Apple tends to fight all the fights it thinks it has a chance of winning. The fact that it didn't fight here is suggestive, though clearly not conclusive.
But beyond that... I seriously can't believe how much sh*t so many of you are full of.
I don't know this woman and I have no idea whether her complaint had any merit or not. But for you all to insist that she make a grand sacrifice for others to demonstrate her honesty is risible. How many of you would have the courage to do that? A bunch of cowardly internet commenters hiding behind anonymity and outrage. (And yes I'm entirely aware that this applies to me too, in this case. Not happy about the company I'm keeping at the moment, but whatever.)
You don't know what her life is. Maybe she is a grifter. Or maybe she's a single mom who thinks it's more important to feed her kid. I honestly don't care enough to find out, but I'm not going to judge her when I'm that lazy. I *do* judge the lot of you however. A pathetic crowd so panicked at the possible loss of their male privilege that they are willing to spend their time commenting on a nothing story like this to make themselves feel better.
And a special shout-out to "Beats" for this: "...a person who understands women more than women do", hilarious. I don't have a clue about women but I clearly understand them way better than you do.
Well said.
She has made a career doing this at previous jobs. She blew up a chance at a lucrative career at Apple. Likely now un-employable in the tech sector
She is the sort of person who is a cancer inside the likes of an Apple
The "sort of person" being someone cares about pay disparities, discrimination and workers rights? The "likes of Apple" being anti-union, top-down directive, closed-shop secrecy favouring corporations?
Yeah, you're probably right, though "cancer" might be better thought of as a ray of light.
In a horse race, all the horses have the same job. But not all of them do that job equally well.
In a professional organization (unlike one employing unskilled blue collar labor) pay is based not only on job description but how well the person does that job. Does the person show up for the 1:00am meeting their CEO just called? Do they have BOTH the skill and the commitment required to do that job exceptionally well? Those that do get rewarded appropriately -- which is why salary comparisons can be very unhealthy both for those doing the paying and for those getting paid:
In those situations, a lower wage might indicate discrimination or bias -- but usually it indicates a lower quality employee.
There is a fine line between a demanding employer (like Apple) and an abusive one.
... But, to those lacking in ability and/or commitment, there is no difference. They seek the lowest common denominator and want all to sink to the lowest level.
Yeah, and?
Nothing in there, "demanding employer" or not, gives Apple any permission to stop employees from discussing wages, which as I understand it is explicitly against California law. Nor does being a "demanding employer" give them any kind of shield from open discussion of workplace issues. Indeed, the very fact that there you say there is a "fine line" (I'd called it a blurry line at best) means more transparency and conversation is required.
Being legal has little to do with being right.
Under that guideline, Rittenhouse was right to make himself a vigilante and wade into a hostile crowd using his AR15 to intimidate them.
That seems like a very strange position to take - I don't see how these two cases are at all similar.
Do you think that it's morally wrong for employees to discuss their salaries with each other?
At the heart of capitalism is the idea that having equally informed and powerful parties, negotiating freely, is the best way to squeeze inefficiencies out of the system. The problem these days is that parties tend not to be equal in power, nor equally informed. Disseminating salary information is one way to reduce distortion in the system, bringing it back closer to the ideal.
Similarly, I don't see how discussing unfair employment practices is wrong, legal or not.
Again, I'm not taking a position here on who's right and who's wrong, because I don't know. I just don't understand your position on what's morally correct ("being right").
Years back in my 20's, working as an accountant I gained legitimate access to salaries within the company and proceeded to start comparing: When I saw somebody with a higher salary I felt jealous and bitter towards that person (even friends!) -- "He doesn't do nearly the work I do! Blah, blah, blah!". When I saw somebody with a lower salary I felt superior to them.
I soon realized how destructive that was and never compared salaries again even though I continued to have access to them through the years and decades.
So yes, comparing salaries leads to far more bad than good.
You once did a thing and felt a bit bad about it, so now comparing salaries "leads to far more bad than good"?
Yeah, not convinced by that and don't know why anyone would be. And in case it's illegal and Apple shouldn't be doing it, whatever their reasons, and I'm pretty sure their reasons won't be the same as your morally righteous (and wrongheaded) reasons.
It was an example of the damage comparing salaries can do -- and why Apple discourages it.
Sorry if it went over your head.
It didn't go over his head at all. He's calling you out on your use of a single anecdotal data point, a story of your own moral failing, as an excuse to make broad sweeping statements about others.
LOL... No, my example trashed his agenda and so he attacked the best way that he could without having an actual, logical argument.
You didn't trash anything, you gave an easily disregarded opinion, and I don't have an agenda. Quit with the toxic one-upmanship George.
And you have no answer to the fact that it's illegal in California. Give me all the anecdotes you want, the law is still the law.
LOL... if it was so "easily disregarded", why didn't you just "disregard" it instead of getting your panties all in a bunch?
Ok, I'll just disregard you completely from now on. That's good advice.
Apple tends to fight all the fights it thinks it has a chance of winning. The fact that it didn't fight here is suggestive, though clearly not conclusive.
But beyond that... I seriously can't believe how much sh*t so many of you are full of.
I don't know this woman and I have no idea whether her complaint had any merit or not. But for you all to insist that she make a grand sacrifice for others to demonstrate her honesty is risible. How many of you would have the courage to do that? A bunch of cowardly internet commenters hiding behind anonymity and outrage. (And yes I'm entirely aware that this applies to me too, in this case. Not happy about the company I'm keeping at the moment, but whatever.)
You don't know what her life is. Maybe she is a grifter. Or maybe she's a single mom who thinks it's more important to feed her kid. I honestly don't care enough to find out, but I'm not going to judge her when I'm that lazy. I *do* judge the lot of you however. A pathetic crowd so panicked at the possible loss of their male privilege that they are willing to spend their time commenting on a nothing story like this to make themselves feel better.
And a special shout-out to "Beats" for this: "...a person who understands women more than women do", hilarious. I don't have a clue about women but I clearly understand them way better than you do.
Well said.
She has made a career doing this at previous jobs. She blew up a chance at a lucrative career at Apple. Likely now un-employable in the tech sector
She is the sort of person who is a cancer inside the likes of an Apple
The "sort of person" being someone cares about pay disparities, discrimination and workers rights? The "likes of Apple" being anti-union, top-down directive, closed-shop secrecy favouring corporations?
Yeah, you're probably right, though "cancer" might be better thought of as a ray of light.
In a horse race, all the horses have the same job. But not all of them do that job equally well.
In a professional organization (unlike one employing unskilled blue collar labor) pay is based not only on job description but how well the person does that job. Does the person show up for the 1:00am meeting their CEO just called? Do they have BOTH the skill and the commitment required to do that job exceptionally well? Those that do get rewarded appropriately -- which is why salary comparisons can be very unhealthy both for those doing the paying and for those getting paid:
In those situations, a lower wage might indicate discrimination or bias -- but usually it indicates a lower quality employee.
There is a fine line between a demanding employer (like Apple) and an abusive one.
... But, to those lacking in ability and/or commitment, there is no difference. They seek the lowest common denominator and want all to sink to the lowest level.
Yeah, and?
Nothing in there, "demanding employer" or not, gives Apple any permission to stop employees from discussing wages, which as I understand it is explicitly against California law. Nor does being a "demanding employer" give them any kind of shield from open discussion of workplace issues. Indeed, the very fact that there you say there is a "fine line" (I'd called it a blurry line at best) means more transparency and conversation is required.
Being legal has little to do with being right.
Under that guideline, Rittenhouse was right to make himself a vigilante and wade into a hostile crowd using his AR15 to intimidate them.
That seems like a very strange position to take - I don't see how these two cases are at all similar.
Do you think that it's morally wrong for employees to discuss their salaries with each other?
At the heart of capitalism is the idea that having equally informed and powerful parties, negotiating freely, is the best way to squeeze inefficiencies out of the system. The problem these days is that parties tend not to be equal in power, nor equally informed. Disseminating salary information is one way to reduce distortion in the system, bringing it back closer to the ideal.
Similarly, I don't see how discussing unfair employment practices is wrong, legal or not.
Again, I'm not taking a position here on who's right and who's wrong, because I don't know. I just don't understand your position on what's morally correct ("being right").
Years back in my 20's, working as an accountant I gained legitimate access to salaries within the company and proceeded to start comparing: When I saw somebody with a higher salary I felt jealous and bitter towards that person (even friends!) -- "He doesn't do nearly the work I do! Blah, blah, blah!". When I saw somebody with a lower salary I felt superior to them.
I soon realized how destructive that was and never compared salaries again even though I continued to have access to them through the years and decades.
So yes, comparing salaries leads to far more bad than good.
You once did a thing and felt a bit bad about it, so now comparing salaries "leads to far more bad than good"?
Yeah, not convinced by that and don't know why anyone would be. And in case it's illegal and Apple shouldn't be doing it, whatever their reasons, and I'm pretty sure their reasons won't be the same as your morally righteous (and wrongheaded) reasons.
It was an example of the damage comparing salaries can do -- and why Apple discourages it.
Sorry if it went over your head.
It didn't go over his head at all. He's calling you out on your use of a single anecdotal data point, a story of your own moral failing, as an excuse to make broad sweeping statements about others.
LOL... No, my example trashed his agenda and so he attacked the best way that he could without having an actual, logical argument.
You didn't trash anything, you gave an easily disregarded opinion, and I don't have an agenda. Quit with the toxic one-upmanship George.
And you have no answer to the fact that it's illegal in California. Give me all the anecdotes you want, the law is still the law.
LOL... if it was so "easily disregarded", why didn't you just "disregard" it instead of getting your panties all in a bunch?
You know, I was going to offer a serious answer to your other post, but that sort of disparaging comment, devoid of any serious rational response, shows that it would be wasted on you.
It was simply an in-kind response to his disparaging response to a serious comment.
Comments
Good idea!
It was simply an in-kind response to his disparaging response to a serious comment.