4 ms·

I don’t get it, are they being held against their will? Can’t they go work at numerous other remote work companies?

by sn0w_crash 4y ago

alldayeveryday 4y ago
Imagine not getting worker collective organizing.
- DiggyJohnson 4y ago
  There are certainly better ways to communicate your point than this.
  - gtyras2mrs 4y ago
    > There are certainly better ways to communicate your point than this. Well, do tell. Passing along a petition sounds like a very low impact way of collectively asking for something. It's not like they are starting off with a strike. Or are thinking of a "mgmt's way or the highway" type of deal?
    - DiggyJohnson 4y ago
      I just find any single sentence comment that starts with “Imagine…” as uselessly snarky. That’s all.
- asdajksah2123 4y ago
  This isn't collective organizing though. collective organizing allows management and labor to come to the same table and hammer out a broad agreement based on both perspectives' priorities. If remote working was a point on the collective organizing table then management would be able to request mitigating actions to compensate for whatever they felt was lost because of WFH. This, on the other hand, is a single issue action, which involves no bargaining and places demands from 1 side without a corresponding opportunity to mitigate negative effects.
  - alldayeveryday 4y ago
    I'm not familiar with a definition of collective organizing that requires the conditions you describe, however I am fine with working with your definition. My comment (rather sarcastically) alludes to the fact that Apple employees are coming together and making a demand. It surprises me how many people will immediately shill for the employer's position and act shocked that employees would collectively ask for something. "Can't they just go work somewhere else?"
  - gtyras2mrs 4y ago
    > If remote working was a point on the collective organizing table then management would be able to request mitigating actions to compensate for whatever they felt was lost because of WFH. What you are missing is that there does not seem to be a "collective organizing table" that you speak of at Apple. An edict from above comes in saying staff need to return to office. Apple execs did not "request mitigating actions" they demanded it. > This, on the other hand, is a single issue action, which involves no bargaining and places demands from 1 side without a corresponding opportunity to mitigate negative effects. Any bargaining starts with needs and wants from both sides. Apple has made their demand to the employees telling them to return to office. Some employees are trying to organise to put forward a counter-demand. Apple execs could respond to said petition with an offer to come to the same table and negotiate, but it does not seem like they are at that stage yet.
- sn0w_crash 4y ago
  Imagine not getting people are free to do what they want. Life isn’t a perpetual college campus. At least not for 99% of us.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    College campuses actually host in person classes now. Conversely, Apple Park is literally called a campus, so it's not as if management isn't in on it either.
armatav 4y ago
So I agree with you, they can. But a lot of them aren’t 24 years old with no obligations who can throw away their stock comp on a whim, so it makes sense for them to complain. With that said, they’re all going to end up hybrid at best; it just makes no sense for Apple/Google to have it any other way.
Apocryphon 4y ago
Why does the "if you don't like Apple, you can choose a competitor" pat response have to extend everywhere from buying an Android phone to changing your employer?
- sn0w_crash 4y ago
  How does this make sense? There is only one iOS alternative. There are 1.2 million other places these people can go work.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    Changing one's employment can be a difficult, life-changing process. To just blithely suggest people can change jobs easily is underestimating the immense amount of work involved in the process, and the immense amount of personal complications involved. People might be dependent on an insurance plan provided by the company. They might not find it practical to change jobs at the moment. Not every role at Apple is as mobile as software engineering. Even among software engineers, you then have to deal with the Leetcode grind. The very act of applying for jobs is stressful and time-intensive, just ask people who are laid off. People might not find it advantageous to leave yet because of the vesting cycle. People might not want to leave because they actually care about the customers and users they would be abandoning. In short, you are asking people to take a drastic step, rather than simply questioning management. Why do workers have to accept that? What makes them wrong and this policy right? And regardless of who is right, if employees disagree with their treatment, they should be able to complain and voice discontent, right?
    - sn0w_crash 4y ago
      But to your point, workers do not “have to accept that.” To me this is very simple. If the company wants them in office, they can leave. If enough talented people leave then the company will suffer. I as an employee do not feel that I should change my employer’s policy, which they’ve had for 40 years, simply because I feel it should be a certain way. I cannot fathom that level of entitlement. It just doesn’t register in my brain.

I don’t get it, are they being held against their will? Can’t they go work at numerous other remote work companies?

alldayeveryday 4y ago

Imagine not getting worker collective organizing.

DiggyJohnson 4y ago
There are certainly better ways to communicate your point than this.
- gtyras2mrs 4y ago
  > There are certainly better ways to communicate your point than this. Well, do tell. Passing along a petition sounds like a very low impact way of collectively asking for something. It's not like they are starting off with a strike. Or are thinking of a "mgmt's way or the highway" type of deal?
  - DiggyJohnson 4y ago
    I just find any single sentence comment that starts with “Imagine…” as uselessly snarky. That’s all.
asdajksah2123 4y ago
This isn't collective organizing though. collective organizing allows management and labor to come to the same table and hammer out a broad agreement based on both perspectives' priorities. If remote working was a point on the collective organizing table then management would be able to request mitigating actions to compensate for whatever they felt was lost because of WFH. This, on the other hand, is a single issue action, which involves no bargaining and places demands from 1 side without a corresponding opportunity to mitigate negative effects.
- alldayeveryday 4y ago
  I'm not familiar with a definition of collective organizing that requires the conditions you describe, however I am fine with working with your definition. My comment (rather sarcastically) alludes to the fact that Apple employees are coming together and making a demand. It surprises me how many people will immediately shill for the employer's position and act shocked that employees would collectively ask for something. "Can't they just go work somewhere else?"
- gtyras2mrs 4y ago
  > If remote working was a point on the collective organizing table then management would be able to request mitigating actions to compensate for whatever they felt was lost because of WFH. What you are missing is that there does not seem to be a "collective organizing table" that you speak of at Apple. An edict from above comes in saying staff need to return to office. Apple execs did not "request mitigating actions" they demanded it. > This, on the other hand, is a single issue action, which involves no bargaining and places demands from 1 side without a corresponding opportunity to mitigate negative effects. Any bargaining starts with needs and wants from both sides. Apple has made their demand to the employees telling them to return to office. Some employees are trying to organise to put forward a counter-demand. Apple execs could respond to said petition with an offer to come to the same table and negotiate, but it does not seem like they are at that stage yet.
sn0w_crash 4y ago
Imagine not getting people are free to do what they want. Life isn’t a perpetual college campus. At least not for 99% of us.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  College campuses actually host in person classes now. Conversely, Apple Park is literally called a campus, so it's not as if management isn't in on it either.

armatav 4y ago

So I agree with you, they can. But a lot of them aren’t 24 years old with no obligations who can throw away their stock comp on a whim, so it makes sense for them to complain. With that said, they’re all going to end up hybrid at best; it just makes no sense for Apple/Google to have it any other way.

Apocryphon 4y ago

Why does the "if you don't like Apple, you can choose a competitor" pat response have to extend everywhere from buying an Android phone to changing your employer?

sn0w_crash 4y ago
How does this make sense? There is only one iOS alternative. There are 1.2 million other places these people can go work.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Changing one's employment can be a difficult, life-changing process. To just blithely suggest people can change jobs easily is underestimating the immense amount of work involved in the process, and the immense amount of personal complications involved. People might be dependent on an insurance plan provided by the company. They might not find it practical to change jobs at the moment. Not every role at Apple is as mobile as software engineering. Even among software engineers, you then have to deal with the Leetcode grind. The very act of applying for jobs is stressful and time-intensive, just ask people who are laid off. People might not find it advantageous to leave yet because of the vesting cycle. People might not want to leave because they actually care about the customers and users they would be abandoning. In short, you are asking people to take a drastic step, rather than simply questioning management. Why do workers have to accept that? What makes them wrong and this policy right? And regardless of who is right, if employees disagree with their treatment, they should be able to complain and voice discontent, right?
  - sn0w_crash 4y ago
    But to your point, workers do not “have to accept that.” To me this is very simple. If the company wants them in office, they can leave. If enough talented people leave then the company will suffer. I as an employee do not feel that I should change my employer’s policy, which they’ve had for 40 years, simply because I feel it should be a certain way. I cannot fathom that level of entitlement. It just doesn’t register in my brain.