First rule of employement is they can fire for anything, never give them a reason.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Sued for 'All-Seeing Eye' Employee Device Monitoring Policy
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That’s a pretty spineless way to go about life. I don’t think anyone’s employer should have much say with how a person lives their life outside of work
And I didn’t ask how they got away with it, I asked why one would be OK with that. It’s an entirely different attitude of “this is the way the law works” vs telling people they *should* accept corporate control over our lives
Also, “they can fire for anything” is a common misconception. In most US states, an employer can fire for any legal reason but there are plenty of illegal reasons to fire someone, like if they get a disability
And in other countries, they have much better worker protections so it’s even better
That’s quite hyperbolic and has nothing to do with what I said
Is what I said. Where’d you get “being a cancer on the work environment” from that?
Why should an employee have to accept unreasonable terms and conditions, like not being allowed to speak out if something is going bad at work?
I’d think anyone who cares about worker’s rights or our ability to control our own lives/speech would take issue with that
They don’t. They don’t have to accept employment in the intended company.
You are using workers rights in the wrong context. When you work for someone there is a code of behavior. Don’t like the code find another job.
You are defending an employee's right to openly criticize, demean, accuse, and challenge their employer in public. If you don't think that is a cancer on a work environment, then you have either never had to manage morale in a large organization or you live in a different universe.
I like the backhanded insult. Thanks. The only problem is, it's not about reading critically. If that were the case, you wouldn't acknowledge it only when I brought it up. Also, the comment of yours that I responded to did not acknowledge that they were forced to use personal iCloud accounts most of the time. Most of the time is too often. So please explain how you didn't catch that if you read critically? Also, by the comment about MDM software, you are then going back on the other things you have said about having to just take it from Apple because he signed a contract that is most likely illegal.
They are. Yikes! Might need to search first. I just gave examples of other companies since everyone thinks Apple is immune. If other companies aren't, than Apple isn't either. Here's a link about US Labor board filing a complaint against Apple for some of the practices in this lawsuit, and they were filed in October. https://www.reuters.com/technology/...-imposing-illegal-workplace-rules-2024-10-01/
If the "code of behavior", as you put it, is overly restrictive and illegal, then you have every right to fight it. Don't like it, you could move to Russia or something. See my previous post as they ARE facing complaints from a US Labor board, filed BEFORE this lawsuit.
That's not even what the case is about. You are trying to make this about something that it's not. That's quite the fallacy, or error in logic, that you are using there.
No, it isn't what the case is about. But that isn't what I was addressing. I was responding to that maxoakland's comments. If you aren't going to follow the thread of conversation, it would be best not to accuse people of logic errors.
I would think apple paying its outside attorneys $1B a year has this covered as far as what is legal or not.
Having complaints against them doesn’t mean it goes anywhere.
Having a complaint doesn’t in the end mean a finding. And lawsuits take$250 to file.
Keep moving the goalpost. lol. You've lost the argument. It's okay. You can admit you were wrong.
Ironically I did go back and read and follow the conversation. You were WAY off topic and, as the others, trying to add into the conversation something that was never actually there. Hence the person you responded to saying as much.
Go read your comment to which I was replying. You literally said, "If apple had unfair labor practices the labor relations or other governing body would be on apple." And I provided you proof that there is the US Labor Relations "on them", in your terms. So you are trying to move the goalpost like the others?
Actually, he never responded to the post I made rebutting his assertion that my characterization of what he was saying was wrong. I suppose he could and then I can have a conversation with him about what he meant. Meanwhile, your comments are meh since you cannot speak for the other poster.
Last edited:
If that’s the best response, it means there may be some gaps in knowledge on how things really work.
There is no finding for apple and lawsuits take $250 to file. And they have to win. To wit, the iCloud lawsuit.
That is reality.
I agree, however, I don’t have any internal dislike for Apple that I have to feed. Because of that, I understand that, if Apple has no requirement for employees to use their personal phones, then each instance of a personal phone and a personal apple id being used “most of the time” was due to an employees choice.
However, if you’ve worked there, and if you were forced to use your personal phone or personal apple id with no option for a business phone, then I’m just mistaken on Apple policies and concede.
If you keep moving the goalpost of what you are talking about, that means your argument isn't sound, so you have to pretend you were talking about something else, so your argument doesn't sound as illogical. Nice try. As mentioned, they already have complaints form the NLRB. You are wrong. Full stop.
As stated a complaint amounts to nothing. Nor does a lawsuit. There has to be a finding. Period.
As stated, you said if there were a real issue, there would be complaints from a national labor board or other government entity. So as stated, the NLRB are now investigating further after filing a complaint. I provided the link. Then you moved the goalpost to say, well anyone could do that. Stop embarrassing yourself. So again, you are wrong, full stop. Period. Here's another link since I guess the first one wasn't sufficient... https://www.hrgrapevine.com/us/cont...cing-workers-through-confidentiality-policies
Attachments
Again an investigation amounts to nothing. There has to be a finding. Just like a lawsuit. Filing is easy- winning not so much.