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 3

post #81 of 115
So women always had the right to vote, they just didn't know it? Homosexuals could always get married, they just never bothered trying? I have the right to buy crystal meth, I just need to man up and do it?

Patent poppycock.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #82 of 115
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
So women always had the right to vote, they just didn't know it? Homosexuals could always get married, they just never bothered trying? I have the right to buy crystal meth, I just need to man up and do it?

 

You’re on a roll with the strawmen today.

post #83 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

So women always had the right to vote, they just didn't know it? Homosexuals could always get married, they just never bothered trying? I have the right to buy crystal meth, I just need to man up and do it?

Patent poppycock.

For your reading pleasure (pay particular attention to the section titled "Natural Rights"):
http://www.constitution.org/powright.htm
Edited by SpamSandwich - 12/19/13 at 6:58am

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #84 of 115
So you are amending your earlier blanket statement of "rights cannot be given, they are inherent" to "natural rights cannot be given, they are inherent"?

Well since that's basically saying "inherent things are inherent" then that's fine, if rather glib.

I think there are probably disagreements to be had on which rights in particular are "natural" and which are not (and if there is truly any such thing as a natural right), but that would be going down a tangential track that is likely to be tedious for both of is.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #85 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

You’re on a roll with the strawmen today.
No. Arguing by example is not the same as a straw man argument, and is a perfectly fine form of debate. Labelling someone's argument as a strawman in order to evade engaging with it however...

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #86 of 115
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
Arguing by example is not the same as a straw man argument

 

It is if the examples are strawmen.

post #87 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

So you are amending your earlier blanket statement of "rights cannot be given, they are inherent" to "natural rights cannot be given, they are inherent"?

Well since that's basically saying "inherent things are inherent" then that's fine, if rather glib.

I think there are probably disagreements to be had on which rights in particular are "natural" and which are not (and if there is truly any such thing as a natural right), but that would be going down a tangential track that is likely to be tedious for both of is.

No, no, no. You insisted rights were essentially "allowed" by government when you said this: "Rights can not be given, except they are, by your Constitution, which moreover can be amended to give more."

You were way off.
Edited by SpamSandwich - 12/19/13 at 7:54am

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #88 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

It is if the examples are strawmen.
Pertinent, real world examples that wholly discredit the main thrust of the original contentious statement are straw men? Is this one of your "proofs" again?

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #89 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

No, no, no. You insisted rights were essentially "allowed" by government. You were way off.
Didn't say government, said law. Different things.

A "right" that is not recognised by law is a meaningless bit of rhetoric. Law gives the concept of a right substantive meaning. Therefore rights are given by law. Your rights under law. Not necessarily specifically, laws can be written to be targeted at exclusions, i.e. the rights you do not have; but nevertheless it is the formulation of the law that allows for the rights that you do have even if they are not specifically stated.

This is the way lawful societies work. Even with "natural" rights, for if they are so inherent ( suggesting obviousness), why would they even need to be documented?

For the record I don't believe in "natural rights" at all. Made up gibberish.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #90 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Pertinent, real world examples that wholly discredit the main thrust of the original contentious statement are straw men? Is this one of your "proofs" again?

Since you are nitpicking, the examples you provided fall under "non-natural rights of personhood, created by social contract".

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #91 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Didn't say government, said law. Different things.

A "right" that is not recognised by law is a meaningless bit of rhetoric. Law gives the concept of a right substantive meaning. Therefore rights are given by law. Your rights under law. Not necessarily specifically, laws can be written to be targeted at exclusions, i.e. the rights you do not have; but nevertheless it is the formulation of the law that allows for the rights that you do have even if they are not specifically stated.

This is the way lawful societies work. Even with "natural" rights, for if they are so inherent ( suggesting obviousness), why would they even need to be documented?

For the record I don't believe in "natural rights" at all. Made up gibberish.

I'm not going to get bogged down arguing against Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Locke, English common law, the US Constitution, etc.

Laws are enforced by government in accordance with the framework provided by the Constitution. Our natural rights are also DEFENDED by this system. Natural rights are not assigned by government or a judge, like a Social Security number, at birth. Natural rights are inherent.
Edited by SpamSandwich - 12/19/13 at 8:20am

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #92 of 115
Alright? So you admit that non-natural (i.e. all 1wink.gif) rights are created by the social contract? The social contract that is formalised and practised through the society's laws?

EDIT: @ two posts above.
Good nit-picking.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #93 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I'm not going to get bogged down arguing against Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Locke, English common law, the US Constitution, etc.
I don't recall asking you to. I'm just setting out position so any tangential comments are not misunderstood.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #94 of 115
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
For the record I don't believe in "natural rights" at all. Made up gibberish.

 

You could have just replied to this post, then:

 

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
Not sure I buy that. That what you guys across the Pond believe?

 

With a “Yes”, and then we would have known to ignore everything else you say on the subject.

post #95 of 115
Where are rights in nature? Nonsensical concept.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #96 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Where are rights in nature? Nonsensical concept.

You're an intelligent person. Do some research on the subject.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #97 of 115
BA Hons Politics Philosophy and Economics.

I know this stuff a fair bit. I also know that while many admirable people believe that natural rights and law are a thing, others don't. I'm not closeted enough to think there is a correct opinion on such matters, only opinion. Mine sits mostly with Rousseau; social contract is the arbiter.

In any case, you made a sweepingly broad statement, I called you on it, you clarified. We're done here. The existence or not of natural rights is rather besides the point, and not very interesting.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #98 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

BA Hons Politics Philosophy and Economics.

I know this stuff a fair bit. I also know that while many admirable people believe that natural rights and law are a thing, others don't. I'm not closeted enough to think there is a correct opinion on such matters, only opinion. Mine sits mostly with Rousseau; social contract is the arbiter.

In any case, you made a sweepingly broad statement, I called you on it, you clarified. We're done here. The existence or not of natural rights is rather besides the point, and not very interesting.

Fair enough. I consider the matter closed.

Have a good holiday.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #99 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell View Post
 

 

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.

 

It's true that anti-poaching agreements were determined to be illegal, but there are also State laws, unfair competition laws or specific statutes where employee poaching may be illegal as it is considered tortious interference with business (contractual) relations. This occurs when a company intentionally causes an employee to breach his/her employment contract.

 

Furthermore, I believe there have been successful lawsuits over one company poaching a large number of employees from another under "unfair business practices" statutes.   

 

So it's not completely clear cut.   Furthermore, it's obvious that many employees have indeed moved from company to company.   Note that even the anti-poaching agreements did not mean that you couldn't hire an employee from another company, it just meant that you couldn't cold call employees in that company and encourage them to leave.

 

In any case, while this may have been illegal and ruled as such, IMO, it doesn't rise to the level of racial, gender, age and other types of discrimination.     

post #100 of 115
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
Where are rights in nature? Nonsensical concept.

 

Where do you live? I’ll come kill you. After all, you’re not automatically granted the right to life, much less anything else.

 

Where are rights in nature? How’s this: where are humans in nature? We aren’t. We’re sapient. We’re better than this. We left nature. Right now, you reading this after I wrote it is about as far removed from nature as humans can be.

post #101 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Where do you live? I’ll come kill you. After all, you’re not automatically granted the right to life, much less anything else.

Where are rights in nature? How’s this: where are humans in nature? We aren’t. We’re sapient. We’re better than this. We left nature. Right now, you reading this after I wrote it is about as far removed from nature as humans can be.
None of that has anything to do with what was being discussed. As ever, you're out of your depth TS, retire now and save some face.

I'll help you out by not replying to your wittering any more.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #102 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Fair enough. I consider the matter closed.

Have a good holiday.
Cheers, you too.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #103 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post
 

It's true that anti-poaching agreements were determined to be illegal, but there are also State laws, unfair competition laws or specific statutes where employee poaching may be illegal as it is considered tortious interference with business (contractual) relations. This occurs when a company intentionally causes an employee to breach his/her employment contract.

 

Furthermore, I believe there have been successful lawsuits over one company poaching a large number of employees from another under "unfair business practices" statutes.   

 

So it's not completely clear cut.   Furthermore, it's obvious that many employees have indeed moved from company to company.   Note that even the anti-poaching agreements did not mean that you couldn't hire an employee from another company, it just meant that you couldn't cold call employees in that company and encourage them to leave.

 

In any case, while this may have been illegal and ruled as such, IMO, it doesn't rise to the level of racial, gender, age and other types of discrimination.     

 

 

My god, it took you 3 days to come up with this convulated BS!

 

This has nothing to do with torts. It's not ok to break the law because you "think" you are preventing someone else from breaking the law.

Your logic would be... "If I see someone that looks like a hoodlum in my neighborhood, I should shoot him before he robs my house."

 

 

This lawsuit is about conspiring with competitors to reduce employee pay by eliminating competition for skilled labor. They broke Antitrust and California laws.

 

These laws are to protect employees just like there are laws to protect gays.


Edited by Russell - 12/19/13 at 3:43pm

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

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

Reply
post #104 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell View Post
 

 

 

My god, it took you 3 days to come up with this convulated BS!

 

This has nothing to do with torts. It's not ok to break the law because you "think" you are preventing someone else from breaking the law.

Your logic would be... "If I see someone that looks like a hoodlum in my neighborhood, I should shoot him before he robs my house."

 

 

This lawsuit is about conspiring with competitors to reduce employee pay by eliminating competition for skilled labor. They broke Antitrust and California laws.

 

These laws are to protect employees just like there are laws to protect gays.

1.  Maybe you spend your whole life on here, but I don't.   So it didn't take me three days because I didn't read your post until today.

 

2.  I know what the lawsuit is about as I stated.   Let's say that Apple and the other companies never made any anti-poaching agreement.    And then because there was no agreement, they poached.   There are other laws under which they could have been sued for that poaching.   (I was involved in such a case.)    So all I was saying is that while they did indeed break the law, the overall situation is not so clear cut.   

 

3.  I have a hard time believing that in the case of the companies named, the idea was to reduce employee pay because most of the companies named actually pay quite well and extraordinarily well in the executive ranks.   I think the illegal agreement was more about not having their businesses disturbed by constant turnover and in the case of Apple, it was probably also driven by the paranoia about secrecy.   They didn't want their employees poached because they didn't want other companies knowing what they were planning.   Doesn't matter because it was still illegal, but I think you've got the motivation wrong. 

 

3.  While serious, I still don't think it rises to the level of other types of discrimination and your last comment doesn't really make any sense because I could say that about anything:  "There are jaywalking laws to protect pedestrians just like there are laws to protect gays."      The problem is that it's most certainly not "just like".    But if you think it's the same, fine, be happy.   Obviously, no one is ever going to be able to convince you otherwise.     You've decided that Tim is evil and therefore he has no right to speak about anyone's rights.   I just happen to disagree.

post #105 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell View Post

 

 

This lawsuit is about conspiring with competitors to reduce employee pay by eliminating competition for skilled labor. They broke Antitrust and California laws.

 

 

I actually wish they were burned harder on the anti-poaching agreements, and by that I mean hard enough that they would never attempt such a thing ever again. That goes for every company involved. Non-compete clauses are unenforceable under the majority of circumstances in California. Anti-poaching agreements were simply an attempt to circumvent that.

post #106 of 115
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
None of that has anything to do with what was being discussed. 

 

Sure; life certainly isn’t a right or anything.

 
I'll help you out by not replying to your wittering any more.

 

Thanks for giving up.

post #107 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post
 

1.  Maybe you spend your whole life on here, but I don't.   So it didn't take me three days because I didn't read your post until today.

 

2.  I know what the lawsuit is about as I stated.   Let's say that Apple and the other companies never made any anti-poaching agreement.    And then because there was no agreement, they poached.   There are other laws under which they could have been sued for that poaching.   (I was involved in such a case.)    So all I was saying is that while they did indeed break the law, the overall situation is not so clear cut.   

 

3.  I have a hard time believing that in the case of the companies named, the idea was to reduce employee pay because most of the companies named actually pay quite well and extraordinarily well in the executive ranks.   I think the illegal agreement was more about not having their businesses disturbed by constant turnover and in the case of Apple, it was probably also driven by the paranoia about secrecy.   They didn't want their employees poached because they didn't want other companies knowing what they were planning.   Doesn't matter because it was still illegal, but I think you've got the motivation wrong. 

 

3.  While serious, I still don't think it rises to the level of other types of discrimination and your last comment doesn't really make any sense because I could say that about anything:  "There are jaywalking laws to protect pedestrians just like there are laws to protect gays."      The problem is that it's most certainly not "just like".    But if you think it's the same, fine, be happy.   Obviously, no one is ever going to be able to convince you otherwise.     You've decided that Tim is evil and therefore he has no right to speak about anyone's rights.   I just happen to disagree.

 

1. I joined AI on March 2010 (45 mos ago) and have 221 posts. That's 4.9 posts per month.

You joined December 2007 (72 mos ago) and have 1067 posts. That's 14.8 posts per month.

You spend 3x more time here than I. No email notifications?

 

2. It is very clear cut. You're making up far-fetched situations that don't apply. So you're saying Steve was trying to protect those other companies from being sued by each other? Apple poached people from YSL and Burberry. Where are the lawsuits?

 

3. It wasn't about reducing employee pay, it was about capping employee pay. Apple did not want to up people's pay to make them stay. Executive ranks do get paid well but the No Poach Agreement wasn't about them. See my YSL & Burberry reference.

 

4. Tim wants people to think he cares about people being treated fairly. But not speaking up when Steve was around and not speaking up today, I can see he truly doesn't care. To me, he has traits like a two-faced politician.


Edited by Russell - 12/19/13 at 4:34pm

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

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

Reply
post #108 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 

 

I actually wish they were burned harder on the anti-poaching agreements, and by that I mean hard enough that they would never attempt such a thing ever again. That goes for every company involved. Non-compete clauses are unenforceable under the majority of circumstances in California. Anti-poaching agreements were simply an attempt to circumvent that.

 

The case is still ongoing.

If you know anybody from the affect companies with the following job descriptions, have them register as a potential class member.

 

"The suit represents software and hardware engineers, programmers, animators, digital artists, Web developers and other technical professionals, according to the ruling. Kelly Dermody, a lawyer representing them, said in an e-mail that there are as many as 64,626 potential class members."

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-25/apple-google-must-face-group-antitrust-hiring-lawsuit.html

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

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

Reply
post #109 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Sure; life certainly isn’t a right or anything.

 

Thanks for giving up.

 

Do you fail to distinguish shame or humiliation?

 

You were derided as a moderator, what are you still doing here?

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

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

Reply
post #110 of 115
Originally Posted by Russell View Post

Do you fail to distinguish shame or humiliation?

 

Now those aren’t rights. You have false views of the Kindle; what are you still doing here? :lol:

post #111 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Sure; life certainly isn’t a right or anything.
Not one granted by anything other than law, but that really is beside the point. Come over here and kill me, and then try and use the "but it isn't a natural right" argument. The police won't care., because the law says you can't do that.
Stupid line of reasoning that has no bearing whatsoever on what was being discussed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Thanks for giving up.
Again, as so often, you fail to distinguish intolerance of your pathetic trolling nonsense from you "winning". You will never win, because you're an imbecile who think you can hang out with the big boys by liberally applying badly thought out snark.

Now I've said that, go ahead and have the last word. And then grow up.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #112 of 115
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
Not one granted by anything other than law

 

I only keep pressing because I can’t wrap my head around anyone actually believing this. It’s just really depressing.

 

PROTECTED by law, not granted.

 
…but that really is beside the point.

 

It’s the entire point, in fact.

 
Again, as so often, you fail to distinguish intolerance of your pathetic trolling nonsense from you "winning".

 

Well, were I wrong you’d be able to prove it thus. Instead you’re running away.

 

I dunno; if I knew I was right, I’d be able to prove it, and if I could prove it, I would. That’s me. Maybe the fundamental difference that makes you think we’re not entitled to live also makes you think what you fight for isn’t worth actually fighting for.

post #113 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell View Post

1. I joined AI on March 2010 (45 mos ago) and have 221 posts. That's 4.9 posts per month.
You joined December 2007 (72 mos ago) and have 1067 posts. That's 14.8 posts per month.
You spend 3x more time here than I. No email notifications?

The number of posts one makes is no indication of how much time one spends here. There are plenty of readers that don't even have an account yet they spend time here. But let's say, for argument sake, that we only count those who post; the time it takes to read posts and reply is not static across each person, thread or even between comments so time can not be determined simply by looking at the number of posts. You can't even determine how much time it took to post based on a word count.
Edited by SolipsismX - 12/19/13 at 9:40pm

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #114 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post


None of that has anything to do with what was being discussed. As ever, you're out of your depth TS, retire now and save some face.

I'll help you out by not replying to your wittering any more.

QFT!

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

 

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.

bla bla bla

does this exaggerated stuff somehow relate to racial discrimination??

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