7 ms·

"she had left Apple after spending several years fighting a decision to reassign her to a role that she said had involved more work for less pay. She said Apple

"she had left Apple after spending several years fighting a decision to reassign her to a role that she said had involved more work for less pay. She said Apple had begun trying to reassign her after she complained that the company’s work on the minerals was not, in some cases, leading to meaningful change in some war-torn countries" I'm impressed that Apple let her spend "several years" fighting a reassignment. I'm also not very sympathetic to this person though. I've quit a job because I got reorg'd into more work for less pay. It sucks, but I don't think it means my employer is problematic or bad or whatever. The role I had was no longer needed and I didn't like the new position I landed in, so I left. That sounds similar to what happened to this person.

Waterluvian 5y ago
A job is a job. You just quit and find another one if your employer no longer wants you or wants you to do something you don’t care for. Is this attitude possibly because these companies hire based on the entire emotion that you’re special and elite and we’re all going to link arms and save the planet?
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  That’s my thesis. This has been the m.o. of tech for a while now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27242405 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27242405 Maybe even longer, given the semi-Messianic hippie-adjacent attitudes surrounding the birth of modern PCs in Silicon Valley. Some of which was cultivated by Steve Jobs himself. Apple sowed their own seeds.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- yunohn 5y ago
  “She said Apple had begun trying to reassign her after she complained” This is called retaliation, and is illegal. It’s not happenstance that she got re-orged after complaining about underlying issues.
  - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
    It's only retaliation if the employee is engaging in an exercise of their legally-protected rights. If someone is fired after complaining about sexual harassment in the workplace, that's retaliation because you have a legal right to a workplace free of such harassment. If someone is reassigned after complaining about their employer's ESG policies, you're going to have to explain to me what the nature of the legal protection is in that case for me to see that as retaliation.
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      Discussing workplace conditions is explicitly an exercise of legally-protected rights.
      - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
        Yes, but that is not what we're talking about: "she said Apple had begun trying to reassign her after she complained that the company’s work on the minerals was not, in some cases, leading to meaningful change in some war-torn countries"
        zozbot234 5y ago
        Dealing with the minerals supply chain situation was part of her job description. She can't discuss how she's practically being set up for failure? How's that not part of her work conditions?
        NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
        Her responsibility to deal with the minerals supply chain situation is not open-ended; it is scoped by Apple's plans and policies. Believing your job should be something different from what your employer has hired you to do doesn't put you in a legally protected position; nor does believing that the extent to which your employer pursues a particular objective is insufficient. Complaining that your boss doesn't let you do something based on your own interpretation of your job description isn't a "discussion of working conditions" in the NLRA sense - that's absurdly over expansive.
abandonliberty 5y ago
In UK/Canada less pay is a breach of employment contract/constructive dismissal/wrongful termination, and requires the employer to pay appropriate severance. Not sure how the law varies state to state.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
>She said Apple had begun trying to reassign her after she complained that the company’s work on the minerals was not, in some cases, leading to meaningful change in some war-torn countries" What other geopolitical problems does this person think Apple should be tackling other than resolving tribal conflicts in war torn central Africa? The Taliban? Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women? Haiti’s poverty? Ridiculous.
- yunohn 5y ago
  I think you’ve misunderstood. I interpreted her stance as Apple’s efforts not actually making a change, and being more about posturing. This is often the case with corporate green-washing.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    One should always assume a company’s <insert color> efforts are posturing.
    - yunohn 5y ago
      Her role was not PR, it was about actually trying to implement fair trade supply chains for rare minerals. Regardless, you are free to assume PR posturing as an uninvolved commenter on HN - meanwhile, we’re discussing an actual person’s job and complaints therewith.
      - colpabar 5y ago
        Just because she did not work in PR explicitly doesn't mean she isn't doing "PR" for the company. My take is that apple does not actually care, at all, about "mitigating the impact of mining valuable minerals in conflict zones". They care about not getting caught doing things that make them look bad, and her role was to prevent that from happening, to not actually change anything. She seems to have realized this to some extent, and when she made a stink about it, they reassigned her. To me it seems odd to stay at the company for several years after that. Something makes me think she's really just looking for more pay, because if she really cared about issues with rare mineral mining in conflict zones, she'd work for a non-profit that deals with that.
yunohn 5y ago
“She said Apple had begun trying to reassign her after she complained” You quoted this, but seem to have ignored it. This was not a role that got deprecated, rather she complained that her/Apple’s work in that role was ineffective. This is a very valid complaint, and the sign of a valuable employee. However, most corporations respond by covering up ineffectivity, which is why it turned out badly for her.

Waterluvian 5y ago

A job is a job. You just quit and find another one if your employer no longer wants you or wants you to do something you don’t care for. Is this attitude possibly because these companies hire based on the entire emotion that you’re special and elite and we’re all going to link arms and save the planet?

Apocryphon 5y ago
That’s my thesis. This has been the m.o. of tech for a while now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27242405 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27242405 Maybe even longer, given the semi-Messianic hippie-adjacent attitudes surrounding the birth of modern PCs in Silicon Valley. Some of which was cultivated by Steve Jobs himself. Apple sowed their own seeds.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
yunohn 5y ago
“She said Apple had begun trying to reassign her after she complained” This is called retaliation, and is illegal. It’s not happenstance that she got re-orged after complaining about underlying issues.
- NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
  It's only retaliation if the employee is engaging in an exercise of their legally-protected rights. If someone is fired after complaining about sexual harassment in the workplace, that's retaliation because you have a legal right to a workplace free of such harassment. If someone is reassigned after complaining about their employer's ESG policies, you're going to have to explain to me what the nature of the legal protection is in that case for me to see that as retaliation.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    Discussing workplace conditions is explicitly an exercise of legally-protected rights.
    - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
      Yes, but that is not what we're talking about: "she said Apple had begun trying to reassign her after she complained that the company’s work on the minerals was not, in some cases, leading to meaningful change in some war-torn countries"
      - zozbot234 5y ago
        Dealing with the minerals supply chain situation was part of her job description. She can't discuss how she's practically being set up for failure? How's that not part of her work conditions?
        NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
        Her responsibility to deal with the minerals supply chain situation is not open-ended; it is scoped by Apple's plans and policies. Believing your job should be something different from what your employer has hired you to do doesn't put you in a legally protected position; nor does believing that the extent to which your employer pursues a particular objective is insufficient. Complaining that your boss doesn't let you do something based on your own interpretation of your job description isn't a "discussion of working conditions" in the NLRA sense - that's absurdly over expansive.

abandonliberty 5y ago

In UK/Canada less pay is a breach of employment contract/constructive dismissal/wrongful termination, and requires the employer to pay appropriate severance. Not sure how the law varies state to state.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

>She said Apple had begun trying to reassign her after she complained that the company’s work on the minerals was not, in some cases, leading to meaningful change in some war-torn countries" What other geopolitical problems does this person think Apple should be tackling other than resolving tribal conflicts in war torn central Africa? The Taliban? Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women? Haiti’s poverty? Ridiculous.

yunohn 5y ago
I think you’ve misunderstood. I interpreted her stance as Apple’s efforts not actually making a change, and being more about posturing. This is often the case with corporate green-washing.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  One should always assume a company’s <insert color> efforts are posturing.
  - yunohn 5y ago
    Her role was not PR, it was about actually trying to implement fair trade supply chains for rare minerals. Regardless, you are free to assume PR posturing as an uninvolved commenter on HN - meanwhile, we’re discussing an actual person’s job and complaints therewith.
    - colpabar 5y ago
      Just because she did not work in PR explicitly doesn't mean she isn't doing "PR" for the company. My take is that apple does not actually care, at all, about "mitigating the impact of mining valuable minerals in conflict zones". They care about not getting caught doing things that make them look bad, and her role was to prevent that from happening, to not actually change anything. She seems to have realized this to some extent, and when she made a stink about it, they reassigned her. To me it seems odd to stay at the company for several years after that. Something makes me think she's really just looking for more pay, because if she really cared about issues with rare mineral mining in conflict zones, she'd work for a non-profit that deals with that.

yunohn 5y ago

“She said Apple had begun trying to reassign her after she complained” You quoted this, but seem to have ignored it. This was not a role that got deprecated, rather she complained that her/Apple’s work in that role was ineffective. This is a very valid complaint, and the sign of a valuable employee. However, most corporations respond by covering up ineffectivity, which is why it turned out badly for her.