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

[Silverstring]

No. A good sense of judgement formed from participation and observation .

A "majority" isn't a judgement-based determination. There is no interpretation to it. It is literally quantitative.

I'm honestly not trying to pick a bone with you (or any other poster, just the arguments put forth), but now you might understand why this thread has gone on so long: posts making assertions and claiming truth armed with nothing other than personal belief.

That's bizarre.

 

[jk73]

Nobody believes that.

They sure do.

 

[Stephen.R]

This thread gets more bizarre every time i look at it lol. It’s like a small shiver of sharks programmed with a ‘working from home’ rhetoric going after one defiant poster. The vocal majority that originally condemned these employees and agreed with this poster have now swam to safety lol. Love it

you love when people repeatedly post the same circular logic, and can’t actually articulate why they’re so adamant that people can’t be productive working remotely?

weird thing to love but ok, you do you my man.

 

[jk73]

you love when people repeatedly post the same circular logic, and can’t actually articulate why they’re so adamant that people can’t be productive working remotely?

weird thing to love but ok, you do you my man.

I haven’t posted any circular logic. I’ve said Tim Cook assuredly didn’t make this decision without data and analysis supporting it.

 

[Silverstring]

I’ve said Tim Cook assuredly didn’t make this decision without data and analysis supporting it.

…and you know this how, exactly?

Not just know it, but know enough to assure it’s validity?

“Tim Cook made this decision because he assuredly has data and analysis supporting it, which is why he made this decision”

is circular logic.

 

[jk73]

…and you know this how, exactly?

Not just know it, but know enough to assure it’s validity?

“Tim Cook made this decision because he assuredly has data and analysis supporting it, which is why he made this decision”

is circular logic.

The same way I know Tim Cook doesn’t drink battery acid for breakfast.

This is long past ridiculous.

 

[Silverstring]

The same way I know Tim Cook doesn’t drink battery acid for breakfast.

You think you know this for a fact?

You can guess, you can assume, you can infer…but you can’t know.

This is long past ridiculous.

I agree.

 

[Silverstring]

I understand that - because you just rocking up at someone’s desk is a direct disruption to their environment.

I’m saying that sending a text based message to someone - who you’re going to communicate with purely through the same text medium - “sorry to disturb you …” is weird and unnecessary to me, and I haven’t seen it really in all my time.

Oh, I agree. I’ll ask them if it’s a good time for them, but I don’t apologize for the request itself. That would be weird and unnecessary. Part of the job and being a good colleague/teammate is being resources for each other.

I’ve had people be apologetic during or at the end of a conversation when they realised the Timezone difference - but i generally wouldn’t have answered their original message if I wasn’t already at my desk or was working on something time-critical anyway, so in those instances it’s not like they’ve drawn me away from something else.

Makes sense.

 

[seek3r]

Great. Take it up with the whiny Apple employees who believe Tim Cook is reducing WFH by 60%.

He’s dropping it from pandemic levels and increasing it compared to pre-pandemic, this isnt complicated

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

A "majority" isn't a judgement-based determination. There is no interpretation to it. It is literally quantitative.

I'm honestly not trying to pick a bone with you (or any other poster, just the arguments put forth), but now you might understand why this thread has gone on so long: posts making assertions and claiming truth armed with nothing other than personal belief.

That's bizarre.

There isn’t a single poster in this thread that isn’t commenting on this topic and using their personal circumstances as a metric to some degree.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

you love when people repeatedly post the same circular logic, and can’t actually articulate why they’re so adamant that people can’t be productive working remotely?

weird thing to love but ok, you do you my man.

Nobody has claimed ‘some people’ are incapable of working remotely. The consistent point throughout the entire has been it doesn’t work for every business. Yourself and about 3 others disagree with that because you are remote workers and think your situation and ethic applies to everybody. That’s the same circular logic my man

 

[Stephen.R]

I haven’t posted any circular logic. I’ve said Tim Cook assuredly didn’t make this decision without data and analysis supporting it.

And the only 'evidence' you've posted of this, is that he told people to come back to the office.


So, he told people to come back "because the data says its better" and we know he has that data "because he told people to come back".

That is why your argument is based on circular logic.

The same way I know Tim Cook doesn’t drink battery acid for breakfast.

This is long past ridiculous.

Drinking battery acid for breakfast would either mean Tim Cook isn't human, or that he's incredibly sick. Both are quite unlikely.

Upper and middle management making decisions based on "gut feelings" and "I don't care what the data says" type statements, are a well documented phenomena, for literally decades.

Nobody has claimed ‘some people’ are incapable of working remotely. The consistent point throughout the entire has been it doesn’t work for every business. Yourself and about 3 others disagree with that because you are remote workers and think your situation and ethic applies to everybody. That’s the same circular logic my man

No, you're not even missing the point myself and others have made, you're twisting it to suit your own narrative.

Nobody arguing for remote working has claimed that their own situation applies to everybody. Plenty of people arguing against have suggested or inferred things with a very broad stroke of the bush though, and I'll paraphrase here: "all these people just want to work from home so they can **** around and not do any work".

Nobody has claimed everybody is capable of/wants to working remotely. To suggest otherwise means you're either being disingenuous or you haven't actually read the thread, and are instead just guessing what people wrote.

Some people may be unable to work remotely/from home due to the job requirements (actual requirements, like "has to use a 400T metal press in the workshop" or "has to physically guard the factory" or "has to meet with customers"; not unsubstantiated "well I think everyone will work better in one big office" claims), or it may be due to their own personal work habits/preferences (e.g inability to focus or stay on task at home, or not enough space to have any privacy, etc)


That a company is willing to allow ongoing 40% remote work, suggests that those people are, overall, very much able to work from a remote location. So your argument that "it doesn't work for every company" while accurate, isn't necessarily relevant.

Myself and others who have worked remotely for years, if not decades, adding anecdotal evidence to the discussion is not "circular logic" unless you ask "well how did you know when you started, that it would work for you" and we responded with "because we're doing it now".

 

[ipponrg]

That a company is willing to allow ongoing 40% remote work, suggests that those people are, overall, very much able to work from a remote location. So your argument that "it doesn't work for every company" while accurate, isn't necessarily relevant.

Myself and others who have worked remotely for years, if not decades, adding anecdotal evidence to the discussion is not "circular logic" unless you ask "well how did you know when you started, that it would work for you" and we responded with "because we're doing it now".

This is the epitome of pedantics at its finest

Yes, it’s true that 40% means those people can work from home. It however doesn’t mean they can work 100% because the company still perceives value for them to be in the office 60% of the time. Your rhetorics or “anecdotal evidences” infer they should be able to work remotely 100% of the time. After all the topic of this thread were workers were complaining they still have to go into the office “60%” of the times which is why you have been perpetually providing your anecdotes of 100% wfh.

Based on at least how I interpret your comments, “it doesn’t work for every company” is still relevant.

 

[Stephen.R]

because the company still perceives value for them to be in the office 60% of the time.

And yet 54 pages later no one has actually defined any cromulent argument about what that is.

Your rhetorics or “anecdotal evidences” infer they should be able to work remotely 100% of the time.

No, my anecdotal evidence infers that some people are perfectly capable of working remotely 100% of the time.

The staff who wrote the letter infers that these people particularly believe they are able to work remotely 100% of the time.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

No, my anecdotal evidence infers that some people are perfectly capable of working remotely 100% of the time.

The staff who wrote the letter infers that these people particularly believe they are able to work remotely 100% of the time.

You seem to disagree with those that suggest not everybody in a computer based role is able to work 100% remotely though. There is no disagreement here about ‘some roles’. Not all businesses want staff to be absent all the time and regardless of how great technology is in terms of video conferencing etc, it’s no substitute for actually communicating with someone in their presence in many scenarios. Some roles can cope with that level of contact but then it’s down to the company to judge if that dynamic works for the business.

I’m sure the staff in this letter feel they can work from home 100% of the time, but Apple clearly feel there is some benefit to a hybrid working proposal instead. There’s not a company on earth that doesn’t have people who feel they are working much better than they actually are, and especially around appraisal time. Applying our own anecdotal situations to this only goes so far and from every angle. You’ve dismissed others anecdotal admissions and used your own as proof WFH works for you, but this is the point, not all businesses are the same.

 

[Silverstring]

There isn’t a single poster in this thread that isn’t commenting on this topic and using their personal circumstances as a metric to some degree.

You hit the nail on the head. “Some degree” that leads to speculation is different than say, “I assert that this is how Tim Cook/Apple made their determination.” or “I can read the read the minds of Apple employees and know that they erroneously believe that Tim Cook is NOT expanding the WFH policy, even though they more than likely worked under the pre-pandemic, more restrictive policy.” or “Apple’s software quality dropped because of WFH, and Tim Cook has noticed the same.”

 

[Stephen.R]

You seem to disagree with those that suggest not everybody in a computer based role is able to work 100% remotely though.

Where have I said that?

it’s no substitute for actually communicating with someone in their presence

actually communicating with someone, as opposed to what, not communicating?

I know I haven't worked in an office for a while but surely it isn't common practice to ban emails, text chat, and phone calls? Or am I mistaken? Do office managers everyone to actually communicate face to face?

but then it’s down to the company to judge if that dynamic works for the business

Well given that a business isn't an entity that can communicate with humans, surely it's down to the collective employees of that business to identify which 'dynamic' works?

A middle manager claiming that people aren't productive remotely because s/he has to actually do something and monitor their actual output rather than just being eagle eyed about who is in the office when, is hardly an unbiased judge of what "dynamic" works best. Just the same as a freeloader who slacks off in the office, and jumps at the opportunity to slack off at home.

That's surely the whole point of organisations having internal discussions about this type of "new" (for some of you anyway) working arrangement - pros & cons, benefits and costs, etc etc.

I’m sure the staff in this letter feel they can work from home 100% of the time, but Apple clearly feel there is some benefit to a hybrid working proposal instead.

And yet, after 54 pages we've yet to hear any cromulent arguments about why large-scale full time remote working capability should not be an option for what is largely a software company.

Lots of "feelings" about how being stuck in a cubicle sorry I forgot, not even cubicles at Apple is it? Just wide open spaces like an open-range zoo for software developers. Not distracting at all I bet.

There’s not a company on earth that doesn’t have people who feel they are working much better than they actually are, and especially around appraisal time.

And I'd suggest there's very few office-bound companies on earth who don't have at least one middle manager who judges performance based on attendance time, rather than actual output.

You’ve dismissed others anecdotal admissions and used your own as proof WFH works for you, but this is the point, not all businesses are the same.

You're trying really hard to miss (or misconstrue?) the point, aren't you?

No one anywhere in this thread has said that every single individual can work remotely 100% of the time (and be productive).

What we have said is that some roles are relatively easy to adapt to working remotely. It's not a coincidence that we're saying this in a thread about a company that employees thousands of people in very similar roles, who have expressed their desire to continue working remotely.

You keep saying "not all businesses are the same", and no one has disagreed with that - several of us even agreed - but then weirdly you keep trying to use that difference as some kind of justification that no one should expect remote working to be a standard option.

 

[daveathall]

I would think that it is the company and not it's employees who are best placed to judge whether or not remote working is profitable for their business. I also think that it is up to the company to make the choice, not the people it pays.

 

[Stephen.R]

I would think that it is the company and not it's employees who are best placed to judge whether or not remote working is profitable for their business. I also think that it is up to the company to make the choice, not the people it pays.

A company can't judge things or make decisions/choices. It isn't sentient.

People, who also work for said company, make decisions, and those people are not infallible. Just because a manager says "my staff are more productive in the office" doesn't inherently make it true.

 

[jk73]

A company can't judge things or make decisions/choices. It isn't sentient.

More pedantics.

People, who also work for said company, make decisions, and those people are not infallible. Just because a manager says "my staff are more productive in the office" doesn't inherently make it true.

Yes, just like the WFH crowd isn’t necessarily right about how much more productive they are while WFH.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Where have I said that?



actually communicating with someone, as opposed to what, not communicating?

I know I haven't worked in an office for a while but surely it isn't common practice to ban emails, text chat, and phone calls? Or am I mistaken? Do office managers everyone to actually communicate face to face?


Well given that a business isn't an entity that can communicate with humans, surely it's down to the collective employees of that business to identify which 'dynamic' works?

A middle manager claiming that people aren't productive remotely because s/he has to actually do something and monitor their actual output rather than just being eagle eyed about who is in the office when, is hardly an unbiased judge of what "dynamic" works best. Just the same as a freeloader who slacks off in the office, and jumps at the opportunity to slack off at home.

That's surely the whole point of organisations having internal discussions about this type of "new" (for some of you anyway) working arrangement - pros & cons, benefits and costs, etc etc.



And yet, after 54 pages we've yet to hear any cromulent arguments about why large-scale full time remote working capability should not be an option for what is largely a software company.

Lots of "feelings" about how being stuck in a cubicle sorry I forgot, not even cubicles at Apple is it? Just wide open spaces like an open-range zoo for software developers. Not distracting at all I bet.


And I'd suggest there's very few office-bound companies on earth who don't have at least one middle manager who judges performance based on attendance time, rather than actual output.



You're trying really hard to miss (or misconstrue?) the point, aren't you?

No one anywhere in this thread has said that every single individual can work remotely 100% of the time (and be productive).

What we have said is that some roles are relatively easy to adapt to working remotely. It's not a coincidence that we're saying this in a thread about a company that employees thousands of people in very similar roles, who have expressed their desire to continue working remotely.

You keep saying "not all businesses are the same", and no one has disagreed with that - several of us even agreed - but then weirdly you keep trying to use that difference as some kind of justification that no one should expect remote working to be a standard option.

I really don’t understand what point you are making then if you seem to agree with everybody you are debating with? If anybody agrees some roles can be suited for WFH and some require a hybrid approach, and companies are the best party to judge, then there is nothing here to disagree on and going round in circles.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

A company can't judge things or make decisions/choices. It isn't sentient.

People, who also work for said company, make decisions, and those people are not infallible. Just because a manager says "my staff are more productive in the office" doesn't inherently make it true.

But the manager is in a position of authority to make the decision, right? When people say ‘the company’, you do realise they mean the management and directors of that company and not the building or objects that make up a workplace?

When managers make decisions, not every decision is going to be liked but those people are paid more to make decisions and put their neck on the block. Employees may think they work better at home and may love working at home, but it’s their boss that decides what is best for the department/company and we don’t always get what we want.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

I would think that it is the company and not it's employees who are best placed to judge whether or not remote working is profitable for their business. I also think that it is up to the company to make the choice, not the people it pays.

Absolutely. Not everybody thinks beyond their own interests when it comes to being allowed some flexibility. Employees may well enjoy not going into the office, but if the company decide everybody is to return full time, or on a hybrid basis, it’s kind of tough. Employees perks don’t come at a cost to the productivity of the business and the company decide what is best for them first and foremost.

 

[Silverstring]

I would think that it is the company and not it's employees who are best placed to judge whether or not remote working is profitable for their business. I also think that it is up to the company to make the choice, not the people it pays.

Who claimed the company doesn’t make the choice? Obviously they do.

…but if someone suggests that a company shouldn’t take the perspectives and opinions and input of it’s workers as a significant factor to shape—not solely determine—how your policies are structured, then they’d be a terrible company leader.

Many people throughout this thread have characterized the letter writers as lazy, whiny, entitled grifters who are trying to exploit Apple just because they’ve made an organized request—not a demand—for the effects they’ve seen day-to-day “on the ground” to be taken into greater account.

Company leaders are often not “best placed to judge” what decision makes the most sense for their company—otherwise bad, unprofitable business decisions would never be made by any company. “The company” has the power, sure, but not necessarily the best judgement. The company has blind spots, misinterpreted data, sometimes no data at all, just “gut feelings”…all things that can be judged incorrectly, and lead to a flawed decision.

Has someone never seen or heard of a company announce something/make a decision…then reverse course? How does anyone think that happens?

All the letter writers are essentially saying is “hey Tim and other company leaders, we think you may have missed something here that deserves another look that we are seeing every day on our level” and asking—not demanding—for those factors to be looked at more closely to possibly reconsider some aspects of the new policy. To some of the posters on this thread, that’s akin to extortion.

Finally, if it’s profitability that should be the main driver in this decision…then Apple should stay exactly as it has been throughout the pandemic. Their earnings reports for 2020 say as much, yet they still announced a change to the policy, so we already know that there are other factors to weigh.

 

[I7guy]

Who claimed the company doesn’t make the choice? Obviously they do.

…but if you’re suggesting that a company shouldn’t take the perspectives and opinions and input of it’s workers as a significant factor to shape—not solely determine—how your policies are structured, then you’d be a terrible company leader.
[…]

It depends…doesn’t it. Are the company employees giving feedback about manufacturing inefficiencies, materials management, operational risks? Or are the company employees giving feedback on salary, vacation, benefits?

The former very welcome, the latter maybe not so much.