I have followed John for years and listened to many, many hours of his podcast, yet in 2021 he seems to have developed (or intensified) a grumpy, mocking, “employees are so entitled,” pro-boss strand to his writing. I’m sad to see it and not sure where it is coming from.
In this case, whenever he was someone else's salaried employee, Apple was never one of his employers. So nothing he knows of employment there is first-hand.
“They do this, in part, because they give a shit about their employees, but also because it’s good business.“ Say it louder for the people in the back!
Apple gives a shit about the happiness of their employees only up to the point where it would negatively affect their products and their product schedule. I know that's not as snappy to say loud for "the people in the back", whoever they are, but it's far more honest.
I can’t really think of a time in 17 years that I have vehemently disagreed with John Gruber. But he is so wrong with this take that he’s his own Jackass of the Week.
I don't get it. Apple is wanting 3 days of on campus work and 2 days of work at home if feasible. Seems like a reasonable request by your boss. The petition is to have more remote work. Apple is a bully because they said no?
Imagine if firefighters, nurses and doctors decided that they want to work remotely. What if teachers decided that, now after a year of remote learning, that they want to continue this further (as if young school aged children's education and development hasn't been hampered enough) and send out a plea or petition to continue remote learning further.
Certainly employers need to hear out legitimate issues confronting their employees, but ultimately they have to do what they think is right for the company. There is no inherent right of an employee to work at home.
So it is reasonable to assume by your comment, that It depends on the work you do. If you run one of the most secretive company andmake products that are copied by rival companies throughout the world (and have had ideas publicized before release), then it would seem reasonable for the company to have you do your programing in house. If you do tech support, I think Apple lets you do that from home, but they aren't the ones complaining.
Apple is assuming everyone still wants or can afford to live near campus or their local office. The pandemic changed all that and some employees want full remote because of the freedom it gives them to not have to commute two hours a day or live near the office at all. Some want it for accessibility reasons. Some think it will lead to more diversity and inclusive hiring practices. Not every aspiring programmer or engineer wants to move to SF or Austin, even if they love the company.
Apple is paranoid, so I would think that you are involved in mission critical work, they would like you to do that on site? They have programmer steal work to sell off to other companies.
Apple employs 140,000 people. Most of them are not involved in the type of mission critical work you are thinking of. Just because they need to work on site doesn't mean everyone else does. A one size fits all policy ignores the vast diversity of employee's experiences these last 16 months.
There is no inherent right of an employee to work only 40 hours a week, or have 2 weeks’ paid vacation, or be paid for regular breaks. Yet here we are. Amazing
There was a thread on LinkedIn, started by the CEO of Gravity Payments, about this topic. They surveyed their staff on where they wanted to work, took that information and allowed the staff to work where they chose. It was a short post, just that information.
There were over 2000 responses, many positive with a great discussion about what may be lost or gained from remote work. The negative responses compared the decision to letting a child decide if they wanted to go to school or not or castigated him for not provide a more nuanced post, taking into account more than the "wants of your employees". Interesting that the negative responses were from C-Suite members and those who were older.
I believe if employees are 'forced' to go to an office with no choice, they will find an employer who allows for flexibility. I know that is happening at my former employer but they have not backed down, yet.
Keep in mind that Gruber hasn't ever worked at Apple. Everything he gets is at best, second hand. He does know a lot about a lot and he gets a lot right. But in this he's *also* many many years removed from having to work for a company in an office as a salaried employee.
One thing you didn't mention is that California is an at-will employment state. I hate that name for "you as a worker have no right to collective power/rights" employment. But even thought that's the name and for many of us "at will employment" feels like something you'll never think of again, I think, like that voice in your head, it's *meant* to be something you never consciously think of again. when a company makes a decision that negatively affects you they say "it's just business", but if you quit or even cause the company some kind of inconvenience or setback because of your absence they guilt you, they pressure you, they can even threaten you (albeit not directly in front of others) because both they and you know you cannot respond with "I'm just your employee, it's just business".
At-will employment is most certainly not reflexive. Individual employees never got together to bargain for that status. Ironic.
One common thread I’m getting from this article and other WFH related articles is that front line workers are better at adapting to unsolicited change and/or recognizing the need to change than upper level executives. It’s not that executives hate change but they want it to happen on their terms. However sometimes in life outside circumstances force you to do a course correction and adapt (ie working from home due to a pandemic).
Also, I fear what happens when one gets what might have been a “dream job” at what might be considered one of the best employers in the world, and then is old that they should leave if they don’t like it. Like, where does one go from there?
Disclosure: I have been a supervisor or manager for more than 25 years, and a senior manager at one site in a Corporate environment for the last 10 years.
Speaking generally, I find managers and employees make a particular mistake routinely, in assuming if they don't see change or improvement, they approve of, their concerns or requests went unheeded.
Your concerns about Gruber's post carry some of the same flaws. You answer statements you characterize as bullying: "...I don’t think you have to be a burn-it-all-down raging anti-capitalist to find this corporate sycophantic reasoning a bit off-putting. Would somebody please think of the $4 billion campus?!? Tellingly, he disguises this disdain for employee autonomy with a classic tactic: the ‘culture fit’ argument:..." with bullying of your own - "he disguises this disdain for employee autonomy..."
I think you'd be better off calling out bullying without including similar tactics.
Maybe Gruber was too direct, I'm not sure.
Back to the point at the center: we don't know if there has been ground work laid by Cook and the Apple Management team prior to the "back to onsite work three days a week in September" memoranda or not. Rather, some people do know but I don't.
I agree it is important, pivotal actually, for good organizations to include employee, Teams & Individual, voices in their decision processes; you clearly agreed in your post as well, including the understanding this doesn't mean people will get what they want.
I personally, prefer people work onsite more and offsite less. I'm in a very different business than Apple, but I find it very difficult to see tasks get completed (fully and completely) without Team members having the ability to regularly overlap in person. A conversation, in my experience is ten times more effective than written communication as a tool to align goals, close a circle, summarize next steps, etc. Email and written communication are a necessary review & summary that cement plans. No form of virtual conference or even one on one call is nearly as effective as in person; there are so many pitfalls in virtual, even beyond tech concerns (which are an issue as well.)
If you know, Apple Management did not listen to employees let us know; I agree that would be a mistake. However, don't assume this employee communication signifies the same; sometimes the attempted bullying isn't coming from the direction we might assume.
The company I work for just made the decision to close its offices because we couldn’t justify the expense with so many people working remotely. I’ve personally worked remotely for over a decade, and wouldn’t want to go back to a daily office job. Some people wanted to go back to an office setting (and don’t want to HAVE to work from home), and others didn’t. Many of those who work remotely are saddened by losing their “home base” — a place we *could* gather when we traveled for meetings. It’s important to have a home as a company. But it’s hard to justify maintaining a space just for those occasions when it might be nice to have meetings in person. Solutions such as WeWork don’t really provide that same sense of “home” or “our space.”
This is a complex issue that doesn’t have easy answers.
Gruber cannot get through his thick Apple-worshipping head that it’s a company first. It’s an entity that exists to maximize profit. If it can get away with making life harder for its employees in order to maximize shareholder value, that’s exactly what it will do. If employees don’t push for better conditions it simply won’t happen. He loves to worship their every decision but all that allure is just more marketing. They’re not magical. They’re a company. If Microsoft employees had a letter like this I’m sure he’d be boosting them.
I have followed John for years and listened to many, many hours of his podcast, yet in 2021 he seems to have developed (or intensified) a grumpy, mocking, “employees are so entitled,” pro-boss strand to his writing. I’m sad to see it and not sure where it is coming from.
Which is absolutely savage of him given that he literally has no boss and hasn’t as far as I’ve been following him (since 2006).
In this case, whenever he was someone else's salaried employee, Apple was never one of his employers. So nothing he knows of employment there is first-hand.
What a banger of a post this is. Holy shit.
“They do this, in part, because they give a shit about their employees, but also because it’s good business.“ Say it louder for the people in the back!
Apple gives a shit about the happiness of their employees only up to the point where it would negatively affect their products and their product schedule. I know that's not as snappy to say loud for "the people in the back", whoever they are, but it's far more honest.
Where are the Daring Fireball offices again?
I can’t really think of a time in 17 years that I have vehemently disagreed with John Gruber. But he is so wrong with this take that he’s his own Jackass of the Week.
I agree 100% here.
I don't get it. Apple is wanting 3 days of on campus work and 2 days of work at home if feasible. Seems like a reasonable request by your boss. The petition is to have more remote work. Apple is a bully because they said no?
Imagine if firefighters, nurses and doctors decided that they want to work remotely. What if teachers decided that, now after a year of remote learning, that they want to continue this further (as if young school aged children's education and development hasn't been hampered enough) and send out a plea or petition to continue remote learning further.
Certainly employers need to hear out legitimate issues confronting their employees, but ultimately they have to do what they think is right for the company. There is no inherent right of an employee to work at home.
> Imagine if firefighters, nurses and doctors decided that they want to work remotely.
That is a logical fallacy known as "false equivalence". You can't put out a fire remotely, but you can program or do phone support from your home.
So it is reasonable to assume by your comment, that It depends on the work you do. If you run one of the most secretive company andmake products that are copied by rival companies throughout the world (and have had ideas publicized before release), then it would seem reasonable for the company to have you do your programing in house. If you do tech support, I think Apple lets you do that from home, but they aren't the ones complaining.
Apple is assuming everyone still wants or can afford to live near campus or their local office. The pandemic changed all that and some employees want full remote because of the freedom it gives them to not have to commute two hours a day or live near the office at all. Some want it for accessibility reasons. Some think it will lead to more diversity and inclusive hiring practices. Not every aspiring programmer or engineer wants to move to SF or Austin, even if they love the company.
Apple is paranoid, so I would think that you are involved in mission critical work, they would like you to do that on site? They have programmer steal work to sell off to other companies.
Apple employs 140,000 people. Most of them are not involved in the type of mission critical work you are thinking of. Just because they need to work on site doesn't mean everyone else does. A one size fits all policy ignores the vast diversity of employee's experiences these last 16 months.
There is no inherent right of an employee to work only 40 hours a week, or have 2 weeks’ paid vacation, or be paid for regular breaks. Yet here we are. Amazing
In some line of work like mine, there is no 40 hour week. We work until the job is done. That's the job, and it can't be done any other way.
There was a thread on LinkedIn, started by the CEO of Gravity Payments, about this topic. They surveyed their staff on where they wanted to work, took that information and allowed the staff to work where they chose. It was a short post, just that information.
There were over 2000 responses, many positive with a great discussion about what may be lost or gained from remote work. The negative responses compared the decision to letting a child decide if they wanted to go to school or not or castigated him for not provide a more nuanced post, taking into account more than the "wants of your employees". Interesting that the negative responses were from C-Suite members and those who were older.
I believe if employees are 'forced' to go to an office with no choice, they will find an employer who allows for flexibility. I know that is happening at my former employer but they have not backed down, yet.
Keep in mind that Gruber hasn't ever worked at Apple. Everything he gets is at best, second hand. He does know a lot about a lot and he gets a lot right. But in this he's *also* many many years removed from having to work for a company in an office as a salaried employee.
One thing you didn't mention is that California is an at-will employment state. I hate that name for "you as a worker have no right to collective power/rights" employment. But even thought that's the name and for many of us "at will employment" feels like something you'll never think of again, I think, like that voice in your head, it's *meant* to be something you never consciously think of again. when a company makes a decision that negatively affects you they say "it's just business", but if you quit or even cause the company some kind of inconvenience or setback because of your absence they guilt you, they pressure you, they can even threaten you (albeit not directly in front of others) because both they and you know you cannot respond with "I'm just your employee, it's just business".
At-will employment is most certainly not reflexive. Individual employees never got together to bargain for that status. Ironic.
Great piece. The problem of top-level management not listening seems almost to be systemic in the American workplace.
One common thread I’m getting from this article and other WFH related articles is that front line workers are better at adapting to unsolicited change and/or recognizing the need to change than upper level executives. It’s not that executives hate change but they want it to happen on their terms. However sometimes in life outside circumstances force you to do a course correction and adapt (ie working from home due to a pandemic).
Also, I fear what happens when one gets what might have been a “dream job” at what might be considered one of the best employers in the world, and then is old that they should leave if they don’t like it. Like, where does one go from there?
Disclosure: I have been a supervisor or manager for more than 25 years, and a senior manager at one site in a Corporate environment for the last 10 years.
Speaking generally, I find managers and employees make a particular mistake routinely, in assuming if they don't see change or improvement, they approve of, their concerns or requests went unheeded.
Your concerns about Gruber's post carry some of the same flaws. You answer statements you characterize as bullying: "...I don’t think you have to be a burn-it-all-down raging anti-capitalist to find this corporate sycophantic reasoning a bit off-putting. Would somebody please think of the $4 billion campus?!? Tellingly, he disguises this disdain for employee autonomy with a classic tactic: the ‘culture fit’ argument:..." with bullying of your own - "he disguises this disdain for employee autonomy..."
I think you'd be better off calling out bullying without including similar tactics.
Maybe Gruber was too direct, I'm not sure.
Back to the point at the center: we don't know if there has been ground work laid by Cook and the Apple Management team prior to the "back to onsite work three days a week in September" memoranda or not. Rather, some people do know but I don't.
I agree it is important, pivotal actually, for good organizations to include employee, Teams & Individual, voices in their decision processes; you clearly agreed in your post as well, including the understanding this doesn't mean people will get what they want.
I personally, prefer people work onsite more and offsite less. I'm in a very different business than Apple, but I find it very difficult to see tasks get completed (fully and completely) without Team members having the ability to regularly overlap in person. A conversation, in my experience is ten times more effective than written communication as a tool to align goals, close a circle, summarize next steps, etc. Email and written communication are a necessary review & summary that cement plans. No form of virtual conference or even one on one call is nearly as effective as in person; there are so many pitfalls in virtual, even beyond tech concerns (which are an issue as well.)
If you know, Apple Management did not listen to employees let us know; I agree that would be a mistake. However, don't assume this employee communication signifies the same; sometimes the attempted bullying isn't coming from the direction we might assume.
The company I work for just made the decision to close its offices because we couldn’t justify the expense with so many people working remotely. I’ve personally worked remotely for over a decade, and wouldn’t want to go back to a daily office job. Some people wanted to go back to an office setting (and don’t want to HAVE to work from home), and others didn’t. Many of those who work remotely are saddened by losing their “home base” — a place we *could* gather when we traveled for meetings. It’s important to have a home as a company. But it’s hard to justify maintaining a space just for those occasions when it might be nice to have meetings in person. Solutions such as WeWork don’t really provide that same sense of “home” or “our space.”
This is a complex issue that doesn’t have easy answers.
fuck they better use the "Stadium Event" signs around 👖🏈 on 280 for when the spaceship will be filled.
and fuck just flip the office building into apts, you'll pull way more than $4B.
if cupertino didn't suck I'd live there 🛸
It is so wild that he makes $9,500 a week on site sponsorships lol
Gruber cannot get through his thick Apple-worshipping head that it’s a company first. It’s an entity that exists to maximize profit. If it can get away with making life harder for its employees in order to maximize shareholder value, that’s exactly what it will do. If employees don’t push for better conditions it simply won’t happen. He loves to worship their every decision but all that allure is just more marketing. They’re not magical. They’re a company. If Microsoft employees had a letter like this I’m sure he’d be boosting them.