#AppleToo organizer is no longer withdrawing her NLRB complaint against Apple
Former Apple engineer and #AppleToo organizer Cher Scarlett is reversing course, stating that she is no longer withdrawing her National Labor Relations Board complaint against Apple because the company didn't execute their end of the deal in good faith.
Cher Scarlett reverses course
Previously, Scarlett planned to drop her NLRB complaint after reaching a settlement with the company. At the same time, she also left the company.
Now, Scarlett tells Forbes that Apple failed to execute in good faith its agreement to publicly acknowledge employees rights to discuss salaries.
"One of the requests I made was for there to be a very public, visible affirmation that employees are allowed to discuss their workplace conditions and compensation, both internally and externally," she told the media outlet.
Although Apple did publish language on its internal Human Resources page acknowledging the right, Scarlett says that the text was "only up for a week" when staffers were off for Thanksgiving break. On the following Monday, it was removed.
Additionally, the #AppleToo organizer claims that Apple refused to make a number of changes to the settlement document requested by the NLRB. That included a clause in Apple's proposed settlement document requesting Scarlett "not solicit, encourage or incite anyone to file any charge or complaint with any administrative agency or Court against Apple" for one year.
The aforementioned "private settlement" between Apple and Scarlett included a one-year severance. Given that Scarlett is no longer withdrawing her NLRB complaint, it's likely that Apple won't make pay out the beverage in full.
Scarlett is the founder of the #AppleToo movement, which sought to bring to light issues within the company such as workplace conditions and discrimination.
Read on AppleInsider
Cher Scarlett reverses course
Previously, Scarlett planned to drop her NLRB complaint after reaching a settlement with the company. At the same time, she also left the company.
Now, Scarlett tells Forbes that Apple failed to execute in good faith its agreement to publicly acknowledge employees rights to discuss salaries.
"One of the requests I made was for there to be a very public, visible affirmation that employees are allowed to discuss their workplace conditions and compensation, both internally and externally," she told the media outlet.
Although Apple did publish language on its internal Human Resources page acknowledging the right, Scarlett says that the text was "only up for a week" when staffers were off for Thanksgiving break. On the following Monday, it was removed.
Additionally, the #AppleToo organizer claims that Apple refused to make a number of changes to the settlement document requested by the NLRB. That included a clause in Apple's proposed settlement document requesting Scarlett "not solicit, encourage or incite anyone to file any charge or complaint with any administrative agency or Court against Apple" for one year.
The aforementioned "private settlement" between Apple and Scarlett included a one-year severance. Given that Scarlett is no longer withdrawing her NLRB complaint, it's likely that Apple won't make pay out the beverage in full.
Scarlett is the founder of the #AppleToo movement, which sought to bring to light issues within the company such as workplace conditions and discrimination.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
"Given that Scarlett is no longer withdrawing her NLRB complaint, it's likely that Apple won't make pay out the beverage in full."
The easiest thing in the world to do is cave to human nature and endlessly complain perceived wrongs.
The hardest thing in the world to do is turn the other cheek, not be dissuaded by wrongs, and show the world the great things you can do.
Good for her.
You don't know anything about the situation, but feel free to be ignorant.
You're kidding.
"Gold-digger". That's sexist language. "Silly complaining". More sexist language. She's given up a sizable settlement in the interest of attempting to improve the lives of others so that they don't have to deal with the crap she had to deal with.
You do realize there are *actual* wrongs in the world and not just perceived ones, right? Turning the other cheek would be to have taken the settlement, no matter what Apple failed to do -- which is likely what Apple was counting on -- and just go away with her money. But she's not doing that. She's giving up a payout and staying and fighting.
The gyrations some people will go through to preserve their own sexist preconceptions about someone even when all evidence is directly to the contrary.
Apple, as a giant corporate citizen, isn't a good guy. They're not evil, but they're not paragons of virtue. They get away with as much as they can and it ends up crushing a lot of individuals .
She's giving up a payout and staying and sticking up for current Apple employees. You'd take the money and run, and leave others to go through what she did? Is that the non-piece-of-work thing to do?
I can see it now, "ok, who's the one who hired that non-punching bag?"
If there is a yes to any of that, cool, you have some valid information. But if the answer is no, you’re just sharing your opinion Ike everyone else, so try not to get too haughty.
Tsk tsk. You first.
re: large settlement. read the article. You DID read the article, yeah?
That’s not gender-specific.
“These people are money mad, aren’t they? Worst bunch of gold-diggers I ever saw,” Rex Beach wrote in his 1911 novel The Ne’er-Do-Well.
Also not gender-specific.
I’ll grant you that the term is applied more to females than to males, if you’ll grant that most of the very
large concentrations of personal wealth in society lay in the hands of males. That’s just how things currently are, but it doesn’t mean that there cannot be males who could be described by the term. In other words, the prevalence of one group over another in terms of fitting the definition, does not change the definition.
I’m curious, does “requested by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)” automatically translate to “required…?” My understanding is that the word ‘requested’ is not a synonym of the word ‘required.’