11 ms·

Apple's Texas-Sized Problem

104 points by chmaynard 5y ago

1cvmask 5y ago
The summary is: That’s the answer. You move your business out of Texas. Any company that expands or initiates new operations in Texas implicitly supports Texas’s abortion ban. - So should they also stop selling to Texans iPhones? Or just close the stores there or the manufacturing facilities? Meanwhile Austin has different politics to elsewhere in Texas. Should Apple carve out an exception there as well?
- adamrezich 5y ago
  they should probably go ahead and enforce a no-travel policy as well, fire anyone who attends SXSW for instance. they should also go through their ranks and thoroughly question anyone who was born in or has lived in Texas in their life, just to be sure they have the correct worldview. and while you're doing that, might as well question all the Christians, especially those pesky Catholics, and ask anyone who doesn't agree with the company's values on this sensitive topic to renounce their faith or face termination. this is the only way to have a morally correct workplace where you know everyone shares the same values you do, and you don't have to fret about whether or not the guy in the cubicle next to you is morally bankrupt.
  - monkeyfacebag 5y ago
    I don't think those are good ideas.
    - adamrezich 5y ago
      neither is allowing massive corporations taking moral stands on divisive political issues—wholly unrelated to the purview of their industry—to become socially acceptable!
      - monkeyfacebag 5y ago
        You would forbid it?
      - otterley 5y ago
        Corporations happen to be composed of people who do have opinions.
        adamrezich 5y ago
        corporations are comprised of people that work for them, but corporations themselves are not people, regardless of the image social media managers try to portray. this is a crucial distinction.
        lostlogin 5y ago
        How would you apply that logic if a corporation took the bounty and reported an employee? A person didn’t do it?
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - hellisothers 5y ago
    Setting aside anybody opinions on this particular law/topic, are you suggesting companies shouldn’t “vote with their wallet/feet”? If you had a 2 person company and you were the CEO and SomeState enacted a law you strongly disagreed with would you not seek to limit your business’ support of that state?
    - adamrezich 5y ago
      comparing Apple to a two-person company is highly disingenuous. in the past decade or so we've slid into a world in which massive corporations start pretending to have morals outside of "increase value for shareholders" and it's absolutely ridiculous that anyone takes it seriously at all... especially when at the same time, everyone is on board with firing the Brendan Eichs and Palmer Luckeys of the world for their individual beliefs/donations! we cannot continue to allow a world where these gargantuan corporations attempt to exert moral influence on the populace, it's like we're just asking for a technocratic corporate dystopia at this point
      - monkeyfacebag 5y ago
        It just seems weird that you would choose forcing Apple and its employees to operate and live in Texas as the non-dystopian option.
        adamrezich 5y ago
        where did I say I was advocating for forcing anyone to do anything? merely encouraging people to respond to massive corporate superficial moralizing with a "lmao ok bub you're a corporation not a person" instead of enthusiastic agreement would go a long ways.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - otterley 5y ago
    Nobody's being asked to renounce their faith. Give us a break.
- monkeyfacebag 5y ago
  The law applies in Austin as well, no?
- jleyank 5y ago
  I don't think it's that naive. The argument, to me, is that bringing people into Texas to work shows that you are comfortable with the conditions. Similarly, increasing your investment there shows you're comfortable with it. They can try to limit new hires to people already in Texas, or only move single males in, but these options aren't appropriate for the 21st century. Simple retail operations, or even warehouse operations, aren't really non-local-hiring issues. So they're the least offensive/most-explainable options. Yeah, they can go all sports league and boycott Texas, but then they'd have to get out of China or other distasteful places. Or, they should just admit "we're just in it for the money, suck it up" and stopping their posturing. And no matter what you say or do re: Austin, it's in Texas. Nothing they can do, really, against their own state laws. Similarly, Montreal is a great city, but it's in Quebec and thus under the rule system of Quebec. At the end of the day, it's up to people to follow their moral compass in their daily lives. Companies are sociopathic.
  - Syonyk 5y ago
    > ...or only move single males in... You know there are plenty of women who are strongly anti-abortion as well, right? Handwaving within a few percent, about 40% of women and 50% of men in the US are strongly anti-abortion according to Gallup and Pew surveys from the last few years. > ...but then they'd have to get out of China or other distasteful places. If only. They can't. China has Apple by the balls, and Apple knows it. The downsides of moving literally all of your manufacturing to a country that's increasingly "Do what we say or else."
    - jleyank 5y ago
      I would argue that Apple is one of the companies with enough money to do WTF they want to do. So, as you point out, they ARE doing what they want to do and hope people take words over actions. The key will be if they have hiring problems as they're not going to have marketplace problems.
  - rscoots 5y ago
    If we're talking about conditions for Apple employees, could they secure travel to another state for anyone wanting an abortion? Granted that comes with a substantial can of worms around privacy. Now that I think about it though, the 'conditions for employees' argument is pretty much just as morally hypocritical as a boycott when you bring China into play.
MBCook 5y ago
Apple is just about to open their Austin campus. It’ll be really interesting to see how much of their money they put where their mouth is.
rescripting 5y ago
The calculus around this abhorrent law is complicated. Part of me thinks this kind of radical lawmaking is designed to trigger a blue flight of democrats from Texas to widen the shrinking margin of power the Republicans currently hold.
- otterley 5y ago
  If so, the gambit is pretty weak, since the law is plainly unconstitutional, and Democrats know this. It's only a matter of time before it is overturned by the federal courts. The Supreme Court might not even bother to hear the case (though that is unlikely).
  - rescripting 5y ago
    I was thinking more that it creates a chilling effect. It sends a clear message that progressives aren't welcome in Texas and anyone thinking of moving there will feel that chill regardless of whether the supreme court strikes down the law.
    - babesh 5y ago
      The country is going through an increasing blue/red divide. It is working both ways. Does this remind anyone else of the pre Civil War period? Both sides are using cultural hot button issues to consolidate their base.
      - locopati 5y ago
        Do you mean one side is trying to extend rights to more people and one side is trying to take them away from those people (often with threats of violence)?
    - otterley 5y ago
      Geographically speaking (and population-wise in the aggregate), most of Texas has been inhospitable to liberals and progressives since it was first settled by whites. The cities are still chock full of liberals, though, where they have significant political power. There's a long game to be played here: as more progressives arrive (and as conservatives "see the light"), eventually the balance will change to tip the state blue. Conservatives see the writing on the wall, too, which is why they're resorting to ever-more-desperate tactics. The losing side of the war is always the one who fights the craziest before the final defeat.
raymondh 5y ago
First rule of wielding economic might: Make sure you don't hurt the people you're trying to help. Taking economic opportunity away from women in Texas doesn't make them better off.
- 1cvmask 5y ago
  Luckily they are not bombed like women and children in Afghanistan: https://nypost.com/2021/09/17/pentagon-admits-its-killed-civilians-not-isis-terrorist-in-drone-strike/ https://nypost.com/2021/09/17/pentagon-admits-its-killed-civ...
- chomp 5y ago
  I don't think this would be a boycott, because Apple stores will always exist; it's, "should I signal to my employees that a location is healthy for people to move to and work from, when the location is reducing freedom and passing legislation to take away healthcare?" Also, the economic opportunity in this case is zero sum; if Apple is intent on expanding, while reducing their presence in Texas, women in general would still have a net gain, just located in areas that are friendlier to women.
itronitron 5y ago
I'm more interested in seeing how this plays out from a privacy perspective regarding the use of Apple phones or services by people in Texas to surveil or report other people seeking abortions.
robgibbons 5y ago
Expecting Apple to leave money on the table in an economy the size of Texas would be almost as crazy as expecting them to leave Russia or China over their stance on human rights violations or political apps (both of which they capitulated to).
- orev 5y ago
  The actions suggested here are about their employees and offices. This has nothing to do with no longer selling products there, which you seem to be implying. The only “leaving money on the table” might be related to if they end up paying more taxes if they move to another state.
AceJohnny2 5y ago
It's funny, because Apple is trying to get its engineers to move away from the Silicon Valley which is so expensive, and Austin is their next best US campus. They've got big money on expanding offices in Texas.
ecshafer 5y ago
The politics of this are strange to say the least. Why should a company shut down, or limit growth in a state due to a law that is political/cultural? I don't see how them expanding in Texas is implicitly supporting this law, just that is supports their bottom line. If we take that line of thinking does Apple implicitly support dictatorships? Authoritarian states? Apple has locations open in many countries that do not have worker rights, do not have democracy, etc. This is a civil liberty sure, but they are otherwise fine on selling their phones without complaint. As far as moving employees there, if an individual employee has issues with the law they wont go there. There are women that disagree its infringing their civil rights, do their ideas not matter?
analogdreams 5y ago
While I have mixed feelings on the issue, having paid for an abortion in the past, these reactions strike me as being over the top. Most workers will most likely be remote from now on meaning they have a choice in what state they work in so they can address this regardless of where Apple chooses to locate physical facilities. Further, I keep wondering what % of females are having 1 or more abortions for this to be such a critical issue for most?
- adrianmonk 5y ago
  In theory, employees could be remote. In practice, Apple has publicly said that they plan to move 5000 employees into the new campus they are currently building in Austin: https://www.kxan.com/news/business/apples-1b-austin-campus-nearly-finished-move-in-set-for-2022/ https://www.kxan.com/news/business/apples-1b-austin-campus-n... Longer term, they've talked about making that 15,000 employees.
  - analogdreams 5y ago
    good thing we have employment at will then. apple employees will have little difficulty in finding employment elsewhere should they object strongly.
- ladberg 5y ago
  You don't have to have already had an abortion yourself for this to be a critical issue.
dahfizz 5y ago
Interesting that Apple is so concerned with the Texas abortion law, but has no qualms using sweatshop labor, or maintaining offices in China. The Texas abortion law is bad, but it does not begin to compare to the human rights violations of China, including an active holocaust against the Uyghurs and other Muslims.
- dpratt 5y ago
  You’re getting downvotes, which is unfortunate. The only logical conclusion from this is that Apple has (correctly) decided to take a position on this. Unfortunately, by doing so, they’ve invalidated the typical justification for not speaking up on Chinese atrocities against their own marginalized citizens. Barring a more detailed explanation, the only conclusion that you can draw is that they (again, correctly) disagree with how the state of Texas treats it’s citizens, but agree with how China treats it’s citizens.
  - teachrdan 5y ago
    > the only conclusion that you can draw is that they (again, correctly) disagree with how the state of Texas treats it’s citizens, but agree with how China treats it’s citizens. This is hardly the only conclusion you can draw. Another is that Apple (correctly imo) sees that they have a lot of influence over the law in Texas, and none at all in China.
    - maccolgan 5y ago
      Which is perhaps the worst of all the things...
  - jdlshore 5y ago
    This is reductionist nonsense. I can easily imagine scenarios where Apple disagrees with China treats its oppressed citizens, but chooses not to speak out against them.
- criticas 5y ago
  Texas should pass a law declaring unborn children are legally Uyghurs, and thereby render them invisible to Apple.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
BitwiseFool 5y ago
I know this is nowadays seen as a naive or counter-productive, but I like Unix Philosophy ideal of do one thing, and do it well. I want a business to focus on their business, not on social change or influencing policy. I'm weary of how all these corporate giants are coming together and trying to influence state laws after they've been passed. For two main reasons, one, I would like these companies to focus on what they actually provide, rather than this modern progressive 'everything is political, all the time' mindset. Two, Apple isn't democratically elected and I don't know if any accountability structures exist for such activism. What gives Apple more of a right to counter what the duly elected representatives of a state government have enacted, than the voters of that state themselves? For all it's horrible flaws, this was something passed by the Texas government. I can at least understand the structural justification for the law. People voted for a state representative, state senator, and a governor who signed the bill. The authority and responsibility is clear. The feedback mechanism is also clear - vote. And, I do hope a lot of them lose their seats as a result of the backlash. But again, I think the power to address this Texas-Sized problem should primarily be in the hands of Texans, rather than giant multinationals like Apple.
- dayyan 5y ago
  Agree.
- 8note 5y ago
  Lobbying the government of Texas to get rid of bad policy is part of doing their one thing well, convincing people all over the palace to but iPhones. Mind you, representatives choose their voters to ensure that they will win elections. The power has been removed from voters hands via gerrymandering
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    As a point of order I don't think this article is advocating for lobbying as much as it is advocating a boycott slash pseudo-embargo of the State itself. To me, at least, that feels very different.
- nostrademons 5y ago
lettergram 5y ago
I think everyone should take a step back and breathe. If the people and government of Texas feel that way about abortion, far be it for me or frankly any of us (not from Texas) to question it. Frankly, if you need an abortion you can go to another state. It’s probably <$200 flight almost anywhere in the country. Apple could literally offer flights to California for any medical procedure no questions asked and problem solved. I also don’t see Apple as having the moral high ground here. They employ slaves in China. Apple respects the Chinese government and says nothing. They’re sterilizing people, organ harvesting on live people (Christians and Muslims) in China. But this... this is what people care about? But... is that what’s this really about? I don’t think so.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  Under the new TX law, Apple would be exposed to liability for flying employees out for abortion. Apple can say they don't ask employees on their medical details, but it is a risky play. Additionally, Apple does not determine the law. If legislature responds to Apple, that would be due to the structural aspects of democratic government, in other words, the voters want something and will place pressure during elections. And Apple is just one of the many big companies in TX.
  - nokcha 5y ago
    > Under the new TX law, Apple would be exposed to liability for flying employees out for abortion. Apple can say they don't ask employees on their medical details, but it is a risky play. The statute is blatantly unconstitutional, and Apple has enough high-powered lawyers to fight any lawsuits.
    - lettergram 5y ago
      I don't think that's clear. I am curious to see how this will be handled by the supreme court. This methods used were actually similar to the way the old police system worked. They'd put out bounties and citizens would bring people in.
yazaddaruvala 5y ago
Why not just pull a Salesforce and offer all employees free travel out of Texas to get an abortion? Over time this perk grows across the Texas economy and causes political change, or continues to be a few companies offer it and people can virtue signal by choosing where they work.
- enraged_camel 5y ago
  >> Why not just pull a Salesforce and offer all employees free travel out of Texas to get an abortion? There are many reasons (e.g. abortion is a very private and personal matter and most people probably wouldn't want to involve their employer), but primarily, it would count as assisting abortion and could open Apple to liability under this law.
askonomm 5y ago
I feel like the U.S and middle east are pretty similar in terms of social progress. Or should I say, _regress_.
missinfo 5y ago
This could have a number of potentially significant secondary effects. 1. Accelerating the trend of companies taking sides on political issues. Think about how many companies you use and imagine half of them taking your side, and the other half taking the opposing side. 2. Expanding the already outsized influence of corporations in government. 3. Apple having to contend with their China-Sized Problem re: factory workers, Hong Kong, Taiwan and the Uyghur population.
markkanof 5y ago
Putting the actual law aside, I'm a bit confused on Gruber's argument here that "it’s untenable for Apple, or any other company, to “support our employees’ rights to make their own decisions regarding their reproductive health” and ask any woman to work for the company in a state with a law like Texas’s." This sort of presumes that Texas is an empty plot of land where no one lives. This is obviously not the case. There are millions of people that live there and need jobs. So what about women who want to work for a cool consumer technology company and are anti-abortion. Why would it be "untenable" to hire those women?
- yaacov 5y ago
  Coming at this from a personal-choice-oriented perspective, the answer for those women is not to get an abortion for themselves regardless of whether the law in their state allows it. Of course, that doesn’t solve the problem for those who strongly prefer to live in a state where nobody’s allowed to have an abortion.
  - someguydave 5y ago
    Of course, I presume those same personal-choice-oriented people also believe that the government should force people to be vaccinated.
    - belltaco 5y ago
      Abortions don't spread from person to person at the drop of a hat and also don't fill up hospital and kill millions of real people.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - otterley 5y ago
      Most of us are also OK with laws forcing everyone to wear pants in public. We don't consider it a serious infringement of our personal freedom. Being forced to carry a pregnancy to term -- even an especially risky one, or one that's the result of rape or incest -- has significant impacts on both the mother and the community that could be net negative instead of positive. Everything about a vaccination is supposed to have net positive effects, both for the individual recipient and the public health and welfare.
chmaynard 5y ago
I'm concerned that HN moderators may have down-weighted this post to keep it off the front page. If true, this would make me concerned about soft censorship on this site. What do others think?
- tfehring 5y ago
  My understanding is that HN down-weights posts with, loosely speaking, a high ratio of comments to votes because that often signals a controversial and/or flamebaity topic.
lolsal 5y ago
> That’s the answer. You move your business out of Texas. Any company that expands or initiates new operations in Texas implicitly supports Texas’s abortion ban. I like reading Gruber usually, but this comment is completely asinine.
rafi25 5y ago
So funny. With all of the diversity, there is not one religious person to say the obvious: religious people dont change their belives because of money.
tmaly 5y ago
Has anyone considered broader implications of government making health decisions for individuals? Each small mandate will add up over time to something we cannot currently imagine. Take the executive order mandating vaccination for companies with over 100 employees. Say this is challenged in court and it is upheld on some grounds. This might set some precedent. Then say at some point later the Texas law goes before SCOTUS. The initial precedent might provide a win for Texas. This is all speculation, but it not entirely out of the real of possibility.
uslic001 5y ago
Apple has no problem dealing with China. They are being hypocritical if they pull out of Texas but not out of China.

104 points by chmaynard 5y ago

The summary is: That’s the answer. You move your business out of Texas. Any company that expands or initiates new operations in Texas implicitly supports Texas’s abortion ban. - So should they also stop selling to Texans iPhones? Or just close the stores there or the manufacturing facilities? Meanwhile Austin has different politics to elsewhere in Texas. Should Apple carve out an exception there as well?

adamrezich 5y ago
they should probably go ahead and enforce a no-travel policy as well, fire anyone who attends SXSW for instance. they should also go through their ranks and thoroughly question anyone who was born in or has lived in Texas in their life, just to be sure they have the correct worldview. and while you're doing that, might as well question all the Christians, especially those pesky Catholics, and ask anyone who doesn't agree with the company's values on this sensitive topic to renounce their faith or face termination. this is the only way to have a morally correct workplace where you know everyone shares the same values you do, and you don't have to fret about whether or not the guy in the cubicle next to you is morally bankrupt.
- monkeyfacebag 5y ago
  I don't think those are good ideas.
  - adamrezich 5y ago
    neither is allowing massive corporations taking moral stands on divisive political issues—wholly unrelated to the purview of their industry—to become socially acceptable!
    - monkeyfacebag 5y ago
      You would forbid it?
    - otterley 5y ago
      Corporations happen to be composed of people who do have opinions.
      - adamrezich 5y ago
        corporations are comprised of people that work for them, but corporations themselves are not people, regardless of the image social media managers try to portray. this is a crucial distinction.
        lostlogin 5y ago
        How would you apply that logic if a corporation took the bounty and reported an employee? A person didn’t do it?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- hellisothers 5y ago
  Setting aside anybody opinions on this particular law/topic, are you suggesting companies shouldn’t “vote with their wallet/feet”? If you had a 2 person company and you were the CEO and SomeState enacted a law you strongly disagreed with would you not seek to limit your business’ support of that state?
  - adamrezich 5y ago
    comparing Apple to a two-person company is highly disingenuous. in the past decade or so we've slid into a world in which massive corporations start pretending to have morals outside of "increase value for shareholders" and it's absolutely ridiculous that anyone takes it seriously at all... especially when at the same time, everyone is on board with firing the Brendan Eichs and Palmer Luckeys of the world for their individual beliefs/donations! we cannot continue to allow a world where these gargantuan corporations attempt to exert moral influence on the populace, it's like we're just asking for a technocratic corporate dystopia at this point
    - monkeyfacebag 5y ago
      It just seems weird that you would choose forcing Apple and its employees to operate and live in Texas as the non-dystopian option.
      - adamrezich 5y ago
        where did I say I was advocating for forcing anyone to do anything? merely encouraging people to respond to massive corporate superficial moralizing with a "lmao ok bub you're a corporation not a person" instead of enthusiastic agreement would go a long ways.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- otterley 5y ago
  Nobody's being asked to renounce their faith. Give us a break.
monkeyfacebag 5y ago
The law applies in Austin as well, no?
jleyank 5y ago
I don't think it's that naive. The argument, to me, is that bringing people into Texas to work shows that you are comfortable with the conditions. Similarly, increasing your investment there shows you're comfortable with it. They can try to limit new hires to people already in Texas, or only move single males in, but these options aren't appropriate for the 21st century. Simple retail operations, or even warehouse operations, aren't really non-local-hiring issues. So they're the least offensive/most-explainable options. Yeah, they can go all sports league and boycott Texas, but then they'd have to get out of China or other distasteful places. Or, they should just admit "we're just in it for the money, suck it up" and stopping their posturing. And no matter what you say or do re: Austin, it's in Texas. Nothing they can do, really, against their own state laws. Similarly, Montreal is a great city, but it's in Quebec and thus under the rule system of Quebec. At the end of the day, it's up to people to follow their moral compass in their daily lives. Companies are sociopathic.
- Syonyk 5y ago
  > ...or only move single males in... You know there are plenty of women who are strongly anti-abortion as well, right? Handwaving within a few percent, about 40% of women and 50% of men in the US are strongly anti-abortion according to Gallup and Pew surveys from the last few years. > ...but then they'd have to get out of China or other distasteful places. If only. They can't. China has Apple by the balls, and Apple knows it. The downsides of moving literally all of your manufacturing to a country that's increasingly "Do what we say or else."
  - jleyank 5y ago
    I would argue that Apple is one of the companies with enough money to do WTF they want to do. So, as you point out, they ARE doing what they want to do and hope people take words over actions. The key will be if they have hiring problems as they're not going to have marketplace problems.
- rscoots 5y ago
  If we're talking about conditions for Apple employees, could they secure travel to another state for anyone wanting an abortion? Granted that comes with a substantial can of worms around privacy. Now that I think about it though, the 'conditions for employees' argument is pretty much just as morally hypocritical as a boycott when you bring China into play.

MBCook 5y ago

Apple is just about to open their Austin campus. It’ll be really interesting to see how much of their money they put where their mouth is.

rescripting 5y ago

The calculus around this abhorrent law is complicated. Part of me thinks this kind of radical lawmaking is designed to trigger a blue flight of democrats from Texas to widen the shrinking margin of power the Republicans currently hold.

otterley 5y ago
If so, the gambit is pretty weak, since the law is plainly unconstitutional, and Democrats know this. It's only a matter of time before it is overturned by the federal courts. The Supreme Court might not even bother to hear the case (though that is unlikely).
- rescripting 5y ago
  I was thinking more that it creates a chilling effect. It sends a clear message that progressives aren't welcome in Texas and anyone thinking of moving there will feel that chill regardless of whether the supreme court strikes down the law.
  - babesh 5y ago
    The country is going through an increasing blue/red divide. It is working both ways. Does this remind anyone else of the pre Civil War period? Both sides are using cultural hot button issues to consolidate their base.
    - locopati 5y ago
      Do you mean one side is trying to extend rights to more people and one side is trying to take them away from those people (often with threats of violence)?
  - otterley 5y ago
    Geographically speaking (and population-wise in the aggregate), most of Texas has been inhospitable to liberals and progressives since it was first settled by whites. The cities are still chock full of liberals, though, where they have significant political power. There's a long game to be played here: as more progressives arrive (and as conservatives "see the light"), eventually the balance will change to tip the state blue. Conservatives see the writing on the wall, too, which is why they're resorting to ever-more-desperate tactics. The losing side of the war is always the one who fights the craziest before the final defeat.

raymondh 5y ago

First rule of wielding economic might: Make sure you don't hurt the people you're trying to help. Taking economic opportunity away from women in Texas doesn't make them better off.

1cvmask 5y ago
Luckily they are not bombed like women and children in Afghanistan: https://nypost.com/2021/09/17/pentagon-admits-its-killed-civilians-not-isis-terrorist-in-drone-strike/ https://nypost.com/2021/09/17/pentagon-admits-its-killed-civ...
chomp 5y ago
I don't think this would be a boycott, because Apple stores will always exist; it's, "should I signal to my employees that a location is healthy for people to move to and work from, when the location is reducing freedom and passing legislation to take away healthcare?" Also, the economic opportunity in this case is zero sum; if Apple is intent on expanding, while reducing their presence in Texas, women in general would still have a net gain, just located in areas that are friendlier to women.

itronitron 5y ago

I'm more interested in seeing how this plays out from a privacy perspective regarding the use of Apple phones or services by people in Texas to surveil or report other people seeking abortions.

robgibbons 5y ago

Expecting Apple to leave money on the table in an economy the size of Texas would be almost as crazy as expecting them to leave Russia or China over their stance on human rights violations or political apps (both of which they capitulated to).

orev 5y ago
The actions suggested here are about their employees and offices. This has nothing to do with no longer selling products there, which you seem to be implying. The only “leaving money on the table” might be related to if they end up paying more taxes if they move to another state.

AceJohnny2 5y ago

It's funny, because Apple is trying to get its engineers to move away from the Silicon Valley which is so expensive, and Austin is their next best US campus. They've got big money on expanding offices in Texas.

ecshafer 5y ago

The politics of this are strange to say the least. Why should a company shut down, or limit growth in a state due to a law that is political/cultural? I don't see how them expanding in Texas is implicitly supporting this law, just that is supports their bottom line. If we take that line of thinking does Apple implicitly support dictatorships? Authoritarian states? Apple has locations open in many countries that do not have worker rights, do not have democracy, etc. This is a civil liberty sure, but they are otherwise fine on selling their phones without complaint. As far as moving employees there, if an individual employee has issues with the law they wont go there. There are women that disagree its infringing their civil rights, do their ideas not matter?

analogdreams 5y ago

While I have mixed feelings on the issue, having paid for an abortion in the past, these reactions strike me as being over the top. Most workers will most likely be remote from now on meaning they have a choice in what state they work in so they can address this regardless of where Apple chooses to locate physical facilities. Further, I keep wondering what % of females are having 1 or more abortions for this to be such a critical issue for most?

adrianmonk 5y ago
In theory, employees could be remote. In practice, Apple has publicly said that they plan to move 5000 employees into the new campus they are currently building in Austin: https://www.kxan.com/news/business/apples-1b-austin-campus-nearly-finished-move-in-set-for-2022/ https://www.kxan.com/news/business/apples-1b-austin-campus-n... Longer term, they've talked about making that 15,000 employees.
- analogdreams 5y ago
  good thing we have employment at will then. apple employees will have little difficulty in finding employment elsewhere should they object strongly.
ladberg 5y ago
You don't have to have already had an abortion yourself for this to be a critical issue.

dahfizz 5y ago

Interesting that Apple is so concerned with the Texas abortion law, but has no qualms using sweatshop labor, or maintaining offices in China. The Texas abortion law is bad, but it does not begin to compare to the human rights violations of China, including an active holocaust against the Uyghurs and other Muslims.

dpratt 5y ago
You’re getting downvotes, which is unfortunate. The only logical conclusion from this is that Apple has (correctly) decided to take a position on this. Unfortunately, by doing so, they’ve invalidated the typical justification for not speaking up on Chinese atrocities against their own marginalized citizens. Barring a more detailed explanation, the only conclusion that you can draw is that they (again, correctly) disagree with how the state of Texas treats it’s citizens, but agree with how China treats it’s citizens.
- teachrdan 5y ago
  > the only conclusion that you can draw is that they (again, correctly) disagree with how the state of Texas treats it’s citizens, but agree with how China treats it’s citizens. This is hardly the only conclusion you can draw. Another is that Apple (correctly imo) sees that they have a lot of influence over the law in Texas, and none at all in China.
  - maccolgan 5y ago
    Which is perhaps the worst of all the things...
- jdlshore 5y ago
  This is reductionist nonsense. I can easily imagine scenarios where Apple disagrees with China treats its oppressed citizens, but chooses not to speak out against them.
criticas 5y ago
Texas should pass a law declaring unborn children are legally Uyghurs, and thereby render them invisible to Apple.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

BitwiseFool 5y ago

I know this is nowadays seen as a naive or counter-productive, but I like Unix Philosophy ideal of do one thing, and do it well. I want a business to focus on their business, not on social change or influencing policy. I'm weary of how all these corporate giants are coming together and trying to influence state laws after they've been passed. For two main reasons, one, I would like these companies to focus on what they actually provide, rather than this modern progressive 'everything is political, all the time' mindset. Two, Apple isn't democratically elected and I don't know if any accountability structures exist for such activism. What gives Apple more of a right to counter what the duly elected representatives of a state government have enacted, than the voters of that state themselves? For all it's horrible flaws, this was something passed by the Texas government. I can at least understand the structural justification for the law. People voted for a state representative, state senator, and a governor who signed the bill. The authority and responsibility is clear. The feedback mechanism is also clear - vote. And, I do hope a lot of them lose their seats as a result of the backlash. But again, I think the power to address this Texas-Sized problem should primarily be in the hands of Texans, rather than giant multinationals like Apple.

dayyan 5y ago
Agree.
8note 5y ago
Lobbying the government of Texas to get rid of bad policy is part of doing their one thing well, convincing people all over the palace to but iPhones. Mind you, representatives choose their voters to ensure that they will win elections. The power has been removed from voters hands via gerrymandering
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  As a point of order I don't think this article is advocating for lobbying as much as it is advocating a boycott slash pseudo-embargo of the State itself. To me, at least, that feels very different.
nostrademons 5y ago

lettergram 5y ago

I think everyone should take a step back and breathe. If the people and government of Texas feel that way about abortion, far be it for me or frankly any of us (not from Texas) to question it. Frankly, if you need an abortion you can go to another state. It’s probably <$200 flight almost anywhere in the country. Apple could literally offer flights to California for any medical procedure no questions asked and problem solved. I also don’t see Apple as having the moral high ground here. They employ slaves in China. Apple respects the Chinese government and says nothing. They’re sterilizing people, organ harvesting on live people (Christians and Muslims) in China. But this... this is what people care about? But... is that what’s this really about? I don’t think so.

threatofrain 5y ago
Under the new TX law, Apple would be exposed to liability for flying employees out for abortion. Apple can say they don't ask employees on their medical details, but it is a risky play. Additionally, Apple does not determine the law. If legislature responds to Apple, that would be due to the structural aspects of democratic government, in other words, the voters want something and will place pressure during elections. And Apple is just one of the many big companies in TX.
- nokcha 5y ago
  > Under the new TX law, Apple would be exposed to liability for flying employees out for abortion. Apple can say they don't ask employees on their medical details, but it is a risky play. The statute is blatantly unconstitutional, and Apple has enough high-powered lawyers to fight any lawsuits.
  - lettergram 5y ago
    I don't think that's clear. I am curious to see how this will be handled by the supreme court. This methods used were actually similar to the way the old police system worked. They'd put out bounties and citizens would bring people in.

yazaddaruvala 5y ago

Why not just pull a Salesforce and offer all employees free travel out of Texas to get an abortion? Over time this perk grows across the Texas economy and causes political change, or continues to be a few companies offer it and people can virtue signal by choosing where they work.

enraged_camel 5y ago
>> Why not just pull a Salesforce and offer all employees free travel out of Texas to get an abortion? There are many reasons (e.g. abortion is a very private and personal matter and most people probably wouldn't want to involve their employer), but primarily, it would count as assisting abortion and could open Apple to liability under this law.

askonomm 5y ago

I feel like the U.S and middle east are pretty similar in terms of social progress. Or should I say, _regress_.

missinfo 5y ago

This could have a number of potentially significant secondary effects. 1. Accelerating the trend of companies taking sides on political issues. Think about how many companies you use and imagine half of them taking your side, and the other half taking the opposing side. 2. Expanding the already outsized influence of corporations in government. 3. Apple having to contend with their China-Sized Problem re: factory workers, Hong Kong, Taiwan and the Uyghur population.

markkanof 5y ago

Putting the actual law aside, I'm a bit confused on Gruber's argument here that "it’s untenable for Apple, or any other company, to “support our employees’ rights to make their own decisions regarding their reproductive health” and ask any woman to work for the company in a state with a law like Texas’s." This sort of presumes that Texas is an empty plot of land where no one lives. This is obviously not the case. There are millions of people that live there and need jobs. So what about women who want to work for a cool consumer technology company and are anti-abortion. Why would it be "untenable" to hire those women?

yaacov 5y ago
Coming at this from a personal-choice-oriented perspective, the answer for those women is not to get an abortion for themselves regardless of whether the law in their state allows it. Of course, that doesn’t solve the problem for those who strongly prefer to live in a state where nobody’s allowed to have an abortion.
- someguydave 5y ago
  Of course, I presume those same personal-choice-oriented people also believe that the government should force people to be vaccinated.
  - belltaco 5y ago
    Abortions don't spread from person to person at the drop of a hat and also don't fill up hospital and kill millions of real people.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - otterley 5y ago
    Most of us are also OK with laws forcing everyone to wear pants in public. We don't consider it a serious infringement of our personal freedom. Being forced to carry a pregnancy to term -- even an especially risky one, or one that's the result of rape or incest -- has significant impacts on both the mother and the community that could be net negative instead of positive. Everything about a vaccination is supposed to have net positive effects, both for the individual recipient and the public health and welfare.

chmaynard 5y ago

I'm concerned that HN moderators may have down-weighted this post to keep it off the front page. If true, this would make me concerned about soft censorship on this site. What do others think?

tfehring 5y ago
My understanding is that HN down-weights posts with, loosely speaking, a high ratio of comments to votes because that often signals a controversial and/or flamebaity topic.

lolsal 5y ago

> That’s the answer. You move your business out of Texas. Any company that expands or initiates new operations in Texas implicitly supports Texas’s abortion ban. I like reading Gruber usually, but this comment is completely asinine.

rafi25 5y ago

So funny. With all of the diversity, there is not one religious person to say the obvious: religious people dont change their belives because of money.

tmaly 5y ago

Has anyone considered broader implications of government making health decisions for individuals? Each small mandate will add up over time to something we cannot currently imagine. Take the executive order mandating vaccination for companies with over 100 employees. Say this is challenged in court and it is upheld on some grounds. This might set some precedent. Then say at some point later the Texas law goes before SCOTUS. The initial precedent might provide a win for Texas. This is all speculation, but it not entirely out of the real of possibility.

uslic001 5y ago

Apple has no problem dealing with China. They are being hypocritical if they pull out of Texas but not out of China.