Apple employees launch petition over return-to-office orders

[grover5]

As an “employer”, I have the right to dictate how, when and where his or her duties are performed.

As an “applicant”, I have the right to either accept the terms or keep looking for something more suitable to what I want.

As an “employee”, I’ve accepted the employer’s terms and have chosen to abide by them.

As a “soon to be terminated employee”, I am opting to renege on the employer’s terms I’ve agreed to accept.

As a “foolish and soon to be terminated disgruntled employee”, I am trying to garner support by appealing to other employees, social media, news media, etcetera because I feel I have the right to force my employer to let me do what I want, where I want and how I want and still be paid for it.

I am not property. I would never work a day for an employer who views employment the way you do. You are free to obviously.

 

[Just_Me_D]

I am not property.

Of course you aren’t.

I would never work a day for an employer who views employment the way you do.

1. You are expected to do your job in the manner you were trained. Right?
2. You are expected to work whatever shift you are assigned. Right?
3. You are expected to work at the assigned location, whether it be an office, a construction site, a hospital floor, a sector, etcetera. Right?
If so, then doesn’t that cover the things I said the employer has the right to dictate?

 

[anon(50597)]

Well said. There is a scary level of fealty to employers in here. I have no idea why. But it is unfortunate that so many want to embrace inequality and unchallenged and somewhat unbridled authority. Maybe we are moving toward authoritarianism in this country.

People are made up of two things: our DNA or our programming (think iOs vs Android) and our environment (think iMore vs Android Central). Many people, through their programming or environment are able to maneuver through those differences and, to some degree, understand others differences. Others are not. I've come to the conclusion that those who, for instance, mock people who use the opposite OS or cannot understand our differences will never change. It's how they're made and it's meant to be that way. I try to stay away from them and gravitate towards the majority of flexible thinkers (who are programmed that way).

All in all, it's pretty good group here and I appreciate that we're having this conversation. Having been in both management and the front line I have a pretty good understanding of both sides. The only way this economy will survive is through cooperation, listening and patience. We're in the middle of a wind of change.

 

[anon(50597)]

Of course you aren’t. 1. You are expected to do your job in the manner you were trained. Right?
2. You are expected to work whatever shift you are assigned. Right?
3. You are expected to work at the assigned location, whether it be an office, a construction site, a hospital floor, a sector, etcetera. Right?
If so, then doesn’t that cover the things I said the employer has the right to dictate?

I believe the topic is mainly about "how" they perform their job. I think a company has every right to expect a certain amount of work or a certain output for a certain wage. As long as it's done correctly, the question is, what does it matter where they are? If productivity has dropped since working at home began, I think that would be a pretty good argument against it. If it has increased, stayed the same or retention has improved, we might argue its a good thing. I'm not sure we have those answers from Apple but it would be interesting to know.

 

[Just_Me_D]

I believe the topic is mainly about "how" they perform their job. I think a company has every right to expect a certain amount of work or a certain output for a certain wage. As long as it's done correctly, the question is, what does it matter where they are? If productivity has dropped since working at home began, I think that would be a pretty good argument against it. If it has increased, stayed the same or retention has improved, we might argue its a good thing. I'm not sure we have those answers from Apple but it would be interesting to know.

No. The topic is "Apple employees launch petition over return-to-office orders". You quoted a response from me that supported an earlier point I made which was "As an 'employer', I have the right to dictate how, when and where his or her duties are performed" of which grover5 stated he "would never work a day for an employer who views employment..." the way I do."

With that being said, I'm going to be a little facetious with my next example in reference to your question, "What does it matter where they are?" so don't be alarmed or offended. Let's say you hire someone to come to your home during the week to watch your infant child. That person shows up on Monday and installs a camera system in the baby's room and then leaves. You find out about it and goes off on the person who replies with, "Why does it matter that I'm not physically there? I'm still watching the child via a camera system."

To be fair to you, you did preface your statement with "As long as it's done correctly". Still, wouldn't you the employer expect that person to watch the child from within your home unless you gave him or her permission to watch the child somewhere else? In addition, wouldn't it be you the employer who determines whether or not the job was done correctly?

Remember, I did say I was being facetious.....

 

[anon(50597)]

No. The topic is "Apple employees launch petition over return-to-office orders". You quoted a response from me that supported an earlier point I made which was "As an 'employer', I have the right to dictate how, when and where his or her duties are performed" of which grover5 stated he "would never work a day for an employer who views employment..." the way I do."

With that being said, I'm going to be a little facetious with my next example in reference to your question, "What does it matter where they are?" so don't be alarmed or offended. Let's say you hire someone to come to your home during the week to watch your infant child. That person shows up on Monday and installs a camera system in the baby's room and then leaves. You find out about it and goes off on the person who replies with, "Why does it matter that I'm not physically there? I'm still watching the child via a camera system."

To be fair to you, you did preface your statement with "As long as it's done correctly". Still, wouldn't you the employer expect that person to watch the child from within your home unless you gave him or her permission to watch the child somewhere else? In addition, wouldn't it be you the employer who determines whether or not the job was done correctly?

Remember, I did say I was being facetious.....

I'm not sure how to respond to such a (your word) facetious comparison! Thus, I won't.

I think what some people have an issue with is the control issue that some companies or managers live by. "My way or the highway". That may have worked before but everything must come to an end.

Let me be a little less facetious. Would you agree communism is a bad thing? Why? What would you tell the millions of Chinese women who are told how many children they can have? I'm guessing you'd tell them if they don't like it leave the country? Easier said than done.

I want to make sure I'm not misunderstood here. Businesses should not be run by the employees. There have to be rules, policies and structure or it won't work. There also has to be an understanding that, without the employees, the company doesn't exist. The answer? Work together to come to a conclusion that helps everyone. Ultimately we will learn where this goes by sitting back and watching. Then we'll know the answer.

 

[Just_Me_D]

I'm not sure how to respond to such a (your word) facetious comparison! Thus, I won't.

Understood....

I think what some people have an issue with is the control issue that some companies or managers live by. "My way or the highway". That may have worked before but everything must come to an end.

I definitely think that's a huge part of the issue. No doubt about it.

Let me be a little less facetious. Would you agree communism is a bad thing? Why? What would you tell the millions of Chinese women who are told how many children they can have? I'm guessing you'd tell them if they don't like it leave the country? Easier said than done.

I believe communism to be primarily bad to those who live or have lived in a free society, however, if you've lived in a communist society your entire life then it's just normal life to you.

I want to make sure I'm not misunderstood here. Businesses should not be run by the employees. There have to be rules, policies and structure or it won't work. There also has to be an understanding that, without the employees, the company doesn't exist. The answer? Work together to come to a conclusion that helps everyone. Ultimately we will learn where this goes by sitting back and watching. Then we'll know the answer.

Everything you stated in your final statement was spot on as long as the employee understands that as long as people are willing to work, the employer has the overall advantage.

Your overall response was excellent. Well done!

 

[anon(50597)]

Understood....

I definitely think that's a huge part of the issue. No doubt about it.

I believe communism to be primarily bad to those who live or have lived in a free society, however, if you lived in a communist society your entire life, it's just normal life to you.

Everything you stated in your final statement was spot on as long as the employee understands that as long as people are willing to work, the employer has the overall advantage.

Your overall response was excellent. Well done!

I feel honored that you approve of my response!

Hey, good conversation. I'm close to retirement so I have both an appreciation of how lucky I have been throughout my career and a heart felt responsibility to stand up for those who haven't.

Now, it's time have a good beer, relax on the patio and enjoy life. Have a great night!

 

[Just_Me_D]

I feel honored that you approve of my response!

Hey, good conversation. I'm close to retirement so I have both an appreciation of how lucky I have been throughout my career and a heart felt responsibility to stand up for those who haven't.

Now, it's time have a good beer, relax on the patio and enjoy life. Have a great night!

You, too sir.

 

[FFR]

 

[anon(50597)]

Where's your beer?

 

[grover5]

Understood....

I definitely think that's a huge part of the issue. No doubt about it.

I believe communism to be primarily bad to those who live or have lived in a free society, however, if you've lived in a communist society your entire life then it's just normal life to you.

Everything you stated in your final statement was spot on as long as the employee understands that as long as people are willing to work, the employer has the overall advantage.

Your overall response was excellent. Well done!

The employer does not have an advantage. The agreement is equal. I provide my skills and they provide an environment that works for me and the pay my services are worth. I judge my employer on an ongoing basis. If they fall short then I let them know that certain things need to change. I manage people with the same belief. If I fall short then I might lose good talent to someone else. I don’t know who you employ. But I do think your perspective is very unhealthy and most likely is limiting the talent you bring in.

 

[grover5]

Where's your beer?

Exactly.

 

[Just_Me_D]

The employer does not have an advantage. The agreement is equal. I provide my skills and they provide an environment that works for me and the pay my services are worth. I judge my employer on an ongoing basis. If they fall short then I let them know that certain things need to change. I manage people with the same belief. If I fall short then I might lose good talent to someone else. I don’t know who you employ. But I do think your perspective is very unhealthy and most likely is limiting the talent you bring in.

The “agreement” between employer and employee is indeed equal, but when the employee reneges then the advantage belongs to the employer. The employer can opt to replace the employee.

Having said that, far too many employees are not in a position to maneuver in the manner in which you can and not everyone can be managers, supervisors, leads, etcetera. In addition, many do not have the education, the skill set or the financial backup to do what you may be able to do so they either comply/maintain the aforementioned agreement or risk termination.

As for my perspective, it’s based on reality albeit not yours.

 

[grover5]

The “agreement” between employer and employee is indeed equal, but when the employee reneges then the advantage belongs to the employer. The employer can opt to replace the employee.

Having said that, far too many employees are not in a position to maneuver in the manner in which you can and not everyone can be managers, supervisors, leads, etcetera. In addition, many do not have the education, the skill set or the financial backup to do what you may be able to do so they either comply/maintain the aforementioned agreement or risk termination.

As for my perspective, it’s based on reality albeit not yours.

And when the employer does not hold up their end then the employee can move on. My question is why you don’t see more value in employees? The last time I checked, the employer hires employees to do work they aren’t capable of doing. The employee agrees to work for the better of the organization which includes employers and employees. If the employer is such a rockstar, I wonder why they can’t get it done without the partnership of the employees who are actually accomplishing something.

At any rate, I do agree about Apple. They seem to see value with in house collaborations. But, I also recognize that the employees have the right to try to negotiate on their behalf before they decide to stay or go.

 

[FFR]

Where's your beer?

Gave it to a communist

 

[Annie_M]

So I was just skimming the headlines of a local newspaper, the "Dayton Business Journal" when I saw this headline: "Employees want remote work — but they're worried about proximity bias". According to the article, "Hybrid workers believe colleagues who work full-time at the office are treated better."

SMH!

 

[Just_Me_D]

So I was just skimming the headlines of a local newspaper, the "Dayton Business Journal" when I saw this headline: "Employees want remote work — but they're worried about proximity bias". According to the article, "Hybrid workers believe colleagues who work full-time at the office are treated better."

SMH!

It’s not that they’re treated better. Employers see them and can communicate with them in-person. If you’re out of sight - you’re out of mind. Period.

 

[Annie_M]

Due to some health issues, my husband has had to work from home off and on for the last year. There are definitely pros and cons, but he does worry about not being visible. He has several virtual meetings a week and is on the phone with his team frequently, but when he's away, it does give him some anxiety. Luckily, he's back to working at the office.

 

[Thud Hardsmack]

Sorry I'm a little late to the party. I can see both sides of this argument and would like to offer a possible solution: why not go ahead with a blanket RTW order and include an option for any employee that would like something different to apply and evaluate whether that would be in both parties best interest? Both my and my wife's employers did this, and as far as my employer we've been doing better than even before the pandemic.