this worker's request. That's it. You're presupposing that the discussion has already taken place. If it had, the workers wouldn't need to go to the press.

...and if you think that the CEO of a company that size personally has that degree of ground-level insight into the day to day of the rank and file...then that might be the biggest false assumption you're making here.

You believe Tim Cook made a rash, uneducated decision?

 

[Silverstring]

What percentage of Apple’s workers signed the letter in question?

We. Don’t. Know.

You’re the only one making assertive claims about relative size here, and now we know what personal biases are leading you to that conclusion.

 

[jk73]

Let's be real, the only reason why Apple is forcing everyone to go back to Cupertino is because they spent billions on a space ship looking office and need to prove that it wasn't a gigantic waste of money. Of course, one would argue that something so pretentious and extravagant was already a waste of money, but it being at 40% capacity would make it obvious.

Apple’s software quality control is about the worst I can recall in almost 40 years of Mac use, and last week’s keynote was the biggest snooze fest in Apple’s history.

Tim Cook isn’t doing this just because of the new office.

 

[Silverstring]

I’m done, thanks. Jesus what a waste of time this has been

You know what they say…

“If you can’t beat ‘em…


…bring up something irrelevant.”

🤣

 

[jk73]

We. Don’t. Know.

You’re the only one making assertive claims about relative size here, and now we know what personal biases are leading you to that conclusion.

It was a tiny percentage. We know this simply because of the timing. There’s no way some massive, company-wide effort came together in the two days between Cook’s announcement and these whiners going to the media.

 

[jk73]

You know what they say…

“If you can’t beat ‘em…


…bring up something irrelevant.”

🤣

It wasn’t irrelevant. He made it sound like he had spent years here arguing on this topic but people were too dumb to appreciate his wisdom. He’s been here a week.

 

[Schismz]

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



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.

I've mentioned this before, but it depends an awful lot on what kind of employee you are at Apple. Many software engineers have worked from home for roughly 15 years, very few of them are anywhere near Cupertino; the NYC Apple offices are just rental space and mostly empty desks which fill up for sales meetings.

None of the work from home if you're an engineer paradigm was created because Apple was being ultra-generous or forward-looking, it came into play because a lot of project leaders on integral software components became Apple millionaires and simply quit and decided to go live wherever they wanted, "Buh-bye, going on permanent vacation!"" Apple -- as often seems to happen -- un-quit many of them by offering a lot more money, stock, and the option to work from wherever they wanted and never have to show up at an office.

The system has worked quite well for them most of the time.

Lessons to be derived? Make yourself invaluable and watch reality re-adjust itself around you to better conform to your needs. If your skillset is extremely valuable, you can often set whatever terms you want. The bailing project leaders paved the path for the sizable contingent of software engineers who followed them. A rough ballpark figure is- more than half of Apple's software engineering workforce was already remote to begin with, and nowhere near Cupertino. SOMEBODY has to go sit inside the mothership, but its far from the majority.

 

[Silverstring]

You believe Tim Cook made a rash, uneducated decision?

I’m asking in the nicest possible way:

Is it possible for you to intake the evidence as is, and not make a wildly speculative projection based on no evidence?

If your conclusions are already set, why ask questions?

I’m suggesting that it’s possible that Tim Cook made the decision based on evidence available at the time (which is not all-encompassing), and heavily based on Apple’s past/historical precedent.

External circumstances forced Apple to try a new model, and some of the day to day rank and file found benefits and advantages to the new model (not just personal ones, but professional ones—like greater/improved focus—too).

Those workers decided to bring attention to this new information straight to Cook through the media, because I don’t know if you know this, but Tim Cook doesn’t sit in his office all day, and even if he did…it’s not as though people lower on the hierarchy can just knock on his office door and sit down for a quick “rap session”.

So, if you’re a group of mid-to-lower-level workers trying to get your CEO’s eyes and consideration on something while bypassing the middle management and the inevitable distortion/possible softening that they, as middle managers, are incentivized to perform…going to the press is a smart way to cut that red tape/game of telephone.

That—and stay with me here—doesn’t mean Tim Cook made a “rash” decision. It’s not a mutually exclusive thing.

I know it’s easy—and tempting—to use overly simplified, reductive mental heuristics to completely hand-wave away complex situations.

…but that approach will lead you to some half-baked conclusions, as it has.

Edit: A couple instances of errant punctation and a typo.

 

[jk73]

I’m asking in the nicest possible way:

Is it possible for you to intake the evidence as is, and not make a wildly speculative projection based on no evidence?

If your conclusions are already set, why ask questions?

I’m suggesting that it’s possible that Tim Cook made the decision based on evidence available at the time (which is not all-encompassing), and heavily based on Apple’s past/historical precedent.

External circumstances forced Apple to try a new model, and some of the day to day rank and file found benefits and advantages to the new model (not just personal ones, but professional ones—like greater/improved focus—) too.

Those workers decided to bring attention to this new information straight to Cook through the media, because I don’t know if you know this, but Tim Cook doesn’t sit in his office all day, and even if he did…it’s not as though people lower on the hierarchy can just knock on his office door and sit down for a quick “rap session”.

So, if you’re a group of mid-to-lower-level workers trying to get your CEO’s eyes and consideration on something while bypassing the middle management and the inevitable distortion/possible softening that they, as middle managers, are incentivized to perform…going to the press is a smart way to cut that red tape/game of telephone.

That—and stay with me here—doesn’t mean Tim Cook made a “rash” decision. It’s not a mutually exclusive thing.

I know it’s easy—and tempting—to use overly simplified, reductive mental heuristics to completely hand-wave away complex situations.

…but that approach will lead you to some half-baked conclusions, as it as.

Please.

Tim Cook considered all of this already, and the employees immediately going to the media was a blatant attempt to extort/embarrass Cook into acquiescing to their demands by invoking the latest “woke” gibberish. There was nothing good-faith about any of it. Cook didn’t order people into the office the next week; he gave 90 days of notice.

 

[Silverstring]

It was a tiny percentage. We know this simply because of the timing. There’s no way some massive, company-wide effort came together in the two days between Cook’s announcement and these whiners going to the media.

Have you ever worked in an office? Honest question.

You don’t think it’s even possible that Apple workers, knowing company history, external news about vaccine #s and local restrictions, combined with internal whispers/scuttlebutt/leaks/hints of lifting of the at-home policy led workers to start forming/articulating these thoughts and organizing a little even before the announcement, and then, when it hit…they knew they had to act quickly with their response and accelerate their timeline?

Your very premise that there is no way this could already have been percolating amongst workers…and that the entire concept literally from inception to letter came together in two day, ONLY AFTER Cook’s announcement…is a WILD stretch.

C’mon…use your head.

I can only see someone drawing this conclusion seriously if—going in—they were not willing to give the workers even a micron of credit. It’s obvious that’s the pre-conceived notion you filter this entire story and every piece of evidence we do have through...but your insistence on mapping those personal feelings and speculations 1:1 to reality...as if your conclusions are iron clad?

To use your word...comical.