JustSomeGuy1

fred1 said:

Unbelievable. Apple was under no obligation to sell Tiles and they have every right to stop selling them. Quit whining and find a solution. Likewise Apple has every right to change its OS to favor its own products. Welcome to capitalism and competition.

GeorgeBMac said:

JustSomeGuy1 said:

GeorgeBMac said:

heterotic said:

GeorgeBMac said:

crowley said:

red oak said:

crowley said:

JustSomeGuy1 said:

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.

Isn't the point here that Apple is an abusive employer? The things that Scarlett has uncovered are that they surveil their employees, intimidate them into silence and loyalty, and suppress their federally protected rights as employees. 

If lower wages usually indicate lower quality employees, and some sort of discrepancy is found that the lower wages tend to be women, are you suggesting that women must then be lower quality employees? 

Am I suggesting that women are "lower quality employees?" (as you phrase it)

I have worked with many very capable women who could and did hold their own against all comers.

But, very often they are "lower quality employees" not for lack of ability or desire -- BECAUSE, most often they are the ones sacrificing both jobs and careers taking care of kids.  They are the ones who have to call off when the kid gets sick or aren't available when the kid needs to get to hockey practice.   While -- generally -- the guy is able to be much more consistent in his commitment to doing whatever is necessary for his job and his career.  So he is more valuable to the organization

In a low level clerical position -- like a retail clerk -- with lots of bodies to take their place when they're absent that's not a big deal (which is one reason why those positions are often dominated by women).  But in higher level professional positions it very much is a problem:  you can't have a critical employee who is not reliable.  It's one thing to have a sales clerk call off.  But if the manager calls off it can be a whole different story. 

And, yes, there are exceptions -- but most often that is what the situation is.

After the kids are raised, the woman can devote much more time and energy to her career -- but by then she's lost 20 years or so to the male -- 20 years that she'll never be able to make up.

It's not right.  It's not fair.  But it's reality and it's necessary.  And, until society figure out a solution, it will continue to hold women back from their full potential.

Society *has* figured out a solution.

Let us assume, for the moment, that you're correct that "it's reality". Statistically, it is right now, but there's no real reason that that has to be the case in the future. But for now...

The solution is to spread the burden around. To take steps that, while they may not be fair in each and every case, increase the total amount of fairness in our society - and not by a small amount.

That solution consists of various laws and regulations that try to make it easier to be a woman trying to work a demanding job. For example, by making it illegal to ask a female employee (or prospective one) what family plans they have, if any. Or by requiring paid leave for women with new babies. (Or paid leave for men, for that matter, as that's another way to make it easier to spread the burden around.)

This places burdens on other people or entities - for example, it can make things more difficult for the employer. But it is more fair overall. And as economic incentives to continue our current unfair social scheme are reduced, you'll see more loosening of the norms, and the burden on women will be reduced until it's shared by everyone. And at that point, it won't be a burden any more, it'll just be one of the many tradeoffs we decide to make as a society.

That doesn't fix the problem -- it just shifts the burden around.  While you are right that it makes it more fair to the woman, it doesn't solve the problem:   She isn't there doing the job, benefiting the company, advancing in her job and career.  Her husband is though!  So he advances while she does not.  (And, asking the company to advance an unreliable employee into a position of responsibility puts the company in a less competitive position -- and in today's global economy there is no leveling where "everybody does it")

Further, stopping the company from asking about their family or family plans:  there's a simple answer to that for the company -- one that's been used for eons:  Assume the women will be having children and will make them her first priority and then find a reason to hire her husband into the upper level, responsible position and offer her a job as a low level sales clerk where she has more flexibility to split her responsibilities between work, children and aging parents.

So, while your solution does make it more fair to the woman, it doesn't solve the problem that somebody has to care for kids and aging parents (and even sick husbands on occasion!), it just moves it around onto others.  And ultimately, whether the competition is between countries, companies or employees, the "best man" will win.

My "Solution" is not a great one or a perfect one but it is, I think, a better one:

The basic problem is:  the woman is asked to work multiple jobs:  work, kids, aging parents, homemaker, etc while only being paid for one -- the rest are all unpaid volunteer positions which means they are not highly valued by society (we equate wealth with prestige).  I wonder if there would be a way to pay her (or the person doing them if it's the husband) for those other, currently unpaid jobs?  Further, we could expand things like home care for the elderly and pre-school and full day Kindergartens for kids (one's that don't send them home at the first sniffle).

That is, if the person caring for the kids and aging parents were paid what they were worth (a LOT!), then much (but not all) of the issue would be resolved.  But, right now, all that time, expertise and energy is simply donated for the good of others in the family and society as a whole -- because raising kids to be responsible and productive along with caring for the disabled and frail is one of societies most important tasks.

mcdave said:

Desperate! M1 series must be a real threat.