4 ms·

To provide some context Ted Hodges, the author of the article, was employed as an Apple Expert (1). An Apple Expert is a ~$20/hr retail job - https://jobs.appl

To provide some context Ted Hodges, the author of the article, was employed as an Apple Expert (1). An Apple Expert is a ~$20/hr retail job - https://jobs.apple.com/en-us/details/114438150/us-expert https://jobs.apple.com/en-us/details/114438150/us-expert The "boss" he mentions was probably an Apple Store Manager or Assistant Manager. I understand the frustration from Ted but this feels a lot more like a conflict between a mid-level retail manager wielding Apple's general HR guidelines to terminate a retail employee vs. a broader story about Apple hammer smashing a little guy. (1) https://www.facebook.com/ted.hodges.338 https://www.facebook.com/ted.hodges.338

sukilot 6y ago
Apple is fully responsible for the behavior of their managers acting in accordance with company policy. What is a company if not the sum of its people?
- oneplane 6y ago
  That's great in theory, but the personification of a company and the many layers in a large enterprise make it unrealistic to assume everyone is the same, does the same thing, or knows about each other. Doesn't mean bad things aren't bad or good things aren't good, but besides that the marketing and PR departments put out there are more differences than similarities between the people, teams of people and groups of teams in any company.
  - emn13 6y ago
    If your company is structured such that there's no recourse in the event of squabble between a manager and his reports, then your company is bad. If indeed this was just a personal issue with the manager: that's not exactly a ringing endorsement of apple either.
    - oneplane 6y ago
      It doesn't need to be a ringing endorsement, and it doesn't sound like some special Apple-case either. Most companies (especially post-capitalistic American ones) are structured to provide maximum money for the company and/or the shareholders on either the short term or the long term. That's a monster we all created and fed for decades. That means that HR is your friend until they want to get rid of you. And the rules are made in line with that: plenty of options for 'legally' getting rid of people. While I personally think that's just bad for humans, I don't think anyone should still be surprised that that is how it was designed to work.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        Apple Stores are explicitly designed not to focus on maximizing profits. One of the former managers over all Apple Stores were fired because he didn’t get that. Apple Stores have to be fun to balance making money and serve as a marketing channel for Apple. For instance, Apple doesn’t care if customers “showroom” and buy the product somewhere else. Apple makes money either way.
        oneplane 6y ago
        It's not about the retail part and specifically the stores, but the company as a whole. It is designed to balance investments and customer satisfaction to sell products. That means it's fine to lose money in one place (or not maximise revenue and profit) because you make up for it in other parts of the company. Bottom line still needs to be cash coming in. It's a different business model than say a candy supplier that just needs to move quantity one way or the other. It's a longer term system where the instant sales aren't the main driver.
        scarface74 6y ago
        That’s true. But irrelevant. In what way does an Apple employee helping a friend move data when Apple does it for free hinder Apple from making money? Does the guys story even pass the sniff test a little?
    - solarkraft 6y ago
      You can way lower the likelihood of unwanted things happening through policies and proper enforcement, but never 100% stop it as people are still free enough to mess things up, so I wouldn't rush to immediately blame top management for a slip-up happening. If it happens often the story is completely different, of course.
      - MrStonedOne 6y ago
        They could stop blocking unionization, then these issues would never happen because there would be appeals processes that don't feel like a waste of time as well as a 3rd party that would have the majority of the blame. Apple is 100% responsible for unresolved improper firings that become PR storms, they have a tool they could deploy to solve it, but they don't out of fear of profits.
      - emn13 6y ago
        Of course slip-ups happen, but then it should have involved more people, and should not have left this impression on the ex-employee, but rather the impression that HR didn't have his back (but at least were there as a second pair of eyes in the process). This sounds more like no oversight at all. Sure, we could be missing something.
refulgentis 6y ago
There's no substantive difference between those two descriptions - the manager and employee both work for Apple
- damnyou 6y ago
  This is not true. Managers are considered to be agents of a corporation and are held to different standards than other employees. (This is also true for SWEs, where SWE manager is fundamentally different from IC.)
mdoms 6y ago
Are you implying this isn't important or impactful because he's a low-level employee?
- novok 6y ago
  In low paid retail land, what is corp policy and not just petty personal BS that has nothing to do with the company in particular is probably just petty BS.
  - mdoms 6y ago
    You don't think that company culture is meaningful in retail?
    - novok 6y ago
      No not really. I didn't notice any real 'cultural' difference when I worked from franchise to franchise in retail and restaurants. What mattered was the group of people there and the manager for the most part, and even then, culture was more an industry thing than anything about the brand of the shop you worked at.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- aresant 6y ago
  Trying to uncover some facts to help infer the article's complaint with nuance prior to knee-jerk hopping on the "big apple is bad" flavor du jour was my intent in posting the comment. My point is not that it is less "important or impactful" but that working within a retail environment vs a corporate environment - even at Apple - is an apples / oranges comparison. Apple has effectively the highest retail employee retention rate full in the USA (1) - they have led the charge in changing the retail paradigm for the better for 10s of thousands of employees. My first job was retail and I would have killed to work at an Apple store. Petty bosses wielding a 100 page HR rule-book that some back closet McKinsey intern produced to fire anybody at anytime (even in states w/good protections) is PAR for the course in retail. Is it because corporate is evil or because managing a largely lower-education(2), transient workforce is incredibly challenging? Is it nuanced and two sided? of course! Did this maybe happen at an Apple Store? It might have! Could it have been a manager looking for an HR dept defensible excuse to get rid of a difficult employee? Could just likely have been. (1) https://www.hrzone.com/community/blogs/mark-mccormack/apple-is-enjoying-one-of-the-highest-staff-retention-rates-ever-whats https://www.hrzone.com/community/blogs/mark-mccormack/apple-... (2) https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/industry-at-a-glance-the-future-of-retail/ https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/industry-at-a-glan...

sukilot 6y ago

Apple is fully responsible for the behavior of their managers acting in accordance with company policy. What is a company if not the sum of its people?

oneplane 6y ago
That's great in theory, but the personification of a company and the many layers in a large enterprise make it unrealistic to assume everyone is the same, does the same thing, or knows about each other. Doesn't mean bad things aren't bad or good things aren't good, but besides that the marketing and PR departments put out there are more differences than similarities between the people, teams of people and groups of teams in any company.
- emn13 6y ago
  If your company is structured such that there's no recourse in the event of squabble between a manager and his reports, then your company is bad. If indeed this was just a personal issue with the manager: that's not exactly a ringing endorsement of apple either.
  - oneplane 6y ago
    It doesn't need to be a ringing endorsement, and it doesn't sound like some special Apple-case either. Most companies (especially post-capitalistic American ones) are structured to provide maximum money for the company and/or the shareholders on either the short term or the long term. That's a monster we all created and fed for decades. That means that HR is your friend until they want to get rid of you. And the rules are made in line with that: plenty of options for 'legally' getting rid of people. While I personally think that's just bad for humans, I don't think anyone should still be surprised that that is how it was designed to work.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Apple Stores are explicitly designed not to focus on maximizing profits. One of the former managers over all Apple Stores were fired because he didn’t get that. Apple Stores have to be fun to balance making money and serve as a marketing channel for Apple. For instance, Apple doesn’t care if customers “showroom” and buy the product somewhere else. Apple makes money either way.
      - oneplane 6y ago
        It's not about the retail part and specifically the stores, but the company as a whole. It is designed to balance investments and customer satisfaction to sell products. That means it's fine to lose money in one place (or not maximise revenue and profit) because you make up for it in other parts of the company. Bottom line still needs to be cash coming in. It's a different business model than say a candy supplier that just needs to move quantity one way or the other. It's a longer term system where the instant sales aren't the main driver.
        scarface74 6y ago
        That’s true. But irrelevant. In what way does an Apple employee helping a friend move data when Apple does it for free hinder Apple from making money? Does the guys story even pass the sniff test a little?
  - solarkraft 6y ago
    You can way lower the likelihood of unwanted things happening through policies and proper enforcement, but never 100% stop it as people are still free enough to mess things up, so I wouldn't rush to immediately blame top management for a slip-up happening. If it happens often the story is completely different, of course.
    - MrStonedOne 6y ago
      They could stop blocking unionization, then these issues would never happen because there would be appeals processes that don't feel like a waste of time as well as a 3rd party that would have the majority of the blame. Apple is 100% responsible for unresolved improper firings that become PR storms, they have a tool they could deploy to solve it, but they don't out of fear of profits.
    - emn13 6y ago
      Of course slip-ups happen, but then it should have involved more people, and should not have left this impression on the ex-employee, but rather the impression that HR didn't have his back (but at least were there as a second pair of eyes in the process). This sounds more like no oversight at all. Sure, we could be missing something.

refulgentis 6y ago

There's no substantive difference between those two descriptions - the manager and employee both work for Apple

damnyou 6y ago
This is not true. Managers are considered to be agents of a corporation and are held to different standards than other employees. (This is also true for SWEs, where SWE manager is fundamentally different from IC.)

mdoms 6y ago

Are you implying this isn't important or impactful because he's a low-level employee?

novok 6y ago
In low paid retail land, what is corp policy and not just petty personal BS that has nothing to do with the company in particular is probably just petty BS.
- mdoms 6y ago
  You don't think that company culture is meaningful in retail?
  - novok 6y ago
    No not really. I didn't notice any real 'cultural' difference when I worked from franchise to franchise in retail and restaurants. What mattered was the group of people there and the manager for the most part, and even then, culture was more an industry thing than anything about the brand of the shop you worked at.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
aresant 6y ago
Trying to uncover some facts to help infer the article's complaint with nuance prior to knee-jerk hopping on the "big apple is bad" flavor du jour was my intent in posting the comment. My point is not that it is less "important or impactful" but that working within a retail environment vs a corporate environment - even at Apple - is an apples / oranges comparison. Apple has effectively the highest retail employee retention rate full in the USA (1) - they have led the charge in changing the retail paradigm for the better for 10s of thousands of employees. My first job was retail and I would have killed to work at an Apple store. Petty bosses wielding a 100 page HR rule-book that some back closet McKinsey intern produced to fire anybody at anytime (even in states w/good protections) is PAR for the course in retail. Is it because corporate is evil or because managing a largely lower-education(2), transient workforce is incredibly challenging? Is it nuanced and two sided? of course! Did this maybe happen at an Apple Store? It might have! Could it have been a manager looking for an HR dept defensible excuse to get rid of a difficult employee? Could just likely have been. (1) https://www.hrzone.com/community/blogs/mark-mccormack/apple-is-enjoying-one-of-the-highest-staff-retention-rates-ever-whats https://www.hrzone.com/community/blogs/mark-mccormack/apple-... (2) https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/industry-at-a-glance-the-future-of-retail/ https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/industry-at-a-glan...