The anti-worker hostility shown here is callous, presumptuous, and generally appalling. None of you have any idea what any of these employees’ lives are like.
The reason Apple wants to force every worker into being on site for a certain percentage of time probably has a lot more to do with making sure their insanely expensive building/campus isn’t sitting empty, because that would be embarrassing for a company that cares a lot about their image.
It’s been noted that people don’t like working there. Open floor plans and glass walls/doors suck for actual humans and productivity. The main building is like the Powermac G4 cube and the trashcan Mac Pro: all form; poorly-considered function.
Then there’s the basic fact that the 40-hour workweek and officespace culture is just plain unhealthy.
Instead of being bitter about what you see as “entitled” employees who should get shit on just the same as you do, maybe think about trying to raise the bar for EVERYONE (which includes yourselves). Stop licking the corporate boot and acting like you’re living vicariously through the boot wearers.
The anti worker? Among the best in class in pay and benefits are asked to come to work part of the week? This is anti worker and being “shit” on and corporate bootlicking? You really do get to see and hear it all on the internet.
Best plan for us workers and consumers: companies do a top to bottom clean out of actual dead weight workers every several years. Soon after create new positions and begin filling them with workers that will put in an actual hungry 8 hours that advances the company’s products for consumers, and increasing the domino effect of creating jobs down the line.
Dead wood reduction plan: cut you and those who feel coming into the office for part of the week is being shit on. You can go where you’re appreciated and the rest of benefit from your departure. A win-win, buh bye.
The anti-worker hostility shown here is callous, presumptuous, and generally appalling. None of you have any idea what any of these employees’ lives are like.
The reason Apple wants to force every worker into being on site for a certain percentage of time probably has a lot more to do with making sure their insanely expensive building/campus isn’t sitting empty, because that would be embarrassing for a company that cares a lot about their image.
It’s been noted that people don’t like working there. Open floor plans and glass walls/doors suck for actual humans and productivity. The main building is like the Powermac G4 cube and the trashcan Mac Pro: all form; poorly-considered function.
Then there’s the basic fact that the 40-hour workweek and officespace culture is just plain unhealthy.
Instead of being bitter about what you see as “entitled” employees who should get shit on just the same as you do, maybe think about trying to raise the bar for EVERYONE (which includes yourselves). Stop licking the corporate boot and acting like you’re living vicariously through the boot wearers.
Yes. It seems strange that people here do not embrace the technological advancement and new possibilities brought to us with the technology.
Many people in many companies across the globe have been successfully delivering great value for the last 1,5 years. Remotely. To force everyone to return to offices is just old thinking. The desire to control. To show the power. I think that especially in the innovative technology companies the remote work could function really well.
(Of course there is value in face-to-face interactions. Sometimes it could be better understanding, things could move faster, etc. And of course there is just corporate culture (which in this case is enforced), which bonds individuals (if the culture is good).)
And if the person delivers great value to the company from their home-office, does remote setup sound that ridiculous to you?
The anti-worker hostility shown here is callous, presumptuous, and generally appalling. None of you have any idea what any of these employees’ lives are like.
The reason Apple wants to force every worker into being on site for a certain percentage of time probably has a lot more to do with making sure their insanely expensive building/campus isn’t sitting empty, because that would be embarrassing for a company that cares a lot about their image.
It’s been noted that people don’t like working there. Open floor plans and glass walls/doors suck for actual humans and productivity. The main building is like the Powermac G4 cube and the trashcan Mac Pro: all form; poorly-considered function.
Then there’s the basic fact that the 40-hour workweek and officespace culture is just plain unhealthy.
Instead of being bitter about what you see as “entitled” employees who should get shit on just the same as you do, maybe think about trying to raise the bar for EVERYONE (which includes yourselves). Stop licking the corporate boot and acting like you’re living vicariously through the boot wearers.
Apple has three large campuses -- Apple Park, Infinite Loop, and Campus 3, plus owns vacant land to build a fourth adjacent to the SJC airport, as well as occupying scores of other small buildings scattered around Cupertino, Sunnyvale, and the surrounding area. Not to mention campuses in Sacramento, and in other states, like Austin and Boulder.
If "the" reason for Apple's position on remote work was to keep its buildings full of people, it could realize huge savings by making remote work permanent for many of its employees, consolidate its offices, reduce its footprint, and lease obligations.
Yet it's not doing that, and even with the capacity added by Apple Park, couldn't accommodate all of its workforce in its home area by consolidating to its campuses, and also reap the benefits of having everyone under common roofs, instead of scattered around to small buildings like it does now.
Apple has never had a reputation as a great place to work, relative to places like Google and Facebook, or startups and their perks, but like them, it stands out on a CV, which makes up for a lot of the minuses.
Even Google has lost its shine, and there is unrest within its ranks regarding work policies going forward, so Apple is not alone. These are the large, old guard companies of tech now, and if, like IBM during its heydays, you don't feel like wearing a jacket and tie to work, it's probably better to look elsewhere where you can be more comfortable, or with a more flexible culture.
Hybrid telework is a great benefit and they should consider themselves lucky. My office went from full telework to similar hybrid schedule and I find it the best fit for me. I don’t like being in the office 5 days a week and I don’t like 100% telework either.
I think a lot of complaints are from people who moved away from the insanely expensive Bay Area to telework from more affordable places and now have to go back (which is a very valid complaint). The cost of housing is hurting Silicon Valley and Apple’s ability to attract talent.
The anti-worker hostility shown here is callous, presumptuous, and generally appalling. None of you have any idea what any of these employees’ lives are like.
The reason Apple wants to force every worker into being on site for a certain percentage of time probably has a lot more to do with making sure their insanely expensive building/campus isn’t sitting empty, because that would be embarrassing for a company that cares a lot about their image.
It’s been noted that people don’t like working there. Open floor plans and glass walls/doors suck for actual humans and productivity. The main building is like the Powermac G4 cube and the trashcan Mac Pro: all form; poorly-considered function.
Then there’s the basic fact that the 40-hour workweek and officespace culture is just plain unhealthy.
Instead of being bitter about what you see as “entitled” employees who should get shit on just the same as you do, maybe think about trying to raise the bar for EVERYONE (which includes yourselves). Stop licking the corporate boot and acting like you’re living vicariously through the boot wearers.
Nobody here is anti worker. We are actual workers who go to our actual jobs and do actual work beyond answering phones and making presentations. Most of us worked straight through the pandemic, not having the option to hide at home and work. So forgive us if we have little patience for someone who wants to work from home when most of us just don’t have that option.
The anti-worker hostility shown here is callous, presumptuous, and generally appalling. None of you have any idea what any of these employees’ lives are like.
The reason Apple wants to force every worker into being on site for a certain percentage of time probably has a lot more to do with making sure their insanely expensive building/campus isn’t sitting empty, because that would be embarrassing for a company that cares a lot about their image.
It’s been noted that people don’t like working there. Open floor plans and glass walls/doors suck for actual humans and productivity. The main building is like the Powermac G4 cube and the trashcan Mac Pro: all form; poorly-considered function.
Then there’s the basic fact that the 40-hour workweek and officespace culture is just plain unhealthy.
Instead of being bitter about what you see as “entitled” employees who should get shit on just the same as you do, maybe think about trying to raise the bar for EVERYONE (which includes yourselves). Stop licking the corporate boot and acting like you’re living vicariously through the boot wearers.
Nobody here is anti worker. We are actual workers who go to our actual jobs and do actual work beyond answering phones and making presentations. Most of us worked straight through the pandemic, not having the option to hide at home and work. So forgive us if we have little patience for someone who wants to work from home when most of us just don’t have that option.
Sounds like some whining babies. Why is AppleInsider even reporting on this? It is an insignificant story. Poor journalism.
I disagree, it’s actually a very interesting and timely story. The morale at a company affects quality and employee turnover. I side with Apple that they should go back to the office, if Apple is indeed offering some hybrid option it is more than generous. Regarding the comments about the employee with ADA requirements, that is troubling if they are not treated correctly. Possible lawsuit waiting to happen.
The law does not allow for accommodations without medical documentation. Even Universities require the same for grade exceptions.
I like having the option to work from home to deal with issues, appointments, personal business, etc., kinds of things that I’d otherwise have to take a vacation day to deal with. But would I want to work from home every day? Hell no. It’s a perfect recipe for total destruction of the work-life balance and a road to bunker mentality - for me at least. But that’s just me and the way my brain works. Other people are much different and deserve to be heard … even if the result of the conversation is not to their liking. When you aren’t the boss, you don’t get to call the shots no matter how important you think you are.
Most employees are in it for themselves, which is perfectly fine. Business leaders and management have the future of the business in their hands and have to put the needs of their organization above the needs of individuals, including themselves. This is and always has been the absolute bottom line gravitational force that governs every business in existence. It doesn’t matter whether you like it or not, all disputes will ultimately be governed and settled by this fundamental force.
The anti-worker hostility shown here is callous, presumptuous, and generally appalling. None of you have any idea what any of these employees’ lives are like.
The reason Apple wants to force every worker into being on site for a certain percentage of time probably has a lot more to do with making sure their insanely expensive building/campus isn’t sitting empty, because that would be embarrassing for a company that cares a lot about their image.
It’s been noted that people don’t like working there. Open floor plans and glass walls/doors suck for actual humans and productivity. The main building is like the Powermac G4 cube and the trashcan Mac Pro: all form; poorly-considered function.
Then there’s the basic fact that the 40-hour workweek and officespace culture is just plain unhealthy.
Instead of being bitter about what you see as “entitled” employees who should get shit on just the same as you do, maybe think about trying to raise the bar for EVERYONE (which includes yourselves). Stop licking the corporate boot and acting like you’re living vicariously through the boot wearers.
The anti worker? Among the best in class in pay and benefits are asked to come to work part of the week? This is anti worker and being “shit” on and corporate bootlicking? You really do get to see and hear it all on the internet.
Best plan for us workers and consumers: companies do a top to bottom clean out of actual dead weight workers every several years. Soon after create new positions and begin filling them with workers that will put in an actual hungry 8 hours that advances the company’s products for consumers, and increasing the domino effect of creating jobs down the line.
Dead wood reduction plan: cut you and those who feel coming into the office for part of the week is being shit on. You can go where you’re appreciated and the rest of benefit from your departure. A win-win, buh bye.
Eight hours a day is the bare minimum. I wouldn’t call that hungry.
So, I have lots of work experience with this stuff. They are not required to turn over medical records. Apple doesn't need their records or diagnosis unless the employee chooses to share it. What employees DO need to do is have their doctor fill out paperwork outlining what accommodations are needed based on the individual job description which HR would provide for this purpose. The employer DOESN'T need to agree to them for every job. For example, if someone is hired specifically to drive a fork-lift and their accommodations prevent them from reasonably being able to do the duties of the job (i.e. they cannot operate machinery for more than 15 minutes at a time or something), the employer can say no, sorry, you can no longer do the job you were hired for. At that point the employer will engage in a process to figure out another suitable position for the employee so that the accommodations can be followed. Pay may or may not be the same. If none, then the employee is out of luck and often at that point should be considering the type of work they are trying to do. Perhaps disability or another type of job is better with the change in abilities.
I went through this myself and chose to start my own business instead of trying to make my employer work around my ever-increasing needs. I am ALL for employee rights...but nobody is entitled to keep a job they can no longer reasonably do without undue hardship on the company they are working for and its needs. For clarity I'm focusing most on the employee with ADA accommodations that they think will be later denied). Most employers will allow accommodations that are temporary in nature (during an accident recovery for example). If the accommodation is permanent, they're going to have to prove it as well as prove they can still complete the job they were hired for. Working from home is a very tricky one because there is so much liability. For example, if you're working using your dining room chair and your back becomes hurt, is it worker's comp? Is it your own personal injury? Most companies want to avoid this kind of stuff if possible because what happens is so many people try to take advantage. At the same time, I expect Apple to be open-minded and at the forefront of a healthier work/life balance for employees. If the employees can reasonably work from home and complete their jobs, Apple could easily work with their legal department to facilitate the process. It really all comes down to what jobs these people are doing and if Apple has reasonably tried to accommodate needs.
The key word is that the employer is only required to make a "reasonable" effort to accommodate an employee that developed a qualifying disability than affects their work performance. Unless the cause of the disability was work related.
If a forklift driver lost the mobility of one hand in an auto accident, it would be unreasonable to require the employer to buy or design a forklift that can be operated safely with one hand. But the employer might offer the employee a position operating a pallet jack, at a lower pay scale. That would be "reasonable" accommodation. And if the employee do not take the "reasonable" offer, the employer is entitled to terminate the employee.
However, if forklift driver lost the use of one hand due to an industrial accident at work, then the employer must make more than a "reasonable" effort to keep the employee on their payroll. Even if they have to train him/her for a position, where his/her disability will not affect work performance and with no reduction in pay. Otherwise, the other option might be that the employer will be required to pay this work related disabled employee workers compensation until he/she is eligible to retire and collect a pension or SS.
When someone threatens to quit you tell them to resign or be fired for insubordination. If that will not work institute a substantial pay cut to force them out.
There is s book about these types of employees who rock the boat and create malcontent. It is called “Who Moved My Chese”. Letting this type of attitude go will lead to more problems.
Working remote creates a gigantic communication barrier like there never was before. Case closed.
Meh, people young enough to have grown up with the Internet know how to communicate and collaborate effectively remotely. It's just a shame that their older bosses don't understand that.
People have realised that they don't want to - and shouldn't need to - waste their lives commuting back and forth between an office.
This is all caused a by a small number of malcontents and picked up by tech blogs to stir the pot.
Headline:
"Apple employees threaten to quit”
Last sentence in the article:
"About 10 people plan to resign or know others who will resign due to the hybrid policy, the report said.
See what I mean. Squeaky wheels getting all the attention. And I’ll bet these employees are low level types, of little importance to the operation of the company, and easily replaced by those who want to work.
I signed on to comment on this exact same thing so you saved me the trouble. Clickbait nonsense.
Working remote creates a gigantic communication barrier like there never was before. Case closed.
I've been a remote worker since 2005. My entire team is remote. We get along just fine. WE communicate no differently than when we're in the office. The only difference is our conversations are usually limited to just work. So our conversations are far more focused and short.
Working remote creates a gigantic communication barrier like there never was before. Case closed.
Meh, people young enough to have grown up with the Internet know how to communicate and collaborate effectively remotely. It's just a shame that their older bosses don't understand that.
People have realised that they don't want to - and shouldn't need to - waste their lives commuting back and forth between an office.
Exactly! I adapted to remote work amazingly. I'm more productive than in the office, and am more willing to work extra hours if needed, partially because I have a 90 minute commute every day. I know it's not for everyone though. I think things should be considered on a case by case basis. If the employee works better remotely than in the office, then why screw that up? But if their productivity isn't as good as in the office, then maybe they should be the ones moving back to the office.
Comments
Apple needs to stand their ground. I will be willing to bet the people involved here are likely the worse performing employees anyways
legal action? Are they stupid? How about they also sue they should be the CEO too?
It seems strange that people here do not embrace the technological advancement and new possibilities brought to us with the technology.
Many people in many companies across the globe have been successfully delivering great value for the last 1,5 years. Remotely.
To force everyone to return to offices is just old thinking. The desire to control. To show the power.
I think that especially in the innovative technology companies the remote work could function really well.
(Of course there is value in face-to-face interactions. Sometimes it could be better understanding, things could move faster, etc.
And of course there is just corporate culture (which in this case is enforced), which bonds individuals (if the culture is good).)
And if the person delivers great value to the company from their home-office, does remote setup sound that ridiculous to you?
Most employees are in it for themselves, which is perfectly fine. Business leaders and management have the future of the business in their hands and have to put the needs of their organization above the needs of individuals, including themselves. This is and always has been the absolute bottom line gravitational force that governs every business in existence. It doesn’t matter whether you like it or not, all disputes will ultimately be governed and settled by this fundamental force.
If a forklift driver lost the mobility of one hand in an auto accident, it would be unreasonable to require the employer to buy or design a forklift that can be operated safely with one hand. But the employer might offer the employee a position operating a pallet jack, at a lower pay scale. That would be "reasonable" accommodation. And if the employee do not take the "reasonable" offer, the employer is entitled to terminate the employee.
However, if forklift driver lost the use of one hand due to an industrial accident at work, then the employer must make more than a "reasonable" effort to keep the employee on their payroll. Even if they have to train him/her for a position, where his/her disability will not affect work performance and with no reduction in pay. Otherwise, the other option might be that the employer will be required to pay this work related disabled employee workers compensation until he/she is eligible to retire and collect a pension or SS.
People have realised that they don't want to - and shouldn't need to - waste their lives commuting back and forth between an office.
Can't wait to see these houses go back on the market as these workers head back home.
There are more where you came from, conform to policy or look for work elsewhere and do not expect a positive reference.
I work in the Medical field and we have people fighting mandates to be vaccinated. We would rather work short handed than carry lug-heads like this.