Apple Executive Addresses Recent Employee Concerns in Internal Video

[Unregistered 4U]

If the company is doing great, like a trillion dollar company with huge profits year after year, why not share the wealth with employees on a transparent basis?, for example: a special bonus due to covid situation, stress and hard efforts with a higher amount paid to those working longer at Apple?. Share the wealth created by your employees!!!.

If Mom and/or Dad are making enough money to afford to pay their bills and have a LOT left over, why not share more of their wealth with us kids? I mean, they wouldn’t even BE a Mom and/or Dad without us!

This whole “allowance” thing MUST go. If they have enough to buy me a car, an SUV and a vacation in Cancun, I simply can’t understand why they’re not doing that RIGHT NOW!

 

[duervo]

“Talk to your manager or HR.” More often than not, this is a statement given by a large company when they want to compile a list of “potential troublemakers”.

When it’s time to layoff employees, or restrict promotions and/or raises, this list will be one of the “goto’s”.

“You better watch out,
You better not cry,
You better not pout, I’m telling you why…”

 

[WitchDoktor]

Bah, never mind.

 

[Tech198]

It's funny to see Apple to speak out about other things, yet put itself in the same...

...That sounds kind of backwards.

 

[return2sendai]

Ha ha ha ha haaa! Ho ho ha ha haaaa! Whooo ha ha ha hooooha diddly hoo-ho ha ha!

Ahem… Sorry. Hee hee ha hoooo ha ha ha.

Stop it! Pull yourself togetherahahahaaaaaaa! Whaaaahahahahahahaha….. Ho ho ho haaaaaaha ha….

No, I, ha ha. I just can’t… HA HAVHAAAAA HA HAAAAA WHOOOOOOOOOOOOO HAHAA HAAAAAAAAAAAA!

I have no idea what you are laughing at. You spent all your post laughing and saying something unclear about "childlike naivety", but you didn't explain your point.

But nevermind that. I actually have a bigger, more important point that YOU AS A TEACHER should sit up and pay attention to.

Teachers are the 3rd most likely career choice for people who will one day become...wait for it...

Millionaires.

The top 5 careers of millionaires are: Engineer, Accountant, Teacher, Management, and Attorney. But there are lots of others in that mix too.

No fooling. So as a teacher, you don't need my pity. You don't need my "oh woe is you, you do such a hard job, blah blah blah." Dude, if you're making the most of your opportunities, you're gonna be fine. ?

I highly recommend a book called "Everyday Millionaires" by Chris Hogan. They did the largest study ever of millionaires in the US; having interviewed and compiled statistics on more than 10,000 people who have a net worth of $1M or more. Not "earnings". Net worth.

If that book, and the underlying study don't convince you that you have an opportunity to build wealth during your working years, then nothing will. You can find the book in hardcopy or Kindle form, and I believe there's an audio book out there too.

Get serious. It's worth saying a third time. Even if you're in your 40s or 50s, you still have a chance to be a millionaire, and make your spouse one too. You have an opportunity, one that teachers have taken advantage of for years.

I don't really care if you come back to explain your post with all the "typed laughing". I just wanted to help you since you're a teacher. The ball is in your court now, and I wish you luck.

You just don’t get it. ”Millionaire hero” is an oxymoron; “billionaire hero’ a thousand-fold so. Teachers are heroes, nurses are heroes, fire-fighters are heroes. The poverty of want is the price of wealth.

 

[Rainshadow]

Your mistake was thinking your co-workers were ever your friends. Their is no such thing in an office; not when it comes to people’s livelihood. I presume you used quotes to emphasize you’re wiser now? Your opinions of any generation also do not have any bearing on reality, and aren’t pertinent to the conversation, at least not without a considerable amount of projection and assumptions. It sounds more like grinding an ax than an argument to me.

Have you thought perhaps your co-workers stopped treating you the same because they realized you felt they “barely worked.” Resentment is almost always noticeable and tends to eventually be reciprocated. I’ve managed plenty of people who felt they were the best and acted superior to others on their team They were never better than those they looked down on. ?

I will say, if I take your anecdote at face value, it sounds like your manager wasn’t setting expectations well. Hiring freeze or something? It’s usually restrictions like that that keep lackluster employees around past their shelf life. I don’t understand managers who tolerate substandard work. If you don’t tell people they aren’t living up to expectations, they won’t know they’re lucky to be getting compensated what they are.

Don’t even know where to start. Wrong on almost every level. I used quotes to lay out the fact they were work “friends”, or people you talk to and work with regularly over others and whom you gravitate towards on a personality style. Not buddies. Your work circle.

The thread I posted to is talking about people that are complaining on Twitter about pay and inequality. The management is telling them to work within channels provided. So my comment on how folks choose to vent frustrations online instead of having confrontational conversations with supervisors or HR is pertinent and has been born out in research. These tendencies are more common with younger generations - be it a result of online fluency or an aversion to difficult conversations.

No, they didn’t change their behavior because I “looked down on them”. Remember, I was work friends with them and gravitated to their personality. What happened was the supervisors told them they basically didn’t earn it and they resented both the boss and I. It wasn’t perception, it was quantifiable fact that they were not productive enough employees to warrant higher pay. Somehow, they got enough done to stick around and didn’t ever break policy or make a fuss. Some folks just think everyone with the same job title should be paid the exact same.

I have worked with dozens of supervisor since high school. Managers almost never set expectations well. Either expectations are too high or too low, or they get bogged down with their own work that is delegated to them from higher up that they truly don’t have time to notice the work of their subordinates. I would be confident in saying that a majority (or at least considerable minority of people) would not find it unusual for employers and supervisors to hold onto subpar employees. In other words - Everyone knows an employee who gets by and doesn’t really pull their weight.

I do strongly agree with your last couple sentences though. Supervisors SHOULD be clear on expectations and immediately inform employees when those expectations are not met and how they can meet those expectations within a given timeframe.

 

[AxiomaticRubric]

It surprised me that the salaries at Apple have such a wide disparity, from less than $30k a year to upper six figures. Obviously, not every job requires the same skill set. But it would be interesting to find out where the people complaining on Twitter fall within the salary range.

https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Apple/salaries

“Technical Specialist” $29k per year

Most likely these are the Apple employees providing tech support. I’m fairly certain that the Apple retail employees make more than this.

 

[laptech]

“Technical Specialist” $29k per year

Most likely these are the Apple employees providing tech support. I’m fairly certain that the Apple retail employees make more than this.

Employers try to over glamourize job descriptions because they think it will get more people interested in the job and in my opinion this is where one of the problems lie with salary disparity. What turns out to be a menial job is commonly advertized as '....specialist' or '...engineer' and when it comes down to salary disputs with other workers, the persons job title does play a part.

A classic example of this is something that many in the employment world know about, it's not a myth, it's fact. i believe it was in 90's and it was something the tabloid press picked up on. An employment agency advertised for 'Sanitation Engineers' and had a job description that was worded to make it look like the job was very glamourous..i mean who wouldn't want to be an 'engineer' because traditionally engineers earn good wages. As it turned out, the job was for a toilet/wash room cleaner but when that was used as a job title, no one was applying for the job, so the employment agency glamourised the job title to entice people to apply for the job.

This is where it can go wrong with employers when there are complaints of equal pay because an employee will use their job title as a means to push forward for their claim of equal pay.

The biggest problem with equal pay issues is that of long service. I've seen it happen time and time again. An employee will complain that they should be getting the same amount of salary as that of another employee who does very similar work and work hours but the difference between the two is that the other employee has been at the company a lot longer which means their loyality to the company has been rewarded via pay rises over the years. This is a concept that is ignored by the complainers. As far as they are concerned they should be getting the same wage. To me this is wrong. If an employee has been at the company for 2 years and another employee who does very similar work and has a similar job title and job description but they have been at the company for 6 years and thus has recieved pay rises over the years as a reward for their continued loyality and service to the company, the junior employee should only get what the basic salary is for that job, they should not get what the salary is now of the other employee but the junior employee does not see this and cannot comprehend this.

Basic salary should be the same for all for those that have similar job titles and job descriptions, that is equal pay. Equal pay is not having someone say 'that person is earning more than me for doing the same job' when it is found out the other person has been in the job a lot longer and got pay rises and promotions as a result of it. That is not how equal pay works in my opinion.

 

[pankajdoharey]

Apple pays really well, this is just common sense you get what you ask and what you can negotiate for your skill based on the performance of your interview and work experience. Surely you can get better raise once you are in. If this is so difficult to understand what are they even doing at Apple?

 

[AxiomaticRubric]

This is where it can go wrong with employers when there are complaints of equal pay because an employee will use their job title as a means to push forward for their claim of equal pay.

The biggest problem with equal pay issues is that of long service. I've seen it happen time and time again. An employee will complain that they should be getting the same amount of salary as that of another employee who does very similar work and work hours but the difference between the two is that the other employee has been at the company a lot longer which means their loyality to the company has been rewarded via pay rises over the years. This is a concept that is ignored by the complainers. As far as they are concerned they should be getting the same wage. To me this is wrong. If an employee has been at the company for 2 years and another employee who does very similar work and has a similar job title and job description but they have been at the company for 6 years and thus has recieved pay rises over the years as a reward for their continued loyality and service to the company, the junior employee should only get what the basic salary is for that job, they should not get what the salary is now of the other employee but the junior employee does not see this and cannot comprehend this.

There is also the issue of simple raw value to the company.

I have seen what the founding employee in an IT department was paid annually compared to others who had been with the company for nearly as many years. He was being paid roughly three times more than the rest.

Generally speaking, if an employee can increase product or service value and minimize costs to the business then the rewards will be granted over time.

Apple pays really well, this is just common sense you get what you ask and what you can negotiate for your skill based on the performance of your interview and work experience. Surely you can get better raise once you are in. If this is so difficult to understand what are they even doing at Apple?

Apple is trying to be as tactful as possible about this. They won’t come out and say this because it would run counter to their public relations image, but the core issue is that certain gender and race combinations seem to be compensated higher than others.

 

[laptech]

There is also the issue of simple raw value to the company.

I have seen what the founding employee in an IT department was paid annually compared to others who had been with the company for nearly as many years. He was being paid roughly three times more than the rest.

Generally speaking, if an employee can increase product or service value and minimize costs to the business then the rewards will be granted over time.

.........

Loyality towards a company should be rewarded but loyality (long term service) should not be seen to overide other performance factors. This is why many companies have employee performance review programs, appraisals or PEPs (Performance Evaluation and Planning).

Employee performance review programs is where the difference lies in employee's salary. If you have an employee who has worked for the company for 10 years and in the 10 years the employee has only done the bare necessary requirments to earn their salary but someone who has been with the company for let's say 3 years but has done a lot more than just their 'basic job requirements', when it comes to performance reviews, the one who has gone beyond and put in more than just their basic job requirment will get rewarded.

Now at some point the employee with the longer service gets to hear about an employee with less service, has the same job title and job description is getting more money so what happens is the long service employee goes and complains and this happens across every employment sector. For many employee's it does not compute that other employee's get more money than they do because the other employee have done more.

The problem for us outsiders looking in, we are expected to take it on faith that employee's are telling the truth when it comes to pay equality 'They are paid more because of x and x , I am being paid less because of x and x'. How do we know what they are saying is the truth. Are they embellishing it so they come across as more sympathetic? who knows.

 

[Art Mark]

Should be easy to achieve pay equality. Divide current total pay paid to everyone by number of employees and pay everyone that amount. Include Tim in that calculation too. Why does he get paid so much, unfair. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need - should fit Apples philosophy.

I wish that was true, but Apple is NOT that kind of company and Steve Jobs wasn't that kind of person. I wish they were, I wish he was. And companies with popular brands, and prestigious brands tend to offer less. I have been through it with several very large entertainment companies. The balance is how badly they want any particular employee.

 

[Lioness~]

I read in Swedish Apple News that Cook not even answered all questions from the #appletoo
people.
In a comment to The New York Times said the movements coordinator, Janneke Parrish, that:

"With the ansers Tim gave today, we don't feel heard".

But I also read that Tim Cook is probably expected to resign as CEO not long after 2025, said Mark Gurman. Great there is light in the end of that tunnel. He have done his work, let someone more people friendly take over.

The later, very good news, the former not so much.