4 ms·

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?
        oneplane 6y ago
        The guys story is incomplete and without a decent set of information there is nothing useful to be speculated about.
        scarface74 6y ago
        So, it doesn’t pass the sniff test.... It’s the responsibility of the blogger to communicate clearly. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
  - 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.

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?
        oneplane 6y ago
        The guys story is incomplete and without a decent set of information there is nothing useful to be speculated about.
        scarface74 6y ago
        So, it doesn’t pass the sniff test.... It’s the responsibility of the blogger to communicate clearly. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
- 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.