Apple 'Tracking Employee Attendance' in Crackdown on Remote Working

[I7guy]

Then they should get fired. Not micromanaged and someone watching over their shoulder every minute of every hour at the office. Because if they don't get their work done at home, they are likely to slack off at the office too. Use their phones at their desk, chit chat with cube-mates etc.

Who is going to tell the boss the boss ”is managing wrong?”

I am salary. I don't get paid more if I work 10 hours, 16 hours or the normal 8 hours. I don't have variable compensation, just flat salary.

Sorry you don’t get variable or performance based compensation. There are seemingly many IT folks on this board and a professional is exempt. The reward comes at the end of the year.

 

[Vref]

Who is going to tell the boss the boss ”is managing wrong?”

Sorry you don’t get variable or performance based compensation. There are seemingly many IT folks on this board and a professional is exempt. The reward comes at the end of the year.

I’m not tech, we’ll not that kinda tech, but I’m salary, I have very obvious standards, if I don’t meet them i ether die, have my cert/career ended by the feds, or get fired and a note put in a database all future employers are required to look at before hiring me, best case I just get simply fired but with how small the industry is…

I just don’t get it, sometimes I wish I worked in one of these work from home careers where if you suck you just get asked to spend more time in the office, but then I realize I’d actually have to do stuff my mind would call “work”

 

[wanha]

lot to unpack there, since Apple employees aren’t forced labor like exists in other countries, this is psychological not fear of beatings. You comparing professionals to acting like children might actually explain their behavior better than I could.

You conflating my statement with forced labor refutes your comment better than I ever could

 

[jlc1978]

Many companies have been able to successfully go fully remote, but I see them as generally more young, homogeneous companies. For instance 200 people startups where you like 80% of your workforce is under 35 can probably manage that much easier than a company that has lifer dinosaurs who refuse to change

It will be interesting to see when the next generation wants different work arrangements and the current youngsters become the dinosaur lifers that whine about the new generation and their demands.

Working from the office should include pay for the time it takes to get to the office among other expenses workers incur

So working from home should pay less?

Unfortunately, it's the privileged tech company culture that cultivates this type of behavior where people refuse to come into the office. I work at a tech company and see/hear this all the time. Even the people that chose to be full time remote and can come into the office complain that they feel out of touch with their teams that are in the office and complain that there chances for advancement are less than people that do come in. It's like give me a friggin break.

They made a choice and have to live with the tradeoffs. It is an unfortunate reality that face time often matters.

 

[cmcbhi]

Her is a novel idea.
If you come in to work, you get paid.

 

[webkit]

Working from the office should include pay for the time it takes to get to the office among other expenses workers incur

Let's say there are two people with the exact same job. Person "A" lives a mile away and can walk to work while person "B" lives 20 miles away and has to drive in. You think person B should be compensated more (to cover commuting expenses) than person A even though they have the same job?

 

[bodonnell202]

Her is a novel idea.
If you come in to work, you get paid.

You’re so smart. Problem solved 🙄

 

[I7guy]

[…]



So working from home should pay less?



[…]

If I recall isn’t that exactly what google is doing? (Or maybe I mixed them up with some other company)

 

[robco74]

Let's say there are two people with the exact same job. Person "A" lives a mile away and can walk to work while person "B" lives 20 miles away and has to drive in. You think person B should be compensated more (to cover commuting expenses) than person A even though they have the same job?

Maybe not 20 miles, but WFH does allow employers to recruit from areas with lower cost of living. They can pay lower salaries, while workers can enjoy the same, or possibly a better standard of living. Six figures in SV barely puts you above the poverty line, but elsewhere, you might actually be able to afford to buy a home.

With Apple specifically, they have the shuttles that employees and contractors can use. They also have a tax-deductible commuter benefit that can cover transit fares. There isn't remotely enough parking for every employee at AP, so many employees have to use them. Even if you do find parking, it's a hike from the parking garage to the donut.

 

[_Spinn_]

That’s fair to do if it is a job requirement to be in the office 3 days a week. I’m not sure what’s controversial about tracking badge swipes.

Yeah, I’m surprised they weren’t doing this before.

 

[Analog Kid]

Many companies have been able to successfully go fully remote, but I see them as generally more young, homogeneous companies. For instance 200 people startups where you like 80% of your workforce is under 35 can probably manage that much easier than a company that has lifer dinosaurs who refuse to change.

I would think those in their early 20s, just starting off, until to about 40 years old would do better to advance their careers in an office environment. Once you get older, it's more beneficial for the company that you're around - to have a senior person to guide the junior people. It's far less advantageous for the worker. They will get a lot more done at home.

I'm in the second camp - I'm over 50. Going into the office slows me down. I don't want to make any new friends from the office, I'm happy with the ones I already have. I'm not going to socialize with anyone - I just want to do my work and get paid. I can do 3-4x the work at home without being distracted. If my job forgets about me, it's very easy for me to get work elsewhere. And I can spend more time with my family.

It seems everyone thinks work from home is good for them, just not the other people.

I generally agree with @bbeagle, but I find it interesting that they think having senior people at the office is better for the company but that they are somehow more productive at home. What that means to me is that they and their employer are misaligned on why they have the job they do. @bbeagle thinks it's because they can do a lot of work, and their employer thinks it's because they can make the entire company more productive and working from home means they may not be accomplishing what their employer wants them to.

Misalignments in expectations is what leads to disagreements about performance...

 

[Analog Kid]

As a side note, I'm waiting for the time a few years from now when all these people arguing vehemently that you don't need to be in the office to be productive later begin arguing that someone in another country can't do their job as well as they can.

 

[avz]

As a side note, I'm waiting for the time a few years from now when all these people arguing vehemently that you don't need to be in the office to be productive later begin arguing that someone in another country can't do their job as well as they can.

You are an eternal optimist considering that most people are predicting a very grim future a few years from now. The idea is to figure out how the "to be in the office" argument fits in the big picture. One thing is certain though when something was OK yesterday but is not OK today somebody is playing a game as the job descriptions usually don't drastically change overnight.

 

[jlc1978]

As a side note, I'm waiting for the time a few years from now when all these people arguing vehemently that you don't need to be in the office to be productive later begin arguing that someone in another country can't do their job as well as they can.

You bring up a good point. As companies get more comfortable with large WFH work forces, they will begin looking for talent more broadly and lower cost talent globally will be attractive. That will drive up salaries in lower cost areas but depress them in higher cost ones. It won’t be outsourcing to the lowest bidder, but finding and hiring talent on a more individual basis.

 

[avz]

You bring up a good point. As companies get more comfortable with large WFH work forces, they will begin looking for talent more broadly and lower cost talent globally will be attractive. That will drive up salaries in lower cost areas but depress them in higher cost ones. It won’t be outsourcing to the lowest bidder, but finding and hiring talent on a more individual basis.

This point has been debunked already by the reality of the increased fragmentation of the world especially in the high tech area. The idea that it is still possible to benefit from "sitting on two chairs at the same time" by being a "global citizen" or whatever is obviously a delusion at this stage.

 

[jlc1978]

This point has been debunked already by the reality of the increased fragmentation of the world especially in the high tech area. The idea that it is still possible to benefit from "sitting on two chairs at the same time" by being a "global citizen" or whatever is obviously a delusion at this stage.

And 3 years ago WFH was considered a rarity and not viable; while more global hiring patterns may not be as viable today doesn’t mean that won’t change and be driven by more WFH. Personally, I’ve worked on globably dispersed teams for over 20 years at various times, and it worked well.

 

[therunningman]

Well until you get COVID again

Omicron is a headcold. Not too worried.

 

[bbeagle]

It seems everyone thinks work from home is good for them, just not the other people.

I generally agree with @bbeagle, but I find it interesting that they think having senior people at the office is better for the company but that they are somehow more productive at home. What that means to me is that they and their employer are misaligned on why they have the job they do. @bbeagle thinks it's because they can do a lot of work, and their employer thinks it's because they can make the entire company more productive and working from home means they may not be accomplishing what their employer wants them to.

Misalignments in expectations is what leads to disagreements about performance...

Senior people produce more work having less distractions. It's one reason why senior people are more likely to get offices with doors that close, and junior people get cubicles or open environments.

However, the company wants to make use of the senior people in more than just the work that they can produce, but in helping the junior people with training/insight/coaching/teaching. This will lower the productivity of the senior person, but hopefully increase the productivity of the company as a whole.

Junior people like to stay at home as they have time to get the information to things without looking stupid. For example, someone brings up in chat 'why don't we use Cassandra for the next project?' They have no clue who Cassandra is. What department is she in? She's not in the company directory! They then google it, and find out it's a NoSQL database. They can respond to the question with 'A NoSQL database - I haven't used it much, but I would like to get more experience' - sounding like they know more than they do. Or they can spend more time than the allotted 8 hours at work to do things at home, and look more competent.

Imagine this: A senior referee at a soccer/football game notices a handball by the defense inside the box. Whistle. Penalty kick. Imagine if that referee was a junior referee who didn't know the rules quite yet and he has 1 minute to make a decision. He is able to look through his rule book at that point and figure out, hmmm... that's a penalty kick. What are the rules for a penalty kick? Where does the ball go? Where do the other players go? Etc. Etc. He figures this all out then announces it. The fans would think the junior referee is competent as well. (Given nobody knows that he's looking at the rulebook and 1 minute is an allowable period of time to make a decision. Which it is in the new work at home world, but it's not in the old inside-a-meeting world)

But Junior people are missing the human connections they need to succeed in their careers later.

So, senior people want to stay at home, and should fight for it. Junior people want to stay at home, but really shouldn't fight for it. Companies should want everyone back to the office, juniors 5 days, seniors maybe 2-3 days. Enough for seniors to lead the juniors, but also enough so they get more done.

I'm not talking about the 20% of people (of both seniors and juniors) who like stay-at-home because they work less and watch Scooby Doo more. I'm talking about reasons for people who want to be productive to like both environments.

 

[webkit]

Maybe not 20 miles, but WFH does allow employers to recruit from areas with lower cost of living. They can pay lower salaries, while workers can enjoy the same, or possibly a better standard of living. Six figures in SV barely puts you above the poverty line, but elsewhere, you might actually be able to afford to buy a home.

With Apple specifically, they have the shuttles that employees and contractors can use. They also have a tax-deductible commuter benefit that can cover transit fares. There isn't remotely enough parking for every employee at AP, so many employees have to use them. Even if you do find parking, it's a hike from the parking garage to the donut.

My comment was not so much about the potential pros and cons of WFH but rather the "fairness" of compensating one employee more than another (same job, both in-office) because one of them happens to have a longer commute.

 

[Coleman2010]

Let's say there are two people with the exact same job. Person "A" lives a mile away and can walk to work while person "B" lives 20 miles away and has to drive in. You think person B should be compensated more (to cover commuting expenses) than person A even though they have the same job?

Yes

 

[Coleman2010]

Commuting costs should be reimbursed.

 

[bbeagle]

Let's say there are two people with the exact same job. Person "A" lives a mile away and can walk to work while person "B" lives 20 miles away and has to drive in. You think person B should be compensated more (to cover commuting expenses) than person A even though they have the same job?

No.

Say person 'A' is a single guy living at home with his parents, and person 'B' is a single mother struggling with 2 kids. Should person 'B' be given more money? No. The company has no responsibility with your personal life, commute, alimony or child care expenses. The company should pay the same for the same job without taking into account those things.

Now, regarding the person 'A' who walks, and the person 'B' who commutes 20 minutes.... if the person 'B' wrapped their car in your company logo and was advertising for your company on the 20 minute drive, maybe then you could give person 'B' more money.

 

[bbeagle]

Commuting costs should be reimbursed.

So if Person 'A' walks for 20 minutes with a commuting cost of $0, Person 'B' drives for 20 minutes with a commuting cost of $6, and Person 'C' takes a helicopter for 20 minutes with a commuting cost of $2000, all 3 should be reimbursed for their commuting costs?

 

[webkit]

Yes

Let's again say there are two people with the same job who work in-office. Person "A" lives a mile away and can walk to work but this location means higher housing costs while person "B" lives 20 miles away where housing costs are lower. If you think person B should be compensated for their higher commuting costs then does that also mean person A should be compensated in some way to cover their higher housing costs for living closer to work? After all, both have higher costs (one in housing, the other in commuting) tied to their work related living locations.

 

[Coleman2010]

Let's again say there are two people with the same job who work in-office. Person "A" lives a mile away and can walk to work but this location means higher housing costs while person "B" lives 20 miles away where housing costs are lower. If you think person B should be compensated for their higher commuting costs then does that also mean person A should be compensated in some way to cover their higher housing costs for living closer to work? After all, both have higher costs (one in housing, the other in commuting) tied to their work related living locations.

If both commute. Both should be reimbursed for it. Or both provided a commute stipend for the same amount.