Apple 'broke law' by pushing out labor-organizing dev

The hot water in which the National Labor Relations Board has been boiling Apple is getting deeper, as the US workers' rights body has issued yet another unfair labor practice complaint alleging the constructive termination of developer and labor activist Cher Scarlett in 2021.  Scarlett played a central role in the #AppleToo …

[Guy de Loimbard]

Why the need to be so harsh on employees

Is this type of behaviour typical in US companies?

If there are rules and regulations in place, why or how do the employers think said rules don't apply to them?

I'm on the wrong side of the pond, but I really don't get this abject hostility shown to the very staff that help the organisation's deliver their product or service.

[big_D]

Re: Why the need to be so harsh on employees

Because the only thing that matters is maximum profit for shareholders. If the fines are cheaper than doing the right thing, and there are no other consequences, they'll keep doing it, until the fines add up to more than doing things correctly.

[NoneSuch]

Poor Apple

Shall we start a GoFundMe page for them. With only a sixty-five billion cash in the bank, it'll be hard for them to pay out a fair court settlement.

[Meeker Morgan]

Is this type of behaviour typical in US companies .. you ask?

In general no, but historically yes.

It is how we have such laws in the first place.

[ecofeco]

Re: Why the need to be so harsh on employees

Is this type of behaviour typical in US companies?

Yes and worse.

[Alan Brown]

Re: Why the need to be so harsh on employees

Yes

Because money, and no personal accountability apply to senior staff

A few C-level execs facing criminal charges or large personal fines would stop a large amount of this stuff - cold

[big_D]

Above the law?

Why do so many companies think they are above the law?

I guess, because the fines are so small, in comparison to the money they can save by flaunting the law, that they just don't care...

Maybe we should start making the board and the CEO personally liable for such actions. If they had to pay fines out of their own pockets or they face prison for violating workers rights or covering up major incidents, it would make them rethink their practices.

I don't think it will bring any change, if there is no personal liability at the top.

[Unknown Error Code]

Re: Above the law?

Personal fines won't work either - the responsible managers will just get a larger bonus to make up for it.

The only thing that will make them think before acting is the risk of jail time.

[rafff]

Re: Above the law?

"The only thing that will make them think before acting is the risk of jail time."

And being banned for life from any board level or public office. The public office bit is important because of the typical career path of top execs.

[Alan Brown]

Re: Above the law?

"I guess, because the fines are so small"

In a lot of cases they weren't small when originally set but inflation made them that way

This is why the EU sets a bunch of fine maximums (including GDPR) as a percentage of TURNOVER - which is a lot harder to fraudulently minimise than profits

[John Brown (no body)]

"we strongly disagree..."

"we strongly disagree with these claims and will continue to share the facts at the hearing."

Well of course you do! I disagree with how much Apple charges for a iPhone, and I'll disagree all the way to the court for taking one from the local Apple Store without paying because I "strongly disagree with the price" What's that yer 'onour? Disagreeing with the law doesn't mean I'm in the right? :-)

[MachDiamond]

A dim view

I think I'd run into issues with management if I were conducting a wage survey at my place of employment (if I were not self-employed) along with similar sorts of activities. I didn't read if any of this was done during working hours using company assets.

If you are working somewhere and believe you are being mistreated and under-paid, quit. Find another job somewhere else and respect any agreements you made with your former employer. When I worked for others, I always wanted to do good work and contribute to the company, but the last place I worked, I left for the same reasons above. I felt mistreated, untrusted and under-paid. I also felt the company had a scarcity of Adult Supervision which lead to dangerous situations regarding safety. I left and they could take their request for an exit interview and shovel it. I tried to talk with "management" beforehand but I couldn't take them by the ear and make them listen and respond. Time to move on and this is why I don't have any sympathy for people that get sacked for thinking that policies don't apply to them.

[Andy the ex-Brit]

Re: A dim view

"Time to move on and this is why I don't have any sympathy for people that get sacked for thinking that policies don't apply to them."

Illegal policies, like illegal contracts, do not in fact apply to them.

[MachDiamond]

Re: A dim view

"Illegal policies, like illegal contracts, do not in fact apply to them."

And how much do the lawyers cost to fight that sort of thing? If you are presented with a dodgy contract, walk away. Don't take the position and bitch about it later.

[Alan Brown]

Re: A dim view

Funnily enough, such lawyers may cost upfront but using lawfare as a way of shutting people down in these cases usually results in treble damages (if not more - and judges have a long list of ways to increase damages before applying the wilfulness treble) and can result in the lawyers involved facing court sanctions

Bringing an illegal policy to court as your reason to resist claims is a fast way of getting disbarred

[Alan Brown]

Re: A dim view

It is absolutely illegal - no arguments, and jail terms included - for company managers to prohibit employees discussing wages on company time

A USA manager who tried to enforce such a company rule faces the risk of FEDERAL prison time - but it's seldome applied and they're usually completely unwaware of the law

There is personal accountability (if pushed) but it's not at the right levels (It should be a criminal offence to sign off on such terms in the company handbook, falling on those who authorised the illegal terms)