Apple Employees Reportedly Petitioning Against Plan to Return to Office 3x Per Week

[sirozha]

Literary they should it's an abbreviation, and being lazy is just ridiculous for 2 letters and 2 dots.

You spell U.S.A. or USA?

How Should I Write the Abbreviation for 'United States'?

In the United States and Great Britain, there's more than one correct way to write the abbreviation for United States.

www.thoughtco.com

 

[stevet]

They seem to have to during the last few years with covid.

They weren’t. Hw people have been in office for a while.

 

[stevet]

We can but guess but the article sells the three days plan as Apple’s idea, not as a compromise reached after discussing how to structure work with their employees, hence the petition.

We don’t have to guess. Apple wants everyone back in the office full time, 5 days a week. They know if they did that they would look like they are bullying the soft entitled group that would make a loud scene about it. And they still are when apple said 3 days mandatory.

 

[ericwn]

We don’t have to guess. Apple wants everyone back in the office full time, 5 days a week. They know if they did that they would look like they are bullying the soft entitled group that would make a loud scene about it. And they still are when apple said 3 days mandatory.

The pro and con of wfh is pretty well established after the last few years of the pandemic. Just because more folks now want wfh doesn’t make them entitled. Things change, and “the way we’ve always done business “ is not a concept that works particularly well in the long run. And of course no guessing is needed, Apple’s wish is on the table, 3 days mandatory is their current starting point. I can relate to employees that have now finally figured out that being onsite isn’t necessarily fruitful for all and that they’re better of working remotely than hanging around in overpriced wooden boxes somewhere in The Valley pretending that sitting in the daily desert traffic jam is somehow beneficial for anyone but the employer.

 

[I7guy]

The pro and con of wfh is pretty well established after the last few years of the pandemic. Just because more folks now want wfh doesn’t make them entitled. Things change, and “the way we’ve always done business “ is not a concept that works particularly well in the long run. And of course no guessing is needed, Apple’s wish is on the table, 3 days mandatory is their current starting point. I can relate to employees that have now finally figured out that being onsite isn’t necessarily fruitful for all and that they’re better of working remotely than hanging around in overpriced wooden boxes somewhere in The Valley pretending that sitting in the daily desert traffic jam is somehow beneficial for anyone but the employer.

I can relate to the employers who are dealing with unruly employees that may have to be cut lose because their employer (who gives them a paycheck) believes it’s better to be in the office.

Both parities will find equilibrium by the employee quiting or the employer firing. Eventually things will settle out.

 

[Abazigal]

I can relate to the employers who are dealing with unruly employees that may have to be cut lose because their employer (who gives them a paycheck) believes it’s better to be in the office.

Both parities will find equilibrium by the employee quiting or the employer firing. Eventually things will settle out.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1564641676223717378

Seems like the WFH trend is slowly losing steam and we may eventually see the number of people returning to office rise back to pre-pandemic levels.

Which is in line with my own opinion that WFH was always more about managing the pandemic, and less about revolutionising the way people work.

 

[sirozha]

I can relate to the employers who are dealing with unruly employees that may have to be cut lose because their employer (who gives them a paycheck) believes it’s better to be in the office.

Both parities will find equilibrium by the employee quiting or the employer firing. Eventually things will settle out.

Sheepish slavish attitude.

 

[I7guy]

Sheepish slavish attitude.

Sure. When interviewing if one doesn’t like employment description, work policy or whatever then don’t accept the job.

 

[ericwn]

I can relate to the employers who are dealing with unruly employees that may have to be cut lose because their employer (who gives them a paycheck) believes it’s better to be in the office.

Both parities will find equilibrium by the employee quiting or the employer firing. Eventually things will settle out.

As per usual in California or the US in the wider sense with marketing driven stick traded companies, anything that looks too harsh on the employer’s side will likely not be applied anyway.
How you as an individual cannot take the employees side who delivered the goods in wfh style successfully for years is beyond me but sure have at it. Nothing but resources to you it seems.

 

[I7guy]

As per usual in California or the US in the wider sense with marketing driven stick traded companies, anything that looks too harsh on the employer’s side will likely not be applied anyway.
How you as an individual cannot take the employees side who delivered the goods in wfh style successfully for years is beyond me but sure have at it. Nothing but resources to you it seems.

Sure delivered the goods vs being laid off?

It seems you have lost perspective of who is working for who.

 

[ericwn]

Sure delivered the goods vs being laid off?

It seems you have lost perspective of who is working for who.

You seem to forget that good products are the results of satisfied employees, and have not really provided an answer on why you’d not the employees here after the wfh concept has proven very successful in The Valley in the past years.

But mark my words, there won’t be tons of people getting fired. Marketing will succeed.

 

[I7guy]

You seem to forget that good products are the results of satisfied employees, and have not really provided an answer on why you’d not the employees here after the wfh concept has proven very successful in The Valley in the past years.

But mark my words, there won’t be tons of people getting fired. Marketing will succeed.

You seem to forget the employee works for the employer. And no matter what job one may hold, performance in the job is key to not being sacked.

Here in NY in the meantime Jamie Dimon wants a full time return to office.

 

[ericwn]

You seem to forget the employee works for the employer. And no matter what job one may hold, performance in the job is key to not being sacked.

Here in NY in the meantime Jamie Dimon wants a full time return to office.

I don’t forget that and have indeed pointed out a few times how successful that has been these last years. Hiring top talent that populate the mothership is not an easy task so Apple has a well established interest to approach this with care.

 

[I7guy]

I don’t forget that and have indeed pointed out a few times how successful that has been these last years. Hiring top talent that populate the mothership is not an easy task so Apple has a well established interest to approach this with care.

It does seem apple has been treading lightly. Several failed attempts and now they are about to start rto. If people leave they may capitulate or not.

 

[avz]

You seem to forget the employee works for the employer. And no matter what job one may hold, performance in the job is key to not being sacked.

Looks like you figured out that fear is an efficient way to manage a complex social system.

Considering the inevitable decline in living standards, fear might as well be the ONLY way to manage a society. At this stage everybody should have figured this puzzle and decided on what future they want for themselves and the future generations.

 

[stevet]

Looks like you figured out that fear is an efficient way to manage a complex social system.

Considering the inevitable decline in living standards, fear might as well be the ONLY way to manage a society. At this stage everybody should have figured this puzzle and decided on what future they want for themselves and the future generations.

This sums it up, people think that working for a company is a democracy. It’s not, if you don’t like the rules then find another game.

 

[stevet]

Looks like you figured out that fear is an efficient way to manage a complex social system.

Considering the inevitable decline in living standards, fear might as well be the ONLY way to manage a society. At this stage everybody should have figured this puzzle and decided on what future they want for themselves and the future generations.

You mean like the scare tactics the employees have been involved in by releasing letters and threats of not coming back to work?

 

[avz]

You mean like the scare tactics the employees have been involved in by releasing letters and threats of not coming back to work?

As you said yourself: "This is not a democracy." So people have to maneuver and use whatever limited resources they have to fight back.

 

[sirozha]

Sure. When interviewing if one doesn’t like employment description, work policy or whatever then don’t accept the job.

Most Apple engineers who signed the petition will find better jobs with better pay that give them the flexibility they want. These are not burger flippers. I’m sure multiple recruiters are breathing down their necks already, and the offers are already lined up. They are simply giving Apple an opportunity to retain them, which comes with a condition that Apple must meet to retain them.

 

[sirozha]

This sums it up, people think that working for a company is a democracy. It’s not, if you don’t like the rules then find another game.

That’s exactly what they are doing.

 

[laptech]

The problem employers have now got is that they cannot use tried and tested excuses of not allowing WFH for their employees. The biggest excuse in my opinion was 'it is not cost effective, having to install extra phones for work usage, paying for the phone line and electricity usage during working hours'. The pandemic has proven employers wrong in any excuse they try to use to prevent their employees from WFH.

Employers cannot force their WFH employee's back into work unless the employer has a strong justifiable reason to do so because otherwise the employee would be able to raise a grievance against the company as set out in the company policy and procedures for employee's. If the company was to sack the employee for refusing to return to work, the employee would be able to claim unfair dismissal because if the employee has been able to do everything that the employer expected of them whilst WFH, the employer would now have to justify why the employee is now required to work from the company premises.

Unless an employee's work contract specifically states that their place of employment is the employers premises the employer cannot get the employee for breach of contract.

 

[belvdr]

Unless an employee's work contract specifically states that their place of employment is the employers premises the employer cannot get the employee for breach of contract.

The emphasized statements are very important. Many places are considered at-will employment; there's no contract. If the employer mandates employees be in the workplace for whatever reason, it's either go into the workplace, find another place of employment, or attempt negotiation. I'm fond of the idea of delegating that decision down to a certain level of management. Not all teams are created equal.

 

[I7guy]

Looks like you figured out that fear is an efficient way to manage a complex social system.

Yes fear as in FOMO. Fear of not getting a good bonus and stock options, fear of not being recognized as a valuable contributor. Using that fear to propel one to innovative thinking, high productivity, good interpersonal skills.

Considering the inevitable decline in living standards, fear might as well be the ONLY way to manage a society. At this stage everybody should have figured this puzzle and decided on what future they want for themselves and the future generations.

Are you talking about a career or society. A large corporation is not a mirror of society at large.

As you said yourself: "This is not a democracy." So people have to maneuver and use whatever limited resources they have to fight back.

Assuming this is not a protected class issue, the only leverage is withholding work output, which will cause other side effects. Of course one may be in the top 10 in the universe and write their own ticket, but that doesn’t apply to the masses.

 

[I7guy]

The problem employers have now got is that they cannot use tried and tested excuses of not allowing WFH for their employees.

Yes they can. https://nypost.com/2022/08/25/why-jamie-dimon-is-quietly-clamping-down-on-remote-work-at-jpmorgan/

The biggest excuse in my opinion was 'it is not cost effective, having to install extra phones for work usage, paying for the phone line and electricity usage during working hours'. The pandemic has proven employers wrong in any excuse they try to use to prevent their employees from WFH.

the pandemic has proved that work can get done. It doesn’t mean wfh is the best or penultimate solution.

Employers cannot force their WFH employee's back into work unless the employer has a strong justifiable reason to do so because otherwise the employee would be able to raise a grievance against the company as set out in the company policy and procedures for employee's.

Wrong, see above.

If the company was to sack the employee for refusing to return to work, the employee would be able to claim unfair dismissal because if the employee has been able to do everything that the employer expected of them whilst WFH, the employer would now have to justify why the employee is now required to work from the company premises.

Nope, in the US most employment is at-will. Sacking a professional employee for it adhering to company policy is legal.

Unless an employee's work contract specifically states that their place of employment is the employers premises the employer cannot get the employee for breach of contract.

Wrong again.

Now, that doesn’t mean that employers will clamp like like a bear trap. But I would like to see some citations that prove companies cannot fire professional exempt employees for refusal to work onsite.

 

[I7guy]

Most Apple engineers who signed the petition will find better jobs with better pay that give them the flexibility they want.

Good for them. That’s the point if the employee doesn’t like the work or company policies then leave.

These are not burger flippers. I’m sure multiple recruiters are breathing down their necks already, and the offers are already lined up.

Then apple will learn a lesson. Right?

They are simply giving Apple an opportunity to retain them, which comes with a condition that Apple must meet to retain them.

Either apple will capitulate or counter offer. If any of these have stock options they may not want to leave, which could be a reason as to why they are not waking out the door.