21–30 of 632 posts
Stop whining and vote with your feet. If you're talented enough to work for Apple, there are plenty of other wonderful companies out there that will happily let you work remotely. Not every company needs to have the exact same policies on everything.
Stop whining and vote with your feet. If you're talented enough to work for Apple, there are plenty of other wonderful companies out there that will happily let you work remotely. Not every company needs to have the exact same policies on everything.
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.
Please think for a second about how a WFH policy might impact some groups more than others.
Stop whining and vote with your feet. If you're talented enough to work for Apple, there are plenty of other wonderful companies out there that will happily let you work remotely. Not every company needs to have the exact same policies on everything.
Is what you’re saying here.
They’re trying to make company changes to improve their relationship with someone they like to work for, without using the nuclear option.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please think for a second about how a WFH policy might impact some groups more than others.
Could you, please, give your point of view on it? This is something I never thought about.
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.
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.
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.
Please think for a second about how a WFH policy might impact some groups more than others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because a tool is great for working remotely does not mean remote working is good. Turkey marketing its drones as great for war does not mean Turkey is being hypocritical for saying that war isn’t good.
> Just because a tool is great for working remotely does not mean remote working is good. So lets say Apple doesn't believe "remote working" is good in general. Why would they be building tools for something they don't think is good?
Stop whining and vote with your feet. If you're talented enough to work for Apple, there are plenty of other wonderful companies out there that will happily let you work remotely. Not every company needs to have the exact same policies on everything.
If this is a deal breaker, yes. But this kind of approach is a last resort. Why shouldn't someone try to influence company policy before taking such a drastic step?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s a big difference between what’s needed to design and build something and what’s needed to use something. I hope Tim Cook fires all these whiners.
They aren’t being fired for having different opinions. They are being fired for (a) essentially explicitly stating they are not gonna do a good job working in the way the company thinks its employees should be working (b) trying to get the company to change through “open letters” through the press. Both (a) and (b) are reasons for firing on their own. It has nothing to do with differing opinions. It’s like me telling…
In an anonymous poll given (article linked below) there were quite a few employees who stated they were going to look for remote jobs and quit.
https://fortune.com/2022/05/02/apple-workers-unhappy-return-...