Apple employees send another letter to Tim Cook urging WFH allowances

[BreakingKayfabe]

All this post illustrates is that you don’t know. You’ve stated as much yourself repeatedly in the post. Why do you feel so strongly about something you don’t understand?

Because I can feel as strongly as I please about anything I’d like.

 

[grover5]

Why not return? Just because they don't want to or because they feel there's no need to return is irrelevant. They are employees and not employers. If some of the employees resign, they will be replaced with people who will comply with Apple.

Just so we're clear, I'm arguing in favor of Apple because they pay the employees' salary and should be able to dictate that its employees work in the office if they want.

As an employer, I'm not going to allow you to seek employment with my company and then dictate to me where and how you'll do your job.

Yeah. That’s not really how it works. But good luck with that.

 

[grover5]

Because I can feel as strongly as I please about anything I’d like.

You certainly can.

 

[BreakingKayfabe]

Yeah. That’s not really how it works. But good luck with that.

What is ‘it?’

 

[Just_Me_D]

Yeah. That’s not really how it works. But good luck with that.

Really? Okay. Let's say you put it out there that you're looking for a qualified applicant to do whatever it is you're hiring the person do. During the interview, you find what you think is the right person and hire him or her. You tell the person you expect him or her to be prompt and the working hours are 9 am to 5 pm. They agree to your terms. After a week or so, that person tells you they will only work from 1 pm to 5 pm, but expects the same salary as though he or she worked from 9 to 5. Would you comply?

 

[Just_Me_D]

Please don't tell me my example is different from what's happening at Apple because in both instances, the employee is trying to dictate new terms of employment after having been hired and after accepting the employer's terms.

 

[grover5]

Really? Okay. Let's say you put it out there that you're looking for a qualified applicant to do whatever it is you're hiring the person do. During the interview, you find what you think is the right person and hire him or her. You tell the person you expect him or her to be prompt and the working hours are 9 am to 5 pm. They agree to your terms. After a week or so, that person tells you they will only work from 1 pm to 5 pm, but expects the same salary as though he or she worked from 9 to 5. Would you comply?

This example is silly. Employers and employees renegotiate terms all the time. You aren’t an indentured servant. You’re an employee with skills to offer in exchange for compensation.

 

[Just_Me_D]

This example is silly. Employers and employees renegotiate terms all the time. You aren’t an indentured servant. You’re an employee with skills to offer in exchange for compensation.

The example isn't silly, and you know it. You are right, however, in saying "you're an employee with skills to offer in exchange for compensation." Yet, you failed to add that as an "employee" you are subject to the terms and conditions set by the employer and if at any point the terms and conditions no longer work for you, you are free to seek employment elsewhere.

 

[grover5]

I do find it to be a silly example. They are exercising their right to go elsewhere by renegotiating their terms. We obviously view employment differently. I think that ends this discussion.

 

[Just_Me_D]

I do find it to be a silly example. They are exercising their right to go elsewhere by renegotiating their terms. We obviously view employment differently. I think that ends this discussion.

Let's not forget the "employer" also has the right to not negotiate and to replace employees who opt to not be subject to its terms. You would lose your mind if Apple closed up shop and reopened abroad with in-office personnel. That is an option for them, by the way.

 

[BreakingKayfabe]

You would lose your mind if Apple closed up shop and reopened abroad with in-office personnel.

Agreed. Apple's personnel lost their mind over the hiring of Antonio Garcia Martinez causing Apple to cave when they really should have just left it as is.

Had Martinez stayed on and all the people that signed that petition were that offended, which I am willing to bet they weren't but wanted to sign because they didn't want their peers to deem them as "sexist", then they would have exercised their "right to go elsewhere by renegotiating their terms". Which of course means they wouldn't have done anything.

 

[Just_Me_D]

Agreed. Apple's personnel lost their mind over the hiring of Antonio Garcia Martinez causing Apple to cave when they really should have just left it as is.

Had Martinez stayed on and all the people that signed that petition were that offended, which I am willing to bet they weren't but wanted to sign because they didn't want their peers to deem them as "sexist", then they would have exercised their "right to go elsewhere by renegotiating their terms". Which of course means they wouldn't have done anything.

'Nuf said.

 

[grover5]

Let's not forget the "employer" also has the right to not negotiate and to replace employees who opt to not be subject to its terms. You would lose your mind if Apple closed up shop and reopened abroad with in-office personnel. That is an option for them, by the way.

Of course the employer has that right. I never said otherwise. I don’t think any scenario involving Apple would lead me to lose my mind.