Hacker News Reader

Comment by illuminerdy | Hacker News Reader

I can't read the article because paywall, but I did see one group of Apple employees saying that forcing them come back to the office, even part-time was somehow anti-diversity. They'll say anything to get what they feel they deserve.

It's amazing how entitled some people are.

View on HN

> It's amazing how entitled some people are.

How are they entitled? Employment is a business deal. Apple has something the employees want, money, and the employees have something Apple wants, their labor and know-how.

These folks have other options and both they and Apple know it. There's absolutely nothing entitled about using your talent to negotiate an employment situation that suits your lifestyle.

>These folks have other options and both they and Apple know it.

You can have the most talented folks in the world but if your working culture is not productive, it means nothing.

Apple has decided that a return to office should increase productivity. It's likely that they've collected enough data to make this decision.

Also, I'm sure Apple has calculated that some people will leave but they're ok with that. They probably want people to quit anyways so they don't have to pay layoff costs.

Based on reports, Apple said nothing about a desire to "increase productivity", but as per Tim Cook, this move is to preserve the "in-person collaboration that is so essential to our culture."

That's a nice way of saying productivity.

You think Apple would come out and say their productivity has decreased, therefore they need people to return to office?

It'd be a huge PR nightmare.

Honestly, I think it's more of a polite way of saying that Apple is a very secrecy-focused organization and they are most comfortable having employees behind lockdown to minimize the possibility of leaks. Regardless of productivity.

When you agreed to be employed at the company, it was under specific terms. Those terms were that you would come to work (physically) X days a week to do your job. You don't just get to change that whenever you feel like it. They're trying to take advantage of a situation that has ended because they feel they can.

That's why they're entitled.

A $2.7T business dictating terms to labor isn’t entitlement? Without workers, Apple is a trademark and Wikipedia page.

What’s a word where workplace dystopia meets Stockholm Syndrome?

> What’s a word where workplace dystopia meets Stockholm Syndrome?

The New American Dream?

I saw someone was bragging about how quiet quitting wasn't a thing for them because they entered the workforce early enough to be able to lock themselves into a similar position via career, mortgage, furniture, family obligations etc...

Quite frankly, it's incredibly dystopic to think of Life in those terms; I'm sad to say that for most that is what 'growing up' and 'making it' now.

> What’s a word where dystopia meets Stockholm Syndrome?

I laughed so hard, I spit out my coffee reading this line.

> A $2.7T business dictating terms to labor isn’t entitlement?

Um...you mean the terms under which the labor originally agreed to work for? How would that be "dictating" when it was literally what they agreed to?

Also, I don't know if you know this, but employers generally have the right to decide the basic terms of how their employees do their jobs. If the employees don't like how the employer wants them to do the job, they are not being held hostage. They can leave anytime.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com