or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple CEO Tim Cook expresses need to protect 'principles of basic human dignity' in Auburn speech
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple CEO Tim Cook expresses need to protect 'principles of basic human dignity' in Auburn speech - Page 2

post #41 of 115
Anyone else see the irony in an Apple exec talking about basic human rights and dignity? I mean.....seriously?
post #42 of 115
Originally Posted by MaestroDRAVEN View Post
Anyone else see the irony in an Apple exec talking about basic human rights and dignity? I mean.....seriously?

 

No, because we’re not idiots.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #43 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disturbia View Post

Does Andy Rubin and the rest of google know anything about human dignity? Do they even know how to spell them?!!!

Why would you say this?  What has Andy Rubin or any executive at Google done that indicates they disregard human dignity?  

post #44 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaestroDRAVEN View Post

Anyone else see the irony in an Apple exec talking about basic human rights and dignity? I mean.....seriously?

No.  Why?  Apple has done more for worker's rights than any other tech company.  They just get a lot more attention.  No one is looking at the other companies, even though they make their stuff in the same factories, or factories just like them, with the same or often worse conditions.  Apple is a big, convenient target. 

post #45 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 
Tim expressing his personal opinions is his business.
 
Apple as a company supporting a divisive political organization that is not related to their business seems questionable and does concern me as a shareholder.
 

Sometimes a company has to do what is right, regardless of what bigoted morons think.  If this causes someone to sell off their shares of Apple stock, so be it.  

post #46 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post


Good to know. Why don't you start a thread about it instead of derailing a thread about Tim Cook and a speech with partisan baiting?

His comment seems totally related to me.  I think it's idiotic, but completely related. 

post #47 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaestroDRAVEN View Post

Anyone else see the irony in an Apple exec talking about basic human rights and dignity? I mean.....seriously?

Shhh! The adults are speaking.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #48 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by starxd View Post

Sometimes a company has to do what is right, regardless of what bigoted morons think.  If this causes someone to sell off their shares of Apple stock, so be it.  

Who are the bigoted morons?

Personally, I like many ideas that progressives have. I disagree with their insistence that only they are right and that the public must be forced to do what they want and the public must fund through force of taxation big government projects that ultimately waste money and increase corruption.

Apple pours money into an organization that discourages self-reliance, increases government dependence and is socialistic and anti-competitive... Competition built Apple and there are so many associated with the company who ignore or downplay this. When a company becomes so wealthy that money is not a concern, I am concerned. Don't forget what forces built the company.
Edited by SpamSandwich - 12/16/13 at 10:46am

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #49 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 

 

As I said, Tim is free as an individual to voice his personal support for any cause he wants. No question there.
 
However, Apple contributes to a far-left organization. They are publicly traded and for the first time the donor list was divulged. I plan on voicing my disapproval.


...And I will voice my approval. I find Apples policies and principles to be refreshing and support them wholeheartedly. I've seen too many companies sell their (and their share holders) souls to the bottom line. While the BL is important it is not an excuse for making or supporting immoral decisions. While companies have to obay the law, I hope and expect Apple to use their influence push the human race forward! ... to borrow one of their own phrases!

As an AAPL share holder I expect Apple to make the "right & moral" decision even if it may lower the value of my shares.

 

Here's to you Tim, for pushing us (some of us kicking and screaming) forward!

 

I am a proud owner of AAPL shares.

 

KRR

post #50 of 115
Originally Posted by krreagan View Post

Here's to you Tim, for pushing us (some of us kicking and screaming) forward!

 

Removing this sentence entirely from its context, define “forward”. Gotta think about things on a fundamental level before you come to a conclusion.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #51 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Removing this sentence entirely from its context, define “forward”. Gotta think about things on a fundamental level before you come to a conclusion.

Agreed. Apple is certainly free to enact any policies they want to make the company more competitive with other companies for talented workers. That should not translate into federal laws that may impinge on the rights of other company owners by forcing them to follow policies that may decrease their competitiveness.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #52 of 115

"forward" In this context is helping to expand the rights of individuals to pursue their version of happiness.

post #53 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

It comes down to whether or not one believes government solves more problems than it causes.

Nah, it comes down to history. Doesn't matter what one believes, if you're honest about looking at the facts.

I went to a city high school in southern Indiana. There was one black kid in our 1960 class of 2,000, yet there was a huge black population in that town. I remember "colored" drinking fountains across the river in Kentucky, not even the deep South. When the civil rights legislation started being shoved through Congress by Johnson, it was because of guys like Tim Cook standing with Martin Luther King and the rest to get past the radical privileged self-ists who didn't want government interference in their rotton social "systems."
post #54 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Agreed. Apple is certainly free to enact any policies they want to make the company more competitive with other companies for talented workers. That should not translate into federal laws that may impinge on the rights of other company owners by forcing them to follow policies that may decrease their competitiveness.
If the policies are good policies that stand up for universal civil rights, opportunity, and a compassionate, healthy society then why not? Is competitiveness such a holy grail that all else must be sacrificed?

Oh look, derailing accomplished. How irritating.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #55 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaestroDRAVEN View Post

Anyone else see the irony in an Apple exec talking about basic human rights and dignity? I mean.....seriously?

 

 

And look at what they did to their own employees, No Poach Agreements.

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad

Reply

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad

Reply
post #56 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by starxd View Post
 

No.  Why?  Apple has done more for worker's rights than any other tech company.  They just get a lot more attention.  No one is looking at the other companies, even though they make their stuff in the same factories, or factories just like them, with the same or often worse conditions.  Apple is a big, convenient target. 

 

That's BS.

No other company but Apple dictates how much profit suppliers allowed to have.

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad

Reply

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad

Reply
post #57 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


Nah, it comes down to history. Doesn't matter what one believes, if you're honest about looking at the facts.

 ...it was because of guys like Tim Cook standing with Martin Luther King and the rest to get past the radical privileged self-ists who didn't want government interference in their rotton social "systems."

 

Yet guys like Tim Cook stood around and did nothing with the No Poach Agreements.

Today, Apple is claiming they should not have to pay damages.

Tim is such a great guy!  /s

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad

Reply

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad

Reply
post #58 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by krreagan View Post
 

"forward" In this context is helping to expand the rights of individuals to pursue their version of happiness.

 

Companies cannot help or prevent a person's happiness, or their pursuit thereof.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #59 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post


If the policies are good policies that stand up for universal civil rights, opportunity, and a compassionate, healthy society then why not? Is competitiveness such a holy grail that all else must be sacrificed?

Oh look, derailing accomplished. How irritating.

What is a "healthy society"? Who determines it? Who do you appoint as all-seeing, all-knowing enforcement agent? Soaring rhetoric is no substitute for grounded reality.


Edited by SpamSandwich - 12/16/13 at 1:26pm

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #60 of 115
Well, maybe you should withdraw your shares then. There are many, many companies that care nothing for human rights and dignity or the state of our planet if it interferes in any way with making money. They would be happy to take your money and you can give them yours with a clear conscience.
post #61 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

As I said, Tim is free as an individual to voice his personal support for any cause he wants. No question there.
 
However, Apple contributes to a far-left organization. They are publicly traded and for the first time the donor list was divulged. I plan on voicing my disapproval.

 



And I'm a stockholder who plans on voicing my approval. Therefore we cancel each other out.

As to whether this organization is "far-left" is subject to interpretation. Seems to me that if one truly believes in the Constitution, any organization that defends the civil rights of people is actually a far-right organization. They're not considered that because too many people on the right want to "pick and choose" who gets which civil rights.

The ACLU is considered by critics to be a leftist organization, but in their strict defense of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I wouldn't consider them as such. In fact, they recently filed a "friend of the court" brief in an NRA case in favor of the NRA and they've actually defended the the right of the KKK to demonstrate in the past.
post #62 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell View Post

 

Yet guys like Tim Cook stood around and did nothing with the No Poach Agreements.

Today, Apple is claiming they should not have to pay damages.

Tim is such a great guy!  /s

 



Yes, violating a no poach agreement is exactly the same as discriminating against millions of people because of their race. Brilliant thinking.
post #63 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell View Post
 

 

Yet guys like Tim Cook stood around and did nothing with the No Poach Agreements.

Today, Apple is claiming they should not have to pay damages.

Tim is such a great guy!  /s

 



Yes, violating a no poach agreement is exactly the same as discriminating against millions of people because of their race. Brilliant thinking.

 

It is the same. It's about 'principles of basic human dignity' and treating people equally.

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad

Reply

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad

Reply
post #64 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by starxd View Post
 

Why would you say this?  What has Andy Rubin or any executive at Google done that indicates they disregard human dignity?  

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/10156683/Google-under-pressure-to-stop-illegal-drug-ads.html

 

http://rt.com/usa/google-safari-cookies-settlement-961/

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply
post #65 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 

 

As I said, Tim is free as an individual to voice his personal support for any cause he wants. No question there.
 
However, Apple contributes to a far-left organization. They are publicly traded and for the first time the donor list was divulged. I plan on voicing my disapproval.


Your definition of "Far Left" is so misplaced that you would have to think that you actually have no idea of what the Left is. You probably subscribe to the fact that Obama is Left Wing. Sure, he might be to the Left of your average Ayn Rand groupie, but he 's right of center on any normal political spectrum.

internationalchart.png

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

 

Personally, I think that it's great that the CEO of a company takes a moral stance. If you don't like it, take your shares somewhere else... That's what the "free" market lets you do after all.

post #66 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

What is a "healthy society"? Who determines it? Who do you appoint as all-seeing, all-knowing enforcement agent? Soaring rhetoric is no substitute for grounded reality.
Those are questions to be pondered over, not sneered at, so I won't bother engaging with you there. I have some ideas about what I consider to be a healthy society, and the USA is pretty far off the path, however grounded and real it may feel to you.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #67 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell View Post

 

It is the same. It's about 'principles of basic human dignity' and treating people equally.

 




No, it's not the same. You're trying to make a moral equivalency out of something that has no such equivalency. Tell me what person wasn't treated with 'principles of basic human dignity' because they were poached from another company. And don't tell me that the "person" was a company, because in spite of what some politicians on the Right think, a company is not a person.

That's like saying that Roosevelt lied once so he was no better than Hitler.

And even if I'm wrong and Tim once made an error of judgement, are you saying that he can never again publicly preach in favor of equality?
post #68 of 115

 



While I agree that these are terrible business practices, I would not place them in the category of 'principles of basic human dignity' and civil rights. These terrible business practices are applied equally without regard to gender, race, national origin, age, etc. They have nothing to do with civil rights.
post #69 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell View Post
 

 

It is the same. It's about 'principles of basic human dignity' and treating people equally.

 


No, it's not the same. You're trying to make a moral equivalency out of something that has no such equivalency. Tell me what person wasn't treated with 'principles of basic human dignity' because they were poached from another company. And don't tell me that the "person" was a company, because in spite of what some politicians on the Right think, a company is not a person.

That's like saying that Roosevelt lied once so he was no better than Hitler.

And even if I'm wrong and Tim once made an error of judgement, are you saying that he can never again publicly preach in favor of equality?

 

Do you even know what the illegal No Poach Agreement was about?

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad

Reply

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad

Reply
post #70 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by krreagan View Post

"forward" In this context is helping to expand the rights of individuals to pursue their version of happiness.

Rights cannot be given, they are inherent. That's why they are called rights. It's government's function to defend our rights described in the Constitution. Everything not in the Constitution is left to the people.

Regarding equal protection (14th Amendment): "...the Equal Protection Clause was not designed to guarantee equal outcomes, but rather equal opportunities..."

This quotation was a favorite of Steve Jobs.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
Edited by SpamSandwich - 12/16/13 at 8:20pm

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #71 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell View Post
 

 

Do you even know what the illegal No Poach Agreement was about?

an agreement between companies to not hire execs from each other?

post #72 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 

 

Companies cannot help or prevent a person's happiness, or their pursuit thereof.


Corporations have more influence on government and the policies they make then the populace does at this time.

 

If you really believe what you say, then you are incredibly naive.

 

KRR

post #73 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


Rights cannot be given, they are inherent. That's why they are called rights. It's government's function to defend our rights described in the Constitution. Everything not in the Constitution is left to the people.

Regarding equal protection (14th Amendment): "...the Equal Protection Clause was not designed to guarantee equal outcomes, but rather equal opportunities..."

This quotation was a favorite of Steve Jobs.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause


The laws in this country are currently geared to favor the those in power or those that can purchase power. The current implementation is very unequal in providing opportunity to those that can't "afford" it. The current legal system is heavily favored to those that have money.

 

KRR

post #74 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by krreagan View Post


Corporations have more influence on government and the policies they make then the populace does at this time.

If you really believe what you say, then you are incredibly naive.

KRR

I'm well aware of the corporatism that exists in revolving-door Washington, the point was that no person or job can make you happy. That's up to you.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #75 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by krreagan View Post


The laws in this country are currently geared to favor the those in power or those that can purchase power. The current implementation is very unequal in providing opportunity to those that can't "afford" it. The current legal system is heavily favored to those that have money.

KRR

"Currently"? Now who's naive?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #76 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by bananaman View Post
 

an agreement between companies to not hire execs from each other?

 

Steve Jobs initiated an agreement between companies to not hire regular employees (engineers, programmers...) from each other. Having an agreement is against the law.

 

 

More than 60,000 tech workers can seek monetary damages from Apple (AAPL), Intel (INTC), Google (GOOG) andAdobe Systems (ADBE) because of a federal judge's ruling in a suit claiming that former Apple CEO Steve Jobs conspired with other local executives to limit the workers' pay by barring them from moving from one company to another.

In granting class-action status to the suit Thursday, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose cited what she termed "considerable, compelling common proof" that the Silicon Valley companies engaged in antitrust behavior by agreeing not to try to lure away each others' employees.

In her decision, Koh noted that the accusations largely center on former Apple CEO Jobs, because each of the alleged no-hire agreements involved a company under his control or that shared at least one director who was on Apple's board.

The lawsuit contains several examples of conversations Jobs had with other executives demanding that they not poach Apple's workers. In many cases, the suit claims, the executives complied. In one email Jobs told Google CEO Eric Schmidt, "I would be very pleased if your recruiting department would stop doing this," referring to a Google recruiter contacting an Apple engineer in 2007.

But not everyone complied with Jobs' demands, according to evidence Koh cited in her ruling. She noted as an example an incident in 2007 when Jobs allegedly threatened to sue Palm for patent infringement if it didn't heed the no-poaching arrangement. In response, Palm's former CEO, Edward Colligan, told Jobs the demand was "not only wrong, it is likely illegal."

In the settlement with Pixar, Lucasfilm and Intuit, the three companies -- which employed about 8 percent of the affected workers -- agreed to pay a total of $20 million, according to Kelly Dermody, the plaintiffs' lead lawyer.

Noting that none of the workers have received that money yet, she added that it remains unclear what additional financial damages might be sought at the trial. But aside from the money, she said, just having the case certified as a class-action suit sends an important message "that people need to pay more attention to employee rights and fairness in the workplace."

Oct 25, 2013 http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24390480/judge-oks-class-action-suit-against-apple-intel-google-adobe

 

Tim Cook talks out of both sides of his mouth.

What did Tim Cook do while this was happening? Nothing.

What is Tim Cook doing about it today? Nothing. He is speaking out for equality for Gays but not his own employees that were harmed by the illegal agreement, the very people that helped make Apple successful.

 

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad

Reply

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD than any iPad

Reply
post #77 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Rights cannot be given, they are inherent. That's why they are called rights. It's government's function to defend our rights described in the Constitution. Everything not in the Constitution is left to the people.

Regarding equal protection (14th Amendment): "...the Equal Protection Clause was not designed to guarantee equal outcomes, but rather equal opportunities..."

This quotation was a favorite of Steve Jobs.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
Self contradictory.

Rights can not be given, except they are, by your Constitution, which moreover can be amended to give more.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #78 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Self contradictory.

Rights can not be given, except they are, by your Constitution, which moreover can be amended to give more.

Our constitutional rights are enumerated in the Constitution, they aren't "given".

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #79 of 115
What a pile of nonsense. There is no such thing as a right until it is legally recognised. Your legal framework, the bill of rights and other parts of the constitution, is your prime method of legal recognition.

"Rights can't be given" my eye. Complete balderdash.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #80 of 115
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
There is no such thing as a right until it is legally recognised.

 

Not sure I buy that. That what you guys across the Pond believe?

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple CEO Tim Cook expresses need to protect 'principles of basic human dignity' in Auburn speech