Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple employees criticize work-from-home policy in open letter

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 632 posts

Re: Apple employees criticize work-from-home policy in open letter

#101

Post by adamsmith143 »

randomsearch wrote: post #95
adamsmith143 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really hard to imagine that it's easier to get to the office as an able bodied 22 year old than as a 45 year old wheelchair user? Or a 31 year old single parent?

Or wfh as a poorer individual with a cramped house shared by multiple occupants, low pay that doesn’t cover the increase in electricity usage etc. Works both ways.

>Or wfh as a poorer individual with a cramped house shared by multiple occupants, low pay that doesn’t cover the increase in electricity usage etc.

Presumably we are talking about Engineers at Apple so low pay doesn't seem relevant?

Re: Apple employees criticize work-from-home policy in open letter

#102

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

turtledove wrote: post #90
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they find that it's hard to attract talent, they'll also pay well for remote. But if they don't, angrily worded letters are not going to be the thing that makes the difference. People are going to have to start voting with their feet before Apple will see the supposed error of their compensation formula.

Many companies are. Traditional, old school companies like Google and Apple are slow to move here, but many tech companies are moving to a "we pay you your value, not your cost of living".

I've only seen one (Airbnb) but perhaps there are others I've missed. I don't think we will be able to know how it is going to play out for a couple of years. They may validly intend to do what they say today, but market forces may ultimately force them to change their approach. I'm happy to wait and see personally.

Re: Apple employees criticize work-from-home policy in open letter

#103

Post by KerrAvon »

azemetre wrote: post #64
enumjorge wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not allow the flexibility to let both types of people do their best work though?

Maybe allow teams, but I don't think allowing individuals to choose isn't good. Having a team that's half remote/half in-person is worse of both worlds. What typically ends up happening IME is that the in-person half typically gets way way way more visibility than those working remote. It's especially worse if the company isn't remote first at all. It's especially terrible if the team is remotely distributed as well.…

The Apple policy under discussion is a top-down edict from the executives that no future remote roles are allowed, period. This is more draconian than the pre-pandemic “exceptions allowed with VP approval” policy. Your experience isn’t germane to this situation.

Re: Apple employees criticize work-from-home policy in open letter

#104

Post by adamsmith143 »

PabloRobles wrote: post #47
adamsmith143 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really hard to imagine that it's easier to get to the office as an able bodied 22 year old than as a 45 year old wheelchair user? Or a 31 year old single parent?

No, but any physically impaired person will have a disadvantage in any physical environment. You cannot always lower the baseline to allow all persons to do the same in the same conditions. By this reasoning, we should also close all physical stores, since wheelchair users have more difficulties to buy bread in person. If for the majority it is easier to go in person to buy bread, I think a better compromise is to ad…

You understand the ADA exists and does almost exactly what you are implying right? Public places are forced to comply with ADA regulations

Re: Apple employees criticize work-from-home policy in open letter

#105

Post by BaseballPhysics »

ghaff wrote: post #92
BaseballPhysics wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a manager, these types of comments and sentiments are so incredibly frustrating for me. This is pure supposition based on no evidence. It's entirely a byproduct of a lack of trust in management intentions. Taking my company as an example, while the executive team has been ambiguous, I know that a full return to 5 days of asses in seats is not being contemplated at all , not the least of which because we don't want…

> never Leadership changes. People change their minds. Something can absolutely be a genuine intent today but that could change in a few years.

First, if Apple declared, right now, that full remote was an option, what you say is still true. i.e., in two years, management could decide to take away that benefit.

So I don't see how that kind of reasoning is useful when making an employment decision today. Getting up in arms about a purported future two years from now is just not rational, and is ultimately a byproduct of fear.

More broadly, this has always been true. Employers have always been in an position where they could change the terms of employment, and employees have always been in the position of being able to make a choice as to whether they would be willing to accept those changes. The WFH situation isn't special in that regard.

Second, this could go either way. Future leadership could equally decide Apple will go full remote. But the assumption is always that future change will take away the benefit rather than expanding it. That the slippery slope will always be to the worker's detriment. That's just another form of management distrust.

Edit: And oddly, given the current demand for positions in technology companies, that distrust is especially unfounded. Employees have never been more empowered. The sheer demand for labour means that any company instituting a policy that's broadly unpopular will lose staff. Absent a profound change in the labour market, in that context it would be insane for Apple to communicate a hybrid work policy, now, only to renege on it.

Re: Apple employees criticize work-from-home policy in open letter

#106

Post by KerrAvon »

InitialLastName wrote: post #99
snowwrestler wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cook has an engineering degree and Apple did some pretty good engineering before COVID including the A series of microprocessors, Air Pods, Apple Watch, and most of the M1 development. I understand that people like work from home, but implying engineering can’t be done in an office building is overselling the issue by quite a bit.

There's a bit of a disconnect here in that many on this forum are software engineers, probably mostly working on systems that need no hands-on interaction (or on apps that can be tested easily locally). The products you listed are hardware products (with integrated software) which are much more difficult to work on remotely, especially in a company that prioritizes secrecy as much as Apple does.

Apple software engineers who work with prototypes did this for two whole product development cycles. Access to prototypes _can_ still be managed remotely, it turns out.

Re: Apple employees criticize work-from-home policy in open letter

#107

Post by nottorp »

InitialLastName wrote: post #99
snowwrestler wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cook has an engineering degree and Apple did some pretty good engineering before COVID including the A series of microprocessors, Air Pods, Apple Watch, and most of the M1 development. I understand that people like work from home, but implying engineering can’t be done in an office building is overselling the issue by quite a bit.

There's a bit of a disconnect here in that many on this forum are software engineers, probably mostly working on systems that need no hands-on interaction (or on apps that can be tested easily locally). The products you listed are hardware products (with integrated software) which are much more difficult to work on remotely, especially in a company that prioritizes secrecy as much as Apple does.

> which are much more difficult to work on remotely,

Difficult?

> especially in a company that prioritizes secrecy as much as Apple does.

But that's Apple's problem, not the employees' problem.

Re: Apple employees criticize work-from-home policy in open letter

#108

Post by Cuuugi »

golergka wrote: post #26
Cuuugi wrote: post #14

and will lead to a "younger, whiter, more male-dominated, more neuro-normative, more able-bodied" I mean, they're just asking you to come to the building 3 days a week.

> I mean, they're just asking you to come to the building 3 days a week. Which is only possible for people who live in the same hemisphere as the building and have citizenship or visa. Remote work is international work.

I don't think you can "remotely" work for Apple without a work visa. If your paycheck comes from Apple US, and you don't have the right to work in America, that's a pretty clear violation of immigration law.

Re: Apple employees criticize work-from-home policy in open letter

#109

Post by ghaff »

BaseballPhysics wrote: post #105
ghaff wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> never Leadership changes. People change their minds. Something can absolutely be a genuine intent today but that could change in a few years.

First, if Apple declared, right now, that full remote was an option, what you say is still true . i.e., in two years, management could decide to take away that benefit. So I don't see how that kind of reasoning is useful when making an employment decision today . Getting up in arms about a purported future two years from now is just not rational, and is ultimately a byproduct of fear. More broadly, this has always be…

I don't really disagree with any of that although I do think some policies are stickier than others. It's probably easier to adjust the terms of hybrid work than it is to tell remote workers who can't commute to an office that they have to move if they want to stay with the company.

But, yes, in general I wouldn't make decisions based on what could happen in 2-3 years unless I really saw the writing on the wall and wanted to proactively spare myself the pain.

Re: Apple employees criticize work-from-home policy in open letter

#110

Post by lotsofpulp »

BaseballPhysics wrote: post #105
ghaff wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> never Leadership changes. People change their minds. Something can absolutely be a genuine intent today but that could change in a few years.

First, if Apple declared, right now, that full remote was an option, what you say is still true . i.e., in two years, management could decide to take away that benefit. So I don't see how that kind of reasoning is useful when making an employment decision today . Getting up in arms about a purported future two years from now is just not rational, and is ultimately a byproduct of fear. More broadly, this has always be…

>But the assumption is always that future change will take away the benefit rather than expanding it. That the slippery slope will always be to the worker's detriment.

This seems like a reasonable assumption unless the labor seller is in very high demand relative to supply.

Post reply on HN