heterotic

sdw2001 said:

Apple is in the midst of controversy surrounding employees organizing. 

Is it? Why, because the tech press made it so? It doesn't seem like the rest of the media world cares.  I suspect that's because most people just don't believe that racism and sexism is rampant or even a major problem at Apple.  You have some (former) employees are who are obvious, vapid publicity whores who created the reductive "#AppleToo" to get their 15 minutes and whatever compensation they could.  If there was really a major issue at Apple, you'd see a lot more than some NLRB companies and hashtags.  

The NLRB doesn't govern discrimination and harassment, EEOC does, and there are state entities, as well. DFEH in CA is relevant here, since it's Apple. 

Saying that there isn't a major problem at Apple, knowing full well that the majority of Apple employees are retail and support employees seems cult-fan-boy at best. Tech is picking this stuff up because the corporate tech employees are talking about it on the record. They are trying to give the staff who are really dealing with this issues beyond what probably occurs in the corporate environment a platform to hold Apple accountable. We should all be alarmed by the things the retail employees are sharing.

GeorgeBMac said:

crowley said:

GeorgeBMac said:

JustSomeGuy1 said:

GeorgeBMac said:

crowley 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.

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.

The reason Apple does it is for profit. That's the reason they do everything. They are the biggest company in the world.

It doesn't really matter why they do it. It's illegal.

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? 

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 

I read the piece in Washington Post, where are you gathering that she did this at previous jobs? The date on her article about Starbucks was after she left, and the Blizzard shit show was made public in July. It doesn't sound like she had legal disputes settled with any previous employer, unless you have access to information we don't?

She has 50k followers on Twitter and is a principal swe at Apple. She can get a job anywhere she wants.

Also, why does everyone thinks this settlement was financial? The NLRB does not sue companies for violations. If the charge has merit, the most they would do is make them post some kind of notice on a bulletin board (per John Oliver's show last Sunday). It's unlikely the resolution here involved money, unless the dispute also had the weight of EEOC and DFEH behind it.

larrya said:

Ashley is about to become very wealthy.

what makes you say that? she leaked an internal tool to the press and talked about doing it on twitter