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

[laptech]

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.

But here is the thing and it all rests on the word 'Workplace'. If an employee's contract does not specifically define where the 'workplace' is then the workplace could be defined as to be where ever the employee is situated once the hours stipulated in the contract begin. If the employee has set aside an area within their home to work from, that area can be defined as the 'workplace'. The pandemic has created a major headache for employers who allowed their employees to WFH because allowing so many employee's to WFH is unprecedented because nothing like this has happened before. People commuting to work, working in an office building is something that has always been, it is something that is automatically programmed into society, you look for a job, you get the job, you travel to the new job. That process of thinking has now been turned upside down on it's head because now people are seeing that it is more than feesible for what was once an office based job to now be done from home.

Apple can posture all they want because as I have said, unless their office based employee's contracts specifically states that their place of work (workplace) is an Apple building or other company related building, Apple will not win here if the employee's were to take their issue to court (unless they happen to get a biased Judge)

 

[belvdr]

But here is the thing and it all rests on the word 'Workplace'. If an employee's contract does not specifically define where the 'workplace' is then the workplace could be defined as to be where ever the employee is situated once the hours stipulated in the contract begin. If the employee has set aside an area within their home to work from, that area can be defined as the 'workplace'. The pandemic has created a major headache for employers who allowed their employees to WFH because allowing so many employee's to WFH is unprecedented because nothing like this has happened before. People commuting to work, working in an office building is something that has always been, it is something that is automatically programmed into society, you look for a job, you get the job, you travel to the new job. That process of thinking has now been turned upside down on it's head because now people are seeing that it is more than feesible for what was once an office based job to now be done from home.

Apple can posture all they want because as I have said, unless their office based employee's contracts specifically states that their place of work (workplace) is an Apple building or other company related building, Apple will not win here if the employee's were to take their issue to court (unless they happen to get a biased Judge)

You keep mentioning contracts and my point is that many states are at-will employment, including California, and many employees are not under contract. I've never worked for Apple, so I cannot say whether any Apple employees are under contract. Accepting a job doesn't automatically create a contract.

The pandemic has created no headaches for many teams I work with. Many, but not all, are working remotely, but if needs change, they can change the policy and the employee has to follow the policy or find other employment. That's not to say there's no negotiation, however.

 

[sirozha]

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

Then apple will learn a lesson. Right?

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.

I’m actually starting to agree with you - as long as you agree that the employees do not have to comply with every requirement that the employer imposed in them just because the employer is “giving” them a paycheck. Both parties can put their requirements on the table, and if they can’t find compromise, they can part ways.

 

[laptech]

You keep mentioning contracts and my point is that many states are at-will employment, including California, and many employees are not under contract. I've never worked for Apple, so I cannot say whether any Apple employees are under contract. Accepting a job doesn't automatically create a contract.

The pandemic has created no headaches for many teams I work with. Many, but not all, are working remotely, but if needs change, they can change the policy and the employee has to follow the policy or find other employment. That's not to say there's no negotiation, however.

From what I understand of 'at-will employment' it's premise is that an employer can dismiss an employee for any (legal) reason and without warning and an employee is free to leave without reason or warning BUT there has to be terms on working hours, start and end time of those working ours and how much paid hourly rate. Such terms means some form of contract must exist even when it's an 'at-will employment'. It may not be a written contract but as soon as it is verbally agreed between the employer and the employee as to what hours they will be working and how much they will be paid, a defacto contract is in place, ergo a contract of employent exist between the employer and the employee even if it is 'at-will employment'.

It does not matter what type of employment it is, full time, part time, temporary, 'at-will', cash in hand, cash under the table, because as soon as hours of work and how much paid for those hours of work is agreed, an 'employment contract' exists between all parties involved. Proving such contract exists is a different matter entirely.

It is the same with a policy, both parties agree to the policy and in doing so that creates a defacto 'contract'. The employer cannot go ahead and change the policy at will and expect the employee's to follow it because it would be in breach of the original contract. Contracts do not have to be written, they do not have to be extensive, just a simple verbal 'yes I agree' is enough for a contract to be created which could be challenged in labour court.

 

[avz]

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

The same rules will apply, the difference is in a scale. A large corporation is still a complex social system with its power struggles and so on. You are making it sound that a large corporation can just "fly off to a space and hump satellites" without any connection to society at large.

The reason behind the attack on a Big Tech is that they actually gaining way too much power over the society at large. This is very dangerous as having an experience in running a large corporation does not automatically give you the experience to run a society. It should not come as a surprise that the government(which is not perfect in any way) does not want this competition.

 

[belvdr]

From what I understand of 'at-will employment' it's premise is that an employer can dismiss an employee for any (legal) reason and without warning and an employee is free to leave without reason or warning BUT there has to be terms on working hours, start and end time of those working ours and how much paid hourly rate. Such terms means some form of contract must exist even when it's an 'at-will employment'. It may not be a written contract but as soon as it is verbally agreed between the employer and the employee as to what hours they will be working and how much they will be paid, a defacto contract is in place, ergo a contract of employent exist between the employer and the employee even if it is 'at-will employment'.

It does not matter what type of employment it is, full time, part time, temporary, 'at-will', cash in hand, cash under the table, because as soon as hours of work and how much paid for those hours of work is agreed, an 'employment contract' exists between all parties involved. Proving such contract exists is a different matter entirely.

Since we're clearly not attorneys with expertise in labor law, let's not speculate.

It is the same with a policy, both parties agree to the policy and in doing so that creates a defacto 'contract'. The employer cannot go ahead and change the policy at will and expect the employee's to follow it because it would be in breach of the original contract. Contracts do not have to be written, they do not have to be extensive, just a simple verbal 'yes I agree' is enough for a contract to be created which could be challenged in labour court.

In the US, where Apple is based, there were vaccine mandates and folks were let go when they didn't comply. Courts agreed with the employers for the most part, although some states passed laws to ban the vaccine mandates. For remote work, I can only tell you what I know: in my current role, remote work policies can change at any time. The employees can either follow the policy, negotiate, or look elsewhere for employment.

 

[I7guy]

The same rules will apply, the difference is in a scale. A large corporation is still a complex social system with its power struggles and so on. You are making it sound that a large corporation can just "fly off to a space and hump satellites" without any connection to society at large.

I disagree with your view.

The reason behind the attack on a Big Tech is that they actually gaining way too much power over the society at large. This is very dangerous as having an experience in running a large corporation does not automatically give you the experience to run a society. It should not come as a surprise that the government(which is not perfect in any way) does not want this competition.

Big tech is necessary in today's society. Just like big government believes it is necessary.

 

[I7guy]

I’m actually starting to agree with you - as long as you agree that the employees do not have to comply with every requirement that the employer imposed in them just because the employer is “giving” them a paycheck.

I agree with this. But the "non-compliance" may be reflected in the future compensation and or folders in HR.

Both parties can put their requirements on the table, and if they can’t find compromise, they can part ways.

I agree with that and that's what I'm saying all along. Most companies will listen to their employees though they don't have to capitulate to "demands".

 

[I7guy]

From what I understand of 'at-will employment' it's premise is that an employer can dismiss an employee for any (legal) reason and without warning and an employee is free to leave without reason or warning BUT there has to be terms on working hours, start and end time of those working ours and how much paid hourly rate. Such terms means some form of contract must exist even when it's an 'at-will employment'. It may not be a written contract but as soon as it is verbally agreed between the employer and the employee as to what hours they will be working and how much they will be paid, a defacto contract is in place, ergo a contract of employent exist between the employer and the employee even if it is 'at-will employment'.

There usually is a company policy manual that details much of this information. Professional, exempt employees mostly fall under at-will. There may or may not be a signed contract.

It does not matter what type of employment it is, full time, part time, temporary, 'at-will', cash in hand, cash under the table, because as soon as hours of work and how much paid for those hours of work is agreed, an 'employment contract' exists between all parties involved. Proving such contract exists is a different matter entirely.

Wrong. Because a companies legal business hours may be 9-5, it's usually that different departments work different hours.

It is the same with a policy, both parties agree to the policy and in doing so that creates a defacto 'contract'. The employer cannot go ahead and change the policy at will

Employers can regulate the work environment, that is location, equipment, office/desks etc.

and expect the employee's to follow it because it would be in breach of the original contract.

Incorrect.

Contracts do not have to be written, they do not have to be extensive, just a simple verbal 'yes I agree' is enough for a contract to be created which could be challenged in labour court.

Not in the US for legal employer activities.

 

[laptech]

Since we're clearly not attorneys with expertise in labor law, let's not speculate.


In the US, where Apple is based, there were vaccine mandates and folks were let go when they didn't comply. Courts agreed with the employers for the most part, although some states passed laws to ban the vaccine mandates. For remote work, I can only tell you what I know: in my current role, remote work policies can change at any time. The employees can either follow the policy, negotiate, or look elsewhere for employment.

No I am not an attorney but I am in a Union and thus I am familar with some aspects of employment law.

as for the vaccine mandates, this would have fallen within the 'Health and Safety at work practice' or 'Safety at work practice' policy/procedure which would form part of an employers terms and condition of employment of which all employees would have to agree to. Mandates are usually in the form of company memo's which are official company communications from employer to employee(s) of which employee(s) are expected to accept and follow. To not do so can mean a breach of company terms and conditions of which employee(s) agree to upon acceptance of the job, ergo employee(s) could be fired for not following the mandate.

It is no dfferent to company policies, yes they can be changed BUT employee(s) must be given advanced notice of any changes especially those that change the conditions of employment (location of workplace, working hours or hourly paid rate). Yes policy changes can be negotiated and if the employee(s) do not agree with the policy changes then they must follow the employers grievance procedure. the employer must try and accommodate the employee(s) but if it is not legally possible to do so then yes the employee has no option but to leave. As long as the employer follows company procedure there is no way an employee/employees could put a claim in for unfair dismissal.

The issue facing Apple with WFH employees is not a simple as it may seem BUT that all depends on the contract of employment. If Apple had an air tight case I do not think the WFH employees would be rebelling as much as they are.

 

[belvdr]

No I am not an attorney but I am in a Union and thus I am familar with some aspects of employment law.

as for the vaccine mandates, this would have fallen within the 'Health and Safety at work practice' or 'Safety at work practice' policy/procedure which would form part of an employers terms and condition of employment of which all employees would have to agree to. Mandates are usually in the form of company memo's which are official company communications from employer to employee(s) of which employee(s) are expected to accept and follow. To not do so can mean a breach of company terms and conditions of which employee(s) agree to upon acceptance of the job, ergo employee(s) could be fired for not following the mandate.

It is no dfferent to company policies, yes they can be changed BUT employee(s) must be given advanced notice of any changes especially those that change the conditions of employment (location of workplace, working hours or hourly paid rate). Yes policy changes can be negotiated and if the employee(s) do not agree with the policy changes then they must follow the employers grievance procedure. the employer must try and accommodate the employee(s) but if it is not legally possible to do so then yes the employee has no option but to leave. As long as the employer follows company procedure there is no way an employee/employees could put a claim in for unfair dismissal.

Apple gave advance notice. Employers don't have any legal obligation to accommodate an employee's request to work remotely because the employee prefers that.

The issue facing Apple with WFH employees is not a simple as it may seem BUT that all depends on the contract of employment. If Apple had an air tight case I do not think the WFH employees would be rebelling as much as they are.

I think they are rebelling because they don't want to commute and work in an office. It's much easier to walk to another room. People complain about all sorts of things; it doesn't mean the other party doesn't have an airtight case.

 

[I7guy]

[...]

It is no dfferent to company policies, yes they can be changed BUT employee(s) must be given advanced notice of any changes especially those that change the conditions of employment (location of workplace, working hours or hourly paid rate). Yes policy changes can be negotiated and if the employee(s) do not agree with the policy changes then they must follow the employers grievance procedure. the employer must try and accommodate the employee(s) but if it is not legally possible to do so then yes the employee has no option but to leave. As long as the employer follows company procedure there is no way an employee/employees could put a claim in for unfair dismissal.

Apple did give advance notice to the tune of several months. The grievance procedure is usually HR. But HR will ask if the manager will request and exception. If not then HR says this is company policy and then there is a choice to be made.

With some exceptions( pre-existing arrangement, contract etc) there is no legal basis for an employee to force an employers hand.

The issue facing Apple with WFH employees is not a simple as it may seem

The issue is very simple. Employees must adhere to company policies.

BUT that all depends on the contract of employment. If Apple had an air tight case I do not think the WFH employees would be rebelling as much as they are.

Apples' case is airtight, but the employees are exercising their options.

 

[avz]

Big tech is necessary in today's society. Just like big government believes it is necessary.

I take it that you are much more sympathetic towards the Big Tech rather than a Big Government?

This is where it gets complicated. If Big Government is forcing Big Tech into doing something they are not interested in, opposing these new changes is putting you in opposition to the Big Government thus helping the Big Tech isn't it?

 

[stevet]

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

To do it publicly when apple already gave them 2 days at home a week is BS. Thats the point, there seems to be a compromise on Apples part but the small group of people don't want compromise, they want to be in complete control of how Apple operates. If they really are that valuable in the workforce they should go get jobs that make their lives better, clearly they know they either can't find another job with a company as good as Apple that lets them work at home/dictate rules of how the company will operate.

 

[avz]

To do it publicly when apple already gave them 2 days at home a week is BS. Thats the point, there seems to be a compromise on Apples part but the small group of people don't want compromise, they want to be in complete control of how Apple operates. If they really are that valuable in the workforce they should go get jobs that make their lives better, clearly they know they either can't find another job with a company as good as Apple that lets them work at home/dictate rules of how the company will operate.

In the end of the day you can't tell people what to do. They have a right not to be happy with a "2 days a week generous offer". People will have to reconcile their morals with the limited resources that they have and fight for what they think is best for them by writing letters, joining the union or whatever. How do you figure that walking away is a good strategy? Is it from a personal experience?

 

[BoxerGT2.5]

Just remember that if you wanna make the case that you don't have to "go into the office" to do what you did prior to the pandemic, then don't be shocked when your employer decides that same job you argue can be done from Austin TX now can also be done from Bangladesh. So by all means outsource your own position right out of the country.

 

[sirozha]

Just remember that if you wanna make the case that you don't have to "go into the office" to do what you did prior to the pandemic, then don't be shocked when your employer decides that same job you argue can be done from Austin TX now can also be done from Bangladesh. So by all means outsource your own position right out of the country.

Except it can’t be done from Bangladesh. I think the outsourcing to other countries have gone on for long enough now (more than 20 years) that most CTOs understand that this is a stupid way to save money. Those who still fall for it come back badly scathed - if they get to keep their jobs.

 

[avz]

Just remember that if you wanna make the case that you don't have to "go into the office" to do what you did prior to the pandemic, then don't be shocked when your employer decides that same job you argue can be done from Austin TX now can also be done from Bangladesh. So by all means outsource your own position right out of the country.

Your logic would have been applicable 10-20 years ago. There is a reason why France is no longer a part of the submarine deal with Australia. So I am going to take a wild guess and say that there will be a reason why Bangladesh is not going to be a part of some other deal that you might be referring to.

 

[FreedomPenguin]

I’d fire them. No ifs or butts. If people are too lazy to go to work fire them and replace them. I have zero sympathy, we lost so much work ethic/productivity from “at home” jobs. BRB playing games or with kids instead of working

There’s a time for life and a time for work. They don’t go together.

Fire them all apple. Just do it.

 

[Abazigal]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1572212545959723008

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1572272653183885312

I think we will all be back in the office eventually.

 

[ericwn]

I’d fire them. No ifs or butts. If people are too lazy to go to work fire them and replace them. I have zero sympathy, we lost so much work ethic/productivity from “at home” jobs. BRB playing games or with kids instead of working

There’s a time for life and a time for work. They don’t go together.

Fire them all apple. Just do it.

And apple would certainly have entertained that thought during the pandemic if their performance would have gone down too much. They are still willing to work, just at a different location.

 

[I7guy]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1572212545959723008

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1572272653183885312

I think we will all be back in the office eventually.

Yep. Major NYC conglomerates are calling for total return to office.

 

[FreedomPenguin]

And apple would certainly have entertained that thought during the pandemic if their performance would have gone down too much. They are still willing to work, just at a different location.

If I built a space ship to be used, they will either come and work or get fired and replaced. Fact is, tons of employees would love to take their job.

Don’t feel bad for them, squash this work from home movement. I’m totally against it

 

[ericwn]

If I built a space ship to be used, they will either come and work or get fired and replaced. Fact is, tons of employees would love to take their job.

Don’t feel bad for them, squash this work from home movement. I’m totally against it

I’m doing nothing but wfh for almost 4 years in a row. It’s certainly not for everyone but I absolutely support it. The productivity of any halfway intelligent person will benefit from wfh. You’ll always have people in the workforce who prefer one path. A modern day company can select the right folks from each segment.

 

[chevyboy60013]

Since we're clearly not attorneys with expertise in labor law, let's not speculate.


In the US, where Apple is based, there were vaccine mandates and folks were let go when they didn't comply. Courts agreed with the employers for the most part, although some states passed laws to ban the vaccine mandates. For remote work, I can only tell you what I know: in my current role, remote work policies can change at any time. The employees can either follow the policy, negotiate, or look elsewhere for employment.

vaccination mandates have been basically ruled unenforceable by the courts as of lately. I still will not return to my previous position but instead take the cash settlement from the class action lawsuit, since I have gotten a better position with a far better company, also as long as the days project gets done, no mandatory daily hours, so some days I can leave at noon, other days its 4 p, along with zero medical requirements, no forced mandatory annual or semi annual routine physical examinations or vaccination requirements, and absolutely no face mask requirements even when it was required by the state and city.