ronn

radarthekat said:

godofbiscuits said:

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.

Employees who worked on Black Friday describe a store that was packed "shoulder to shoulder" with people. Since Texas isn't mandating facial coverings, customers were not required to wear masks in the store.

Shocked. That only 22 workers tested positive. Damn shame that Apple didn't use common sense and institute its own COVID protocols to lessen the chance of an outbreak. With the holiday season in full effect, let's hope even more closings aren't necessary.

Mike Wuerthele said:

crowley said:

So they've only got a 30 day stay to make a fuller argument?  More of a delay than a win.  Good luck to them though.

They asked for 30 days. The court gave them until after the appeal was concluded.

Yes. From the ruling:

Therefore, we grant Apple's motion to stay part (i) of paragraph (1) of the permanent injunction. The stay will remain in effect until the mandate issues in this appeal.

So this will stay put for several months.

This wouldn't be so worrisome if the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) hadn't been shredded with no viable replacement. And with the Build Back Better Act facing an extremely uphill battle in the Senate, the US will continue to struggle while China eats its lunch (hell, it's breakfast, dinner and all snacks as well!). Wouldn't surprise me that the agreement has been extended and we won't know for some time.

It's absolutely ridiculous that Apple wasted all this time and money fighting when they could have settled years ago and stopped the stupidity. I worked in retail years ago and similar security schemes were scuttled or modified when it became nonsensical. In one instance lockers were provided off the selling floor and inventory areas so employees never had an opportunity to place items in their bags. In both situations, security checks were conducted with enhanced numbers: more security guards joined by supervisors, and when necessary even managers to make sure employees were not inconvenienced for more than a 2/3 minutes tops. What does it say about Apple that it fought this all the way to the State Supreme Court and for close to a decade?