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?
Is she giving up the severance? Do you know whether she has received any portion of it and, if so, has she returned that portion to Apple?
Ahem, from the posted article:
Given that Scarlett is no longer withdrawing the charge, Apple likely will no longer pay her severance in full. So far, the company had paid less than half of a year’s worth of severance.
You don't know anything about the situation, but feel free to be ignorant.
Wrong on both counts, but at least you’re consistent.
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?
Is she giving up the severance? Do you know whether she has received any portion of it and, if so, has she returned that portion to Apple?
If it's Apple that is in breach of the agreement, why should she have to? It's not as if Apple have given her back her job.
“ Additionally, the #AppleToo organizer claims that Apple refused to make a number of changes to the settlement document requested by the NLRB.”
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.’
Obviously not. The settlement document was agreed on. She's just adding that in for flavour of how Apple have been uncooperative.
it's always fun to watch people eat their own. By preaching the woke narratives, Apple has given people like this a voice they shouldn't have had in the first place. I guarantee the documentation on this woman is extensive, and whatever actions Apple took came with cause. You don't employ over 100,000 people and not have HR protocols ad nauseum. That, of course, doesn't stop people from filing illegitimate claims and trying their cases in the media from attention.
What I find interesting is the fact that it's illegal in California to ask a person's previous salary during an interview, and in consideration of making an offer, but it's fair game to discuss salaries with your coworkers. Might be time to revisit that law.
If her account of Apple's notice on their intranet is correct then that sounds reasonable, and puts paid to all those who were describing her as unprincipled.
Good for her.
Why don't you (or AI) ever acknowledge she pulled the same crap at three previous companies? Or, by her own definition, she is mentally ill?
The woman is a train wreck. God help the next company that hires her
You don't know anything about the situation, but feel free to be ignorant.
Wrong on both counts, but at least you’re consistent.
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?
Is she giving up the severance? Do you know whether she has received any portion of it and, if so, has she returned that portion to Apple?
If it's Apple that is in breach of the agreement, why should she have to? It's not as if Apple have given her back her job.
If her account of Apple's notice on their intranet is correct then that sounds reasonable, and puts paid to all those who were describing her as unprincipled.
Good for her.
Why don't you (or AI) ever acknowledge she pulled the same crap at three previous companies? Or, by her own definition, she is mentally ill?
The woman is a train wreck. God help the next company that hires her
You don't know anything about the situation, but feel free to be ignorant.
Wrong on both counts, but at least you’re consistent.
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?
Is she giving up the severance? Do you know whether she has received any portion of it and, if so, has she returned that portion to Apple?
If it's Apple that is in breach of the agreement, why should she have to? It's not as if Apple have given her back her job.
Naive. That is not how these things work
It absolutely is. An agreement becomes void when one party contravenes it.
Throwing the term "woke" around is almost as obvious as wearing a white hood, just more cowardly.
Lol. I can’t believe ppl that think like this actually exist. Dramatic much?
It’s no surprise why there’s a political divide. It’s comments/ppl like this that ratchet every thing up to “everyone that I disagree with is hitler,” and make the world worse by dismantling dialogue.
Comments
You know that for a fact?
The woman is a train wreck. God help the next company that hires her
It’s no surprise why there’s a political divide. It’s comments/ppl like this that ratchet every thing up to “everyone that I disagree with is hitler,” and make the world worse by dismantling dialogue.