Apple 'Tracking Employee Attendance' in Crackdown on Remote Working

[bbeagle]

Let's say there are two people with the exact same job. Person "A" lives a mile away and can walk to work while person "B" lives 20 miles away and has to drive in. You think person B should be compensated more (to cover commuting expenses) than person A even though they have the same job?

No.

Say person 'A' is a single guy living at home with his parents, and person 'B' is a single mother struggling with 2 kids. Should person 'B' be given more money? No. The company has no responsibility with your personal life, commute, alimony or child care expenses. The company should pay the same for the same job without taking into account those things.

Now, regarding the person 'A' who walks, and the person 'B' who commutes 20 minutes.... if the person 'B' wrapped their car in your company logo and was advertising for your company on the 20 minute drive, maybe then you could give person 'B' more money.

 

[bbeagle]

Commuting costs should be reimbursed.

So if Person 'A' walks for 20 minutes with a commuting cost of $0, Person 'B' drives for 20 minutes with a commuting cost of $6, and Person 'C' takes a helicopter for 20 minutes with a commuting cost of $2000, all 3 should be reimbursed for their commuting costs?

 

[webkit]

Yes

Let's again say there are two people with the same job who work in-office. Person "A" lives a mile away and can walk to work but this location means higher housing costs while person "B" lives 20 miles away where housing costs are lower. If you think person B should be compensated for their higher commuting costs then does that also mean person A should be compensated in some way to cover their higher housing costs for living closer to work? After all, both have higher costs (one in housing, the other in commuting) tied to their work related living locations.

 

[Coleman2010]

Let's again say there are two people with the same job who work in-office. Person "A" lives a mile away and can walk to work but this location means higher housing costs while person "B" lives 20 miles away where housing costs are lower. If you think person B should be compensated for their higher commuting costs then does that also mean person A should be compensated in some way to cover their higher housing costs for living closer to work? After all, both have higher costs (one in housing, the other in commuting) tied to their work related living locations.

If both commute. Both should be reimbursed for it. Or both provided a commute stipend for the same amount.

 

[martint235]

Omicron is a headcold. Not too worried.

View attachment 2179492

I like your optimism. I don’t think we’ve stopped at Omicron

 

[martint235]

Let's again say there are two people with the same job who work in-office. Person "A" lives a mile away and can walk to work but this location means higher housing costs while person "B" lives 20 miles away where housing costs are lower. If you think person B should be compensated for their higher commuting costs then does that also mean person A should be compensated in some way to cover their higher housing costs for living closer to work? After all, both have higher costs (one in housing, the other in commuting) tied to their work related living locations.

Both should be a suitable amount for their skills and the work done. You don’t pay people for where they live or commute from. People in London are paid more because the going rate is more in London

 

[martint235]

If both commute. Both should be reimbursed for it. Or both provided a commute stipend for the same amount.

No they shouldn’t. Everyone who takes a job should think “is what I’m being paid (including what’s left after bills including commuting) worth the effort/value I will provide”. If the answer is no, find another job

 

[Analog Kid]

I'm not talking about the 20% of people (of both seniors and juniors) who like stay-at-home because they work less and watch Scooby Doo more. I'm talking about reasons for people who want to be productive to like both environments.

Yeah, this is a management problem, not an employee problem. I suspect that number is much less than 20% but, regardless, if you can't tell the difference between you subordinate working and non working then maybe it's the manager watching Scooby Doo.

Senior people produce more work having less distractions. It's one reason why senior people are more likely to get offices with doors that close, and junior people get cubicles or open environments.

They also are more effective in person, which is why they tend to travel more for work. It's not unusual to take two days of their time traveling to have 2 hours of in-person meetings in another city.

Much of the reason senior people have doors is because they're more likely to be discussing sensitive topics than junior people, both planning and HR related items that shouldn't be discussed in open earshot of the office.

Unless you're firing someone for watching Scooby Doo, then it's best with the door open...

However, the company wants to make use of the senior people in more than just the work that they can produce, but in helping the junior people with training/insight/coaching/teaching. This will lower the productivity of the senior person, but hopefully increase the productivity of the company as a whole.

I think we're mostly saying the same thing but just disagree on the definition of "productive". If the value of a senior person is to build up the junior staff, then building up the junior staff is productive work.

If your employer wants you to help mentor junior staff but is only evaluating your performance based on widgets produced, then we're back to a management problem.

Companies should want everyone back to the office, juniors 5 days, seniors maybe 2-3 days. Enough for seniors to lead the juniors, but also enough so they get more done.

Agreed, though I'm not sure even the juniors can't benefit from a day or two at home to focus away from the social pressures of the office.

This is pretty much what Apple is pushing for as well.

 

[maxoakland]

Let's say there are two people with the exact same job. Person "A" lives a mile away and can walk to work while person "B" lives 20 miles away and has to drive in. You think person B should be compensated more (to cover commuting expenses) than person A even though they have the same job?

Obviously. Why should an employee have to commute for free? Especially when remote work is possible but Apple is forcing them to work in person?

 

[webkit]

If both commute. Both should be reimbursed for it. Or both provided a commute stipend for the same amount.

If both should be compensated "the same amount" then it's kind of a wash and the length or type of commute becomes irrelevant. They therefore both get the same salary/compensation and, one way or another, use part of that salary/compensation to cover commuting, housing, etc. expenses.

 

[maxoakland]

There's a reason most people like working from home so much and it isn't because they are so much more productive...its because they can do their laundry and other chores, go for walks during the day, take care of their kids, etc. You know, the opposite of what they are being paid to do.

So you have a problem with people having a very basic sense of work life balance, even though all studies show people have increased productivity when they work from home?

This is what it comes down to with people like you. You don’t care that employees actually do MORE work from home, you just have a weird bitterness toward the idea of people enjoying life

 

[fischersd]

Employees already been commuting for "free" - that is, the cost was not passed on to their employer. It goes to their cost of living. Want to live closer to work? Your residential costs will go up. Why should the employer have to pay you more for you living further away from the office?

Remote work is very much a disrupter - if it propagates further, we'll see cities level off and quite likely shrink - as many people would rather live in nature than a suburb. This will cause even greater impacts to the retail that exists in cities - as people become more disperse, it'll feed more to Amazon / online shopping.

 

[martint235]

Employees already been commuting for "free" - that is, the cost was not passed on to their employer. It goes to their cost of living. Want to live closer to work? Your residential costs will go up. Why should the employer have to pay you more for you living further away from the office?

Remote work is very much a disrupter - if it propagates further, we'll see cities level off and quite likely shrink - as many people would rather live in nature than a suburb. This will cause even greater impacts to the retail that exists in cities - as people become more disperse, it'll feed more to Amazon / online shopping.

Retail will evolve. I really don’t care about the loss of ubiquitous coffee chains in central London that charge £3+ for a coffee and more about my local cafe a 10 min walk away on my local high street that is thriving now more of us stay home. The main losers in this will be landlords and transport such as black cabs

 

[I7guy]

So you have a problem with people having a very basic sense of work life balance, even though all studies show people have increased productivity when they work from home?

No, all studies dont show the same thing. Never speak in absolutes because it only takes one case to have your argument crumble. Show us “all studies”.

This is what it comes down to with people like you. You don’t care that employees actually do MORE work from home, you just have a weird bitterness toward the idea of people enjoying life

People like you? Let the people find their dream job. Good luck to that.

 

[Kabeyun]

Yeah, think about all the amazing things human beings achieved using slavery. We just threw endless amounts of death and suffering at unfathomably large projects and voila, we had pyramids and railroads. This is the way. [sarcasm]

Exactly. Oh, the plight of the Apple Park slaves, who have no differences from actual slaves. My heart truly goes out to them! [also sarcasm]

 

[StudioMacs]

Tracking employee attendance in a crackdown on remote working is an ordinary part of an Apple's workplace culture?

It seems like an effective tool to weed out anyone who literally doesn’t want to be a part of that culture.

 

[jlc1978]

Or both provided a commute stipend for the same amount.

Some companies do, at which point is is simply part of the salary no matter how much you use to commute.

 

[macsound1]

Some companies do, at which point is is simply part of the salary no matter how much you use to commute.

Unless you work from home, then you don’t.
Overall it doesn’t really matter. Employees would seemingly rather pay for rent and utilities instead of people working from home.
Even the apple shuttles. I assume tech companies have the shuttles because of the greater impact to reduce traffic. Which I imagine they do considering each bus holds 50-75 people and there’s dozens of trips per day.

 

[monster620ie]

Isn’t the Cupertino office in the USA? 🤔

manufacturing! not just a tiny bit of manufacturing that they brought to AZ.

 

[cmcbhi]

You’re so smart. Problem solved 🙄

Thank you.