Apple threatening action against staff not coming into the office 3 days a week(businessinsider.com)
businessinsider.com
Apple threatening action against staff not coming into the office 3 days a week
https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-threatens-staff-not-coming-office-three-days-week-2023-3
28 comments
I think people/execs/etc, have shot themselves in the foot with housing. Sure a 200-500k salary sounds great, but in the markets where they exist, they don’t go super far on the essentials.
You can eat great, you can buy a fancy car, but housing?
I personally peg all my shit to housing. It’s not only the fact that the crappy SFH that was 1M is now 4M, it’s that you have the property taxes it perpetuity of a 4M abode that’s honestly pretty mediocre.
People will jump through all sorts of hoops for a better life/better things. But when those better things are so absurdly out of reach for even most people making 1%-er salaries, it discourages everyone.
And “you can eventually move to the Midwest” isn’t really a sales point (I’ve been told this by multiple managers/directors).
You can eat great, you can buy a fancy car, but housing?
I personally peg all my shit to housing. It’s not only the fact that the crappy SFH that was 1M is now 4M, it’s that you have the property taxes it perpetuity of a 4M abode that’s honestly pretty mediocre.
People will jump through all sorts of hoops for a better life/better things. But when those better things are so absurdly out of reach for even most people making 1%-er salaries, it discourages everyone.
And “you can eventually move to the Midwest” isn’t really a sales point (I’ve been told this by multiple managers/directors).
> And “you can eventually move to the Midwest” isn’t really a sales point (I’ve been told this by multiple managers/directors).
Why is it not? I have a number of friends that have done this: work in SF, make (literal) millions of dollars over the course of ~10 years, move to the Midwest with their new/growing family — and a nest egg it might take ~30 years to accumulate anywhere else. They seem pretty happy about it.
Why is it not? I have a number of friends that have done this: work in SF, make (literal) millions of dollars over the course of ~10 years, move to the Midwest with their new/growing family — and a nest egg it might take ~30 years to accumulate anywhere else. They seem pretty happy about it.
Wasn't this predicated largely on rising stock prices rather than salary? But the stock prices have stopped rising.
Eh, the problem is who the fuck wants to move to the midwest? That’s such a shitty consolation prize.
That has always been the recommended strategy I've seen being told. Most people get stuck in lifestyle creep while there and aren't able to properly save.
If no one buys cars that have subscriptions for things like seat heaters, no one will produce that rent-seeking bullshit.
If people resist returning to the office, employers will stop demanding it. It is about control, it's always been about control and it's class warfare.
If people resist returning to the office, employers will stop demanding it. It is about control, it's always been about control and it's class warfare.
> To them, it's like, oh, you're within 30 miles
Not like there is address verification. The whole thing is whack. Some people say they've moved and can't come in.
Like what's the point? Either force everyone to come in or don't.
Not like there is address verification. The whole thing is whack. Some people say they've moved and can't come in.
Like what's the point? Either force everyone to come in or don't.
You've hit on another huge part of my angst here.
Literally my entire squad is remote except for me. I love other coworkers in my department & it's fun to see them again. But there's no one on my squad to talk with. And now the office has a bunch of hybrid teams like my own, where the floor has multiple people on conference call every single minute of the day. It's awful. It's the worst in-office environment I've ever had.
That said, I'm still not going to lie about my address to the company. Just because I have a significant fear of dealing with taxes as it is, and this seems like an incredibly obvious way to make your tax-life unbelievably more difficult.
Literally my entire squad is remote except for me. I love other coworkers in my department & it's fun to see them again. But there's no one on my squad to talk with. And now the office has a bunch of hybrid teams like my own, where the floor has multiple people on conference call every single minute of the day. It's awful. It's the worst in-office environment I've ever had.
That said, I'm still not going to lie about my address to the company. Just because I have a significant fear of dealing with taxes as it is, and this seems like an incredibly obvious way to make your tax-life unbelievably more difficult.
[deleted]
Musk had at least a reasonable excuse for RTO.
Because the way Tesla operates makes it more like Return To Factory, as large part of their staff works directly on plant floor.
For certain tasks you need to be on site, this is the case for many manufacturing jobs.
Because the way Tesla operates makes it more like Return To Factory, as large part of their staff works directly on plant floor.
For certain tasks you need to be on site, this is the case for many manufacturing jobs.
> Because the way Tesla operates
But he demanded it for Twitter, which had a permanent WFH policy before the acquisition.
But he demanded it for Twitter, which had a permanent WFH policy before the acquisition.
Amen to all of that
If only there was a boom of startups that would use layoffs and RTO policies to recruit top talent to compete.
You'd think VCs would be all over this, perhaps conflict if interest?
You'd think VCs would be all over this, perhaps conflict if interest?
If all the people with the money don't want to take the remote workers for a discount, even when they could have free selection of top talent, isn't it a pretty strong signal that remote work is actually not that productive?
When all the people with money hired like crazy, was that a signal that... reality showed that they have no clue of whats coming. They just copy each other and in general have no clue about anything.
From my point of view, they hired because they had cheap money to invest, and then they fired when they no longer had it. This is entirely rational, IMHO. You can't time the market. Perhaps not moral or ethical but I don't see anything that would signal they don't know what they're doing. They don't care about you having a stable job, they care about moving projects forward, even if just for a while.
Hiring, onboarding, firing, and severance are all massively expensive in terms of money, time, employee morale, and company reputation. There's no evidence that this was long-term or even short-term rational.
You know how everyone whines about "a single bad hire is devastating" as a justification for whiteboarding, leetcode, etc.? Well, these were hundreds or thousands of bad hires for each company.
The other self-inflicted wound is that a hiring binge naturally raises employee compensation due to market forces, demand and supply. It's going to be difficult to undo the expectations that have been raised, to claw back the salary levels, because even if you lay off a bunch of people, the remaining employees are still making the higher compensation and will continue to expect it. If a company lays off a bunch of people and simultaneously attempts to cut employee compensation, they'll have a massive revolt on their hands. The damage has already been done, the compensation needle has already moved.
You mentioned "moving projects forward", but in addition to layoffs, many companies are also canceling or postponing projects, so it's not clear that temporarily moving projects forward added any actual value.
You know how everyone whines about "a single bad hire is devastating" as a justification for whiteboarding, leetcode, etc.? Well, these were hundreds or thousands of bad hires for each company.
The other self-inflicted wound is that a hiring binge naturally raises employee compensation due to market forces, demand and supply. It's going to be difficult to undo the expectations that have been raised, to claw back the salary levels, because even if you lay off a bunch of people, the remaining employees are still making the higher compensation and will continue to expect it. If a company lays off a bunch of people and simultaneously attempts to cut employee compensation, they'll have a massive revolt on their hands. The damage has already been done, the compensation needle has already moved.
You mentioned "moving projects forward", but in addition to layoffs, many companies are also canceling or postponing projects, so it's not clear that temporarily moving projects forward added any actual value.
> If a company lays off a bunch of people and simultaneously attempts to cut employee compensation, they'll have a massive revolt on their hands.
Will have to watch Intel closely to see, but I hear the layoffs quelled revolt about the paycuts
Will have to watch Intel closely to see, but I hear the layoffs quelled revolt about the paycuts
When the pandemic hit, as a true leader, you would grab a history book and try to see what a pandemic means. How did people recover from it? How long did it last? Maybe even hire a historian, a virologist and maybe even a psychologist to help you understand what people really want (they don't want to commute and also don't want to do everything online). This is all stuff that somebody with money can afford.
You're mistaking business managers for true leaders.
I keep seeing this "free money" sentiment but I think that's actually evidence of what the other commenters are saying. People don't actually understand the financing and are literally just copying what they read about people having "free money" to hire
If you have ever worked at a company that did layoffs or rolled back benefits or salary in difficult economic conditions you will have witnessed a long-lasting malaise that affects morale further and hampers productivity.
There is nothing rational about creating that effect within your organization because "money is cheap".
There is nothing rational about creating that effect within your organization because "money is cheap".
> not that productive?
I don't get it, remote or not, if someone is not performing you can fire them. I mean, you can even make remote working contingent on a team's performance.
I don't get it, remote or not, if someone is not performing you can fire them. I mean, you can even make remote working contingent on a team's performance.
Tech is a cargo cult. They all tend to think the same, act the same, follow the leader. This was clear with the SVB run.
Ok this is like the 3rd “article” that’s just repeating a report from Zoe Schiffer, and offering literally no other information nor any other sources.
I only clicked this link because I thought BI might actually have done some work. The cynic in me says that they delayed publishing this copied article solely to ensure they get shared on sites without being marked as duplicates.
I only clicked this link because I thought BI might actually have done some work. The cynic in me says that they delayed publishing this copied article solely to ensure they get shared on sites without being marked as duplicates.
Companys keep having RTO policies. They keep escallating the pissy nastygrams & unspecific threats. But even when it's merely 2-3 days a week, people just don't show up.
We've had "quiet quitting" but this isn't quitting... it's a different resistance. And I think these RTO plans are going to keep crashing into oblivion. The tide has turned. This long-standing norm of being in-office all the time is dead, and no one has figured out a single useful carrot to dangle to get us back. Often the RTO is worse situations than when we left office.
This following rant is just me off-gassing & only semi-related. Our own company recently announced an upscaled RTO. As a city-dweller, it's a nearly 90m commute out to the suburbs (one way) via light-rail, after they closed our in-city office that was a 5m bike ride away. These fucking clowns don't give a rats ass & don't think for a second about the asymmetry of their ask. To them, it's like, oh, you're within 30 miles, this can't be a real burden on anyone. Because they're a bunch of out of touch suburban wankers who drive everywhere, with not the faintest fuck-all clue of how other folks live. To them, it's: 2 days, that's not bad.
But even 1 day is almost 2x the entire weekly commute I had, and by awful & expensive metro-rail versus a delightful on bicycle ride. To an awful business park, versus being inside a great city.
The people asking for RTO are useless. The asks are all hidden anonymous shitty figures. The workers, I hope, just don't do it. I've been doing 1 day a week, with the nod from my managers to just quietly subtract commute time from my work-day-hours. The clowns "in charge" realized no one had any respect for the RTO, & eventually realized tons of people just didn't show up. So now they're starting to tell the managers they have to keep attendance, that there's gonna be some real policing. But frankly it's the managers who skip the most. Tons of people have filed for exemptions for various reasons & fought to get exempted, but another 70% just don't show up reliably. And these companies are powerless to change that. Good luck threatening your actions, chums.
Even the highest tech company on the planet- perhaps especially the highest tech company on the planet- is going to have a hard as fuck time actually making the threat real, is going to keep looking like idiots. There's just no cause. There's no carrot, no sales-pitch why, no belief it's useful, and no threat imaginable that can actually scare compliance. This is a huge story, and I greatly look forward to the once-almighty power-structure being ongoingly roundly ignored. The old corporate hierarchy of control is dead, ring a ding a ding dong.