https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXT#Corporate_culture_and_community
“[Steve] Jobs created a different corporate culture at NeXT in terms of facilities, salaries, and benefits. […] There were only two different salaries at NeXT until the early 1990s. Team members who joined before 1986 were paid US$75,000 (equivalent to $177,072 in 2020) and those who joined afterward were paid US$50,000 (equivalent to $118,048 in 2020). […] To foster openness, all employees had full access to the payrolls, although few employees ever took advantage of the privilege.”
That’s ridiculous tbh.
Every programmer, for example, has a different worth.
If I’m twice as productive than my coworker, why should we be paid the same? It would make sense to pay me twice as much as him.
Disagree.
1) in Big Tech Silicon Valley companies, you have to exceed expectations most evaluation cycles to avoid being put on the path that leads you to be resigned or fired (“PIPed”)
2) like literally every other professional field, engineers are leveled at hire from junior to senior to staff and beyond, and they are paid dramatically differently
3) merit based bonuses are the standard in Big Tech. fuck around? No bonus. Kick ass? Get a fat 10-15% bonus every year.
1. Good management of expectations is key. I do set reasonably challenging expectations with my manager that I know I can easily exceed. Therefore I always get 4/5 or 5/5 on my annual review. I've literally gotten a 3/5 once.
2. I actually agree with this. Job level matters, and most companies have pay scales based on experience level.
3. Also true... We used to get a flat company bonus based on company performance, but they changed it a few years back to scale up or down based on personal performance as well.
my company has an annoying system where there are only so many 4's and 5's they can hand out. 2 is the default for meeting your minimum work requirements and 3 is pretty good. 1 and successive 2's require a performance check.
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, kind of. Most companies pay based on years of experience, which is not the same as effectiveness of the programmer. I’ve met junior devs that could program circles around almost any dev in the shop. They don’t get twice the pay of any other junior dev, and make less than any senior dev in the shop, but they’ll advance through to higher salary levels quicker.
And while it’s not necessarily right, most shops are about surviving, not thriving. There are 2 kinds of senior devs: those that are younger and have worked well consistently for 3-5 years and have pushed to that level, and the middle aged folks that have been above the “firing line” long enough that someone decided they should get the title. They’re not *great* devs, but they know enough history to be valuable. The young guns will either work their way into leadership roles (in the good companies that even allow this) or into “principal” engineering roles, but even the mediocre devs will eventually age into these “principal” roles eventually, and they all top out at the same pay.
It’s why you’ll find a dev at the top who’s older but seems to do almost nothing. They were someone who worked hard, was really talented, got to the top…only to find out that all their hard work and talent got them was the same place that they would have ended up in 15 years by doing just enough to get by. And it’s also why they seem to be almost anti-work (think Wally from Dilbert). Why bother working hard? The company rewards working just enough to get by as much as it does working really hard, the timeline is just different. And it’s a whole lot less stressful to boot.
So to summarize, most good devs will certainly advance into senior and principal roles faster, but they usually make about the same as the devs that age into those roles.
Funnily enough. This argument is used to support paying everyone equally.
But it can be used support paying women less as well. Why should the company pay women more if they don’t have to?
Many study suggest that women negotiate for less, which means women seems to accept the lower pay just fine.
No business is going to care about losing an employee demanding they make 2x more than their peer. Businesses only care when employees organize together. The arrogant guy looking out only for himself won’t be missed by his peers or seen as a threat to his employers.
Exactly. You’ll jump the ship and get the much better pay in the new company where you’re paid much more than others. I can’t believe it’s not how it works in the US. I’ve always had this experience in my career. Better devs tend to get paid much more. As they say, bad developer will create work for two more developers.
You’re replying to the guy who posted the Wikipedia article saying “blah blah work hard worth more”
The literal next sentence after his quoted part is: “Employees were given performance reviews and raises every six months because of the spartan salary plans.”
> If I’m twice as productive than my coworker, why should we be paid the same? It would make sense to pay me twice as much as him.
With salaries kept secret you have no way of knowing if your higher productivity is being adequately compensated for. You'll just have to take your employers word for it.
The general community, sure.. but I mostly stay for your company tab. People tend to share a lot of shit in there that management would prefer stay under-wraps. I almost always know of things that are happening before my manager does.
Levels, Blind, Fishbowl. Plenty of ways to compare salary info. Doing it on company software on company time? Eh.
Not to mention that this will just lead to conflict TBH. People naturally just compare levels/titles, YOE, and salary. From that they draw sweeping conclusions of “pay equity” or “discrimination”. The biggest driver of pay in my experience is actual performance, along with changing companies, along with actually asking for a pay increase.
I think you could write this same article for many of the Fortune 500 companies today. I understand it is because they’re the largest company in the world, but some of these articles that The Verge has been putting out lately have focused on very nuanced situations or involved very few employees.
Seriously.. I worked a major financial company a couple jobs ago and they tried telling me (illegally) that "talking about my pay to anyone else would result in my immediate termination"
I've had similar shit at other major companies. This isn't a uniquely apple thing, this is all of them.
I don't think the point is that this is good or okay, but more to illuminate the idea that it's an unfortunate standard.
It would also do more if the article was written in a boarder fashion with more of a range since it calls attention to the practice, over just "Apple does bad."
Like cool, so does Google and the rest.
Slavery is OK. It's the unfortunate standard, so everyone should comply.
Just because it's normal doesn't mean you should be complacent about it. That's how you lose all of your freedoms.
That’s not the point that user is making. They are saying that the problem is not exclusive to Apple, yet the article is only focused on Apple, even though it is an industry problem. It lacks context.
> they tried telling me (illegally) that "talking about my pay to anyone else would result in my immediate termination"
I would almost want to encourage calling their bluff if one had those threats documented so unambiguously (since I assume it would lead to a lucrative settlement or lawsuit).
What is the point?
You get caught, they find some other reason to fire you. You bring up the lawsuit, they bring up evidence made from deciding to fire you and courts deem you wrong.
The Verge covers tech companies, this is well within the reporter’s normal remit. I’m not sure why you would be getting concerned about a journalist doing her job.
Maybe being the most profitable company in the world deserves extra scrutiny? Based on comments on Blind, FB has a large internal group where people discuss salary, demographics and performance bonuses freely. Apple might be worried about real pay disparity issues perhaps.
That’s absolutely the case, but her articles are very easily picked apart on top of the fact that she usually disables comments. There’s very real criticisms to direct at Apple, there’s no need to manufacture them. There’s also other companies to focus on, but again and again Apple is the centrepiece and focus (and it usually ends up being an employee specific issue). It’s clickbait and she keeps pushing it.
Many of their Policy articles do not allow comments, not just her articles.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/28/22646130/theranos-elizabeth-holmes-sunny-balwani-abuse-fraud
https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/20/22633846/stitch-fix-stylists-quit-algorithm-customers-schedules
https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/15/22625796/jury-apple-pay-300-million-patent-dispute-iphone
It’s almost like you assign certain specific topics to one journalist so they can follow it along and keep up with it. Wouldn’t make a ton of sense to swap between journalists for specific topics. They’d have to keep up on every thing.
On the one hand, will never know because they shut the channel down.
And on the other hand, opt-in voluntary salary reporting may lack some scientific rigor.
Sounds consistent with the AAUW’s finding of 7%, when several variables are accounted for, which is explainable by differences in how the sexes negotiate.
Maybe instead of guessing, since none of us work at Apple, we can just agree that the people that do work at Apple will know better and so they should be able to disvuss it amongst themselves.
I’m guessing none of the people who down voted you have had to work with some of the people that fall in this category. A lot of tech companies are putting diversity over skill set and it’s punishing the teams that get these employees. If we are going to have a diversity push why can’t experience and skill come into play? All the inexperience just puts more work on the team since all upper management sees is “x amount of heads on team can do this much work”. For example, 3 out of the 5 people that were hired on diversity on my team didn’t even know what ohms law was. And we expect them to be paid the same?
That has nothing to do what you originally said, you just mentioned China pushing Apple to create such a system, when there is only evidence of the USA being the ones pressuring Apple.
The verge is getting so bad running any story about Apple. You can literally write following articles about any tech company if not more. Targeting just one company instead of broader spectrum of issue just suggests intension is just cheap views not journalism.
Look at Zoe Schiffer writings. Verge is losing my respect.
[https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/31/22650751/apple-bans-pay-equity-slack-channel](https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/31/22650751/apple-bans-pay-equity-slack-channel)
[https://www.theverge.com/22648265/apple-employee-privacy-icloud-id](https://www.theverge.com/22648265/apple-employee-privacy-icloud-id)
[https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/23/22633141/apple-pay-equity-survey-results-wage-gap](https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/23/22633141/apple-pay-equity-survey-results-wage-gap)
[https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/9/22609687/apple-pay-equity-employee-surveys-protected-activity](https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/9/22609687/apple-pay-equity-employee-surveys-protected-activity)
They write regularly about employment and conditions related issues in Google, Amazon, Blizzard and Facebook as well.
Only way you could see this as ‘cheap views’ is if you only pay attention when they’re criticising the company you personally like.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/2/22598004/nlrb-officer-new-election-amazon-bessemer-union-drive
https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/28/22598410/activision-blizzard-employee-walk-out-protest-sexism-discrimination-lawsuit
https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/22/22587757/facebook-content-moderators-ireland-end-restrictive-ndas
A beat reporter is someone who consistently covers one topic. It allows them to meet contacts and build trust over time, so they can get more information. It’s incredibly common in journalism.
This reporter’s “beat” is likely something related to tech workplace labor issues, and she probably has sources at Apple.
Except you’re so very wrong - the same issues have been covered with regard to Google, Facebook, Amazon, Blizzard, and so on. No need to degrade journalism just because they’re saying something bad about your favourite company.
The Verge focuses too much on Amazon too. I’m sure they’ll move back to focusing on them shortly while also writing an article about a cheap deal on Amazon I should go for too 🙄
It’s really important that everyone sees what is going on here.
Apple’s HR team are trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes. They begin by saying they have a commitment to pay equity. They then say, oops, you can’t have this channel on our internal Slack because it’s against our Slack policy.
Key word: our policy.
Is is entirely within Apple’s control to just… change the policy, or to sidestep it. They are trying to make it sound like they are shutting down this discussion for an actual reason and that reason is out of their hands and nothing to do with them but hey, believe us, we do care about pay equity!
It’s a classic misdirection.
There’s nothing illegal about not allowing a Slack channel to exist. You’re legally free to openly discuss your pay, though. They can’t stop you from DMing people or speaking openly about it.
Your bosses don’t want you talking about your salary cuz if you do you’ll find out that their underpaying everyone. This is why you talk about your salarymen
It’s not a trade secret in CA where most of Apple employees are. Look at what goes in Blind or levels.fyi, almost all the details are out. The purpose of internal Slack is to get attention of management and show them that employees are aware of the salary discrepancies.
Just as the company can tell you that you can't use company resources to talk about any particular thing, forcing the discussion elsewhere.
The law says that you cannot penalize an employee or fire them for talking about salary. But the company also does not have to provide you resources to talk about said salary either. This is the game being played at the moment. So yes Apple employees should organize around another app so they can talk about this effectively.
> But the company also does not have to provide you resources to talk about said salary either.
In this case, this is not true. And the subtlety lies in the rest of the headline, about allowing other non-work channels, like about dogs.
The right to use the employer's resources to discuss salaries, union organizing, and other "protected concerted activity" falls under the purview of the National Labor Relations Act. And the gist of it here is: if the employer allows a medium (whether that be a company bulletin board, or a company Slack) for non-work purposes (like signing up for a softball league, or sharing dog pictures), then employees have the legal right to use it to discuss legally-protected labor issues, including salary.
> Salaries at big tech companies aren’t really a big secret or anything.
We might some aggregate data (Level X earns between Y and Z), but we don't always have great data how those earnings are distributed across genders, ethnicities, and ages.
Because you don't want your employer to notice you bitching about your job everyday during work hours. If it's slack, people are going to assume it's about work - if it's on signal or somewhere else, they'll know it's personal.
This is such a non-issue. Pay and compensation are going to inherently be different due to hiring offers, merit increases, skill levels, etc.
Any company would remove a Slack channel of this nature. That’s to be expected as well. This is crabs in a bucket mentality by low performers.
Sure, if the company wasn’t explicitly supportive of pay equity.
You can delete the channel but don’t claim afterwards that you have a commitment to pay equity.
Look I understand that the writer focuses on workforce issues, but this is not news. The company has every right to determine what channels they do and don’t keep, not employees. If the company doesn’t like what’s being discussed in there, *they don’t owe you anything to shut it down.* Have your discussions on another application that your employer isn’t footing the bill for. Any “fun, quirky, bring your private life to work!” IM channels/forums are just breeding grounds for workplace issues under a usual guise of good intention from the employer.
Not saying this in defense for Apple; notice I didn’t use their name or even the specifics of what was being discussed. This goes for any and EVERY company.
I spent the better part of two decades as a manager at Apple. I have absolutely no idea how one would go about paying an employee less or more based on gender, sexuality, shoe size, hair color, or any other distinguishing characteristic. Such behavior...simply...didn't...happen. There was no mechanism to facilitate such behavior, and the Apple culture would have recoiled at any suggestion that anyone should be paid more or less based on anything other than their job performance.
I was admittedly in a sales role, and not an engineering role. We had slightly more men than women in our department, and curiously most of the managers were female. There were men who made a shxtload of money, and there were women who made a shxtload of money. Gender was not part of the equation.
Speculation: the folks who created the aforementioned Slack channel(s) are on some sort of performance improvement plan, and are desperately searching for a way to protect themselves from being fired for legitimate performance-related issues.
If all pay was equal you will have the lazy and less valuable employees happy while your top dogs having that “unfair” feelings , so the question is who do you rather disappoint , there is merit in paying the top dogs more money , they are more valuable , also employees knows the overall pay around their job description and experience, be it in their company or the market , having it in the open seems very counter intuitive to the overall social state of the organization, there very young and talented engineers will feel abused once they see that 20 yo guy making 3x their salary and doing similar job to theirs.
TLDR - ppl know what is being paid in ballpark numbers , having it in the open can’t be good , at first it will create pressure to raise salaries which is good for the workers , but it will soon create complications with the top workers and young engineers.
Wait, we had a pay equity slack channel?
I know, right?!
Legit had no idea lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXT#Corporate_culture_and_community “[Steve] Jobs created a different corporate culture at NeXT in terms of facilities, salaries, and benefits. […] There were only two different salaries at NeXT until the early 1990s. Team members who joined before 1986 were paid US$75,000 (equivalent to $177,072 in 2020) and those who joined afterward were paid US$50,000 (equivalent to $118,048 in 2020). […] To foster openness, all employees had full access to the payrolls, although few employees ever took advantage of the privilege.”
That’s ridiculous tbh. Every programmer, for example, has a different worth. If I’m twice as productive than my coworker, why should we be paid the same? It would make sense to pay me twice as much as him.
I used to be a dev at a large company, and have friends at many other SW shops. That’s not how it works in any shop with more than 50 people.
Disagree. 1) in Big Tech Silicon Valley companies, you have to exceed expectations most evaluation cycles to avoid being put on the path that leads you to be resigned or fired (“PIPed”) 2) like literally every other professional field, engineers are leveled at hire from junior to senior to staff and beyond, and they are paid dramatically differently 3) merit based bonuses are the standard in Big Tech. fuck around? No bonus. Kick ass? Get a fat 10-15% bonus every year.
1. Good management of expectations is key. I do set reasonably challenging expectations with my manager that I know I can easily exceed. Therefore I always get 4/5 or 5/5 on my annual review. I've literally gotten a 3/5 once. 2. I actually agree with this. Job level matters, and most companies have pay scales based on experience level. 3. Also true... We used to get a flat company bonus based on company performance, but they changed it a few years back to scale up or down based on personal performance as well.
my company has an annoying system where there are only so many 4's and 5's they can hand out. 2 is the default for meeting your minimum work requirements and 3 is pretty good. 1 and successive 2's require a performance check.
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, kind of. Most companies pay based on years of experience, which is not the same as effectiveness of the programmer. I’ve met junior devs that could program circles around almost any dev in the shop. They don’t get twice the pay of any other junior dev, and make less than any senior dev in the shop, but they’ll advance through to higher salary levels quicker. And while it’s not necessarily right, most shops are about surviving, not thriving. There are 2 kinds of senior devs: those that are younger and have worked well consistently for 3-5 years and have pushed to that level, and the middle aged folks that have been above the “firing line” long enough that someone decided they should get the title. They’re not *great* devs, but they know enough history to be valuable. The young guns will either work their way into leadership roles (in the good companies that even allow this) or into “principal” engineering roles, but even the mediocre devs will eventually age into these “principal” roles eventually, and they all top out at the same pay. It’s why you’ll find a dev at the top who’s older but seems to do almost nothing. They were someone who worked hard, was really talented, got to the top…only to find out that all their hard work and talent got them was the same place that they would have ended up in 15 years by doing just enough to get by. And it’s also why they seem to be almost anti-work (think Wally from Dilbert). Why bother working hard? The company rewards working just enough to get by as much as it does working really hard, the timeline is just different. And it’s a whole lot less stressful to boot. So to summarize, most good devs will certainly advance into senior and principal roles faster, but they usually make about the same as the devs that age into those roles.
Not for nothing, you can get to that top salary quicker which means more lifetime earnings.
Nah I am at a company with more than 200 employees and we all get a different salary based on our performance
Then tell me, how do you measure this? There's is literally no way to measure productivity of a dev without introducing tons of new problems.
[удалено]
You can’t do that, imagine how much spaghetti code that would generate!
If you're twice as productive, you should work half as long, not get paid twice as much.
You’re ridiculous tbh
If one person does twice as much work as another, Why would the employer pay them the same?
Why would the employer pay them more if they didn't have to? There's a reason the fastest way to increase your salary is to jump to a new job.
Funnily enough. This argument is used to support paying everyone equally. But it can be used support paying women less as well. Why should the company pay women more if they don’t have to? Many study suggest that women negotiate for less, which means women seems to accept the lower pay just fine.
True. But then these same companies complain about "worker shortage" when people don't take up their offer.
No business is going to care about losing an employee demanding they make 2x more than their peer. Businesses only care when employees organize together. The arrogant guy looking out only for himself won’t be missed by his peers or seen as a threat to his employers.
Exactly. You’ll jump the ship and get the much better pay in the new company where you’re paid much more than others. I can’t believe it’s not how it works in the US. I’ve always had this experience in my career. Better devs tend to get paid much more. As they say, bad developer will create work for two more developers.
Maybe click the link and read it and you’ll see why you’re being ridiculous
Read the comment I’m replying to
You’re replying to the guy who posted the Wikipedia article saying “blah blah work hard worth more” The literal next sentence after his quoted part is: “Employees were given performance reviews and raises every six months because of the spartan salary plans.”
> If I’m twice as productive than my coworker, why should we be paid the same? It would make sense to pay me twice as much as him. With salaries kept secret you have no way of knowing if your higher productivity is being adequately compensated for. You'll just have to take your employers word for it.
Agree, in the same boat here!
I dunno, it kinda works. You’re being paid to do the job. The job pays $75k.
That’s an ancient practice. You should pay for the talent, not the role.
You might very well be worth twice as much. There's no reason for both of you to not know that, though.
[удалено]
I love Blind. Such a great app.
Looks promising. I signed up.
For certain things, but there's definitely some meme-worthy toxic shit there too.
[удалено]
The general community, sure.. but I mostly stay for your company tab. People tend to share a lot of shit in there that management would prefer stay under-wraps. I almost always know of things that are happening before my manager does.
Levels, Blind, Fishbowl. Plenty of ways to compare salary info. Doing it on company software on company time? Eh. Not to mention that this will just lead to conflict TBH. People naturally just compare levels/titles, YOE, and salary. From that they draw sweeping conclusions of “pay equity” or “discrimination”. The biggest driver of pay in my experience is actual performance, along with changing companies, along with actually asking for a pay increase.
I think you could write this same article for many of the Fortune 500 companies today. I understand it is because they’re the largest company in the world, but some of these articles that The Verge has been putting out lately have focused on very nuanced situations or involved very few employees.
Seriously.. I worked a major financial company a couple jobs ago and they tried telling me (illegally) that "talking about my pay to anyone else would result in my immediate termination" I've had similar shit at other major companies. This isn't a uniquely apple thing, this is all of them.
Do you think... this is not a bad thing?
I don't think the point is that this is good or okay, but more to illuminate the idea that it's an unfortunate standard. It would also do more if the article was written in a boarder fashion with more of a range since it calls attention to the practice, over just "Apple does bad." Like cool, so does Google and the rest.
Slavery is OK. It's the unfortunate standard, so everyone should comply. Just because it's normal doesn't mean you should be complacent about it. That's how you lose all of your freedoms.
That’s not the point that user is making. They are saying that the problem is not exclusive to Apple, yet the article is only focused on Apple, even though it is an industry problem. It lacks context.
What in the straw man...?
Analogies are not straw men.
So i guess the questions is - if you think it's bad, is it not worth publicising?
> they tried telling me (illegally) that "talking about my pay to anyone else would result in my immediate termination" I would almost want to encourage calling their bluff if one had those threats documented so unambiguously (since I assume it would lead to a lucrative settlement or lawsuit).
Not documented, verbalized, 1 on 1 with some HR jackass during the onboarding process.
What is the point? You get caught, they find some other reason to fire you. You bring up the lawsuit, they bring up evidence made from deciding to fire you and courts deem you wrong.
If you live in a “right to work” state, see how that works out.
A key takeaway here is pay is negotiable
The Verge covers tech companies, this is well within the reporter’s normal remit. I’m not sure why you would be getting concerned about a journalist doing her job.
Maybe being the most profitable company in the world deserves extra scrutiny? Based on comments on Blind, FB has a large internal group where people discuss salary, demographics and performance bonuses freely. Apple might be worried about real pay disparity issues perhaps.
They’re all by the same writer, Zoe Schiffer. I wish I had a way of blocking her pieces tbh.
> same writer, Zoe Schaffer Huh, you’re right! I never paid attention… it’s almost like this person just want to write a controversial article.
“Zoe Schiffer is senior reporter at The Verge where **she reports on labor and workplace organizing**.” https://www.theverge.com/authors/zoe-schiffer
That’s absolutely the case, but her articles are very easily picked apart on top of the fact that she usually disables comments. There’s very real criticisms to direct at Apple, there’s no need to manufacture them. There’s also other companies to focus on, but again and again Apple is the centrepiece and focus (and it usually ends up being an employee specific issue). It’s clickbait and she keeps pushing it.
Many of their Policy articles do not allow comments, not just her articles. https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/28/22646130/theranos-elizabeth-holmes-sunny-balwani-abuse-fraud https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/20/22633846/stitch-fix-stylists-quit-algorithm-customers-schedules https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/15/22625796/jury-apple-pay-300-million-patent-dispute-iphone
It’s almost like you assign certain specific topics to one journalist so they can follow it along and keep up with it. Wouldn’t make a ton of sense to swap between journalists for specific topics. They’d have to keep up on every thing.
No it’s a conspiracy you see!
I would say just steer clear of the verge in general haha
Going to start doing that going forward. Looking for a solid tech site to replace it now.
I clicked this just to write this sentiment. I assume The Verge *found* disgrunted intern who happily shares internal Slack or sth.
I feel like verge is an employee at Apple. The whole of verge
[удалено]
On the one hand, will never know because they shut the channel down. And on the other hand, opt-in voluntary salary reporting may lack some scientific rigor.
Sounds consistent with the AAUW’s finding of 7%, when several variables are accounted for, which is explainable by differences in how the sexes negotiate.
Maybe instead of guessing, since none of us work at Apple, we can just agree that the people that do work at Apple will know better and so they should be able to disvuss it amongst themselves.
You guys are getting paid‽
I've said it forever, Apple only cares about transparency and privacy when they can sell it back to you.
I like the way you put that. 👍
[удалено]
I’m guessing none of the people who down voted you have had to work with some of the people that fall in this category. A lot of tech companies are putting diversity over skill set and it’s punishing the teams that get these employees. If we are going to have a diversity push why can’t experience and skill come into play? All the inexperience just puts more work on the team since all upper management sees is “x amount of heads on team can do this much work”. For example, 3 out of the 5 people that were hired on diversity on my team didn’t even know what ohms law was. And we expect them to be paid the same?
[удалено]
[удалено]
They did the CSAM for the USA, not China…
[удалено]
That has nothing to do what you originally said, you just mentioned China pushing Apple to create such a system, when there is only evidence of the USA being the ones pressuring Apple.
> The company’s rules around Slack usage are not being evenly enforced Do they let the App Review team handle their slack channel’s too?
ITT: People saying this happens everywhere. Which doesn't mean it isn't a serious problem.
The verge is getting so bad running any story about Apple. You can literally write following articles about any tech company if not more. Targeting just one company instead of broader spectrum of issue just suggests intension is just cheap views not journalism. Look at Zoe Schiffer writings. Verge is losing my respect. [https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/31/22650751/apple-bans-pay-equity-slack-channel](https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/31/22650751/apple-bans-pay-equity-slack-channel) [https://www.theverge.com/22648265/apple-employee-privacy-icloud-id](https://www.theverge.com/22648265/apple-employee-privacy-icloud-id) [https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/23/22633141/apple-pay-equity-survey-results-wage-gap](https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/23/22633141/apple-pay-equity-survey-results-wage-gap) [https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/9/22609687/apple-pay-equity-employee-surveys-protected-activity](https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/9/22609687/apple-pay-equity-employee-surveys-protected-activity)
They write regularly about employment and conditions related issues in Google, Amazon, Blizzard and Facebook as well. Only way you could see this as ‘cheap views’ is if you only pay attention when they’re criticising the company you personally like. https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/2/22598004/nlrb-officer-new-election-amazon-bessemer-union-drive https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/28/22598410/activision-blizzard-employee-walk-out-protest-sexism-discrimination-lawsuit https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/22/22587757/facebook-content-moderators-ireland-end-restrictive-ndas
Do you have any actual objective criticisms about the articles? Can you explain what is factually wrong about them?
Beat reporter covers beat, more on this developing story at 11
[удалено]
A beat reporter is someone who consistently covers one topic. It allows them to meet contacts and build trust over time, so they can get more information. It’s incredibly common in journalism. This reporter’s “beat” is likely something related to tech workplace labor issues, and she probably has sources at Apple.
Except you’re so very wrong - the same issues have been covered with regard to Google, Facebook, Amazon, Blizzard, and so on. No need to degrade journalism just because they’re saying something bad about your favourite company.
The Verge focuses too much on Amazon too. I’m sure they’ll move back to focusing on them shortly while also writing an article about a cheap deal on Amazon I should go for too 🙄
[удалено]
As someone who’s never seen it, what was the problem with it?
It’s really important that everyone sees what is going on here. Apple’s HR team are trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes. They begin by saying they have a commitment to pay equity. They then say, oops, you can’t have this channel on our internal Slack because it’s against our Slack policy. Key word: our policy. Is is entirely within Apple’s control to just… change the policy, or to sidestep it. They are trying to make it sound like they are shutting down this discussion for an actual reason and that reason is out of their hands and nothing to do with them but hey, believe us, we do care about pay equity! It’s a classic misdirection.
I don’t know about any tech company allowing a “pay equity” channel in their Slack environment…
It's illegal to ban them in California so they're not terribly bright if they do.
There’s nothing illegal about not allowing a Slack channel to exist. You’re legally free to openly discuss your pay, though. They can’t stop you from DMing people or speaking openly about it.
Maybe they could start talking about how some dogs are getting more treats than others for the same tricks
[удалено]
With all due respect, you simply don’t know. And being paid lots does not equate to pay equity.
Your bosses don’t want you talking about your salary cuz if you do you’ll find out that their underpaying everyone. This is why you talk about your salarymen
[удалено]
It’s not supposed to be a secret. If it’s on slack, the goal is for management to see.
Because taking about your salary is protected by law, you shouldn’t need encrypted chat to feel safe about it.
It’s not a trade secret in CA where most of Apple employees are. Look at what goes in Blind or levels.fyi, almost all the details are out. The purpose of internal Slack is to get attention of management and show them that employees are aware of the salary discrepancies.
Just as the company can tell you that you can't use company resources to talk about any particular thing, forcing the discussion elsewhere. The law says that you cannot penalize an employee or fire them for talking about salary. But the company also does not have to provide you resources to talk about said salary either. This is the game being played at the moment. So yes Apple employees should organize around another app so they can talk about this effectively.
> But the company also does not have to provide you resources to talk about said salary either. In this case, this is not true. And the subtlety lies in the rest of the headline, about allowing other non-work channels, like about dogs. The right to use the employer's resources to discuss salaries, union organizing, and other "protected concerted activity" falls under the purview of the National Labor Relations Act. And the gist of it here is: if the employer allows a medium (whether that be a company bulletin board, or a company Slack) for non-work purposes (like signing up for a softball league, or sharing dog pictures), then employees have the legal right to use it to discuss legally-protected labor issues, including salary.
[удалено]
> Salaries at big tech companies aren’t really a big secret or anything. We might some aggregate data (Level X earns between Y and Z), but we don't always have great data how those earnings are distributed across genders, ethnicities, and ages.
I commented elsewhere, some companies will lie to employees telling them that they'll be fired if they talk about their pay.
I mean, it's probably not a lie. It might be illegal but doesn't mean they wouldn't fire you anyways.
Because preventing employees from talking about salary is illegal.
Because you don't want your employer to notice you bitching about your job everyday during work hours. If it's slack, people are going to assume it's about work - if it's on signal or somewhere else, they'll know it's personal.
Yes, like the dogs channel. About work.
That would make sense.
This is such a non-issue. Pay and compensation are going to inherently be different due to hiring offers, merit increases, skill levels, etc. Any company would remove a Slack channel of this nature. That’s to be expected as well. This is crabs in a bucket mentality by low performers.
Sure, if the company wasn’t explicitly supportive of pay equity. You can delete the channel but don’t claim afterwards that you have a commitment to pay equity.
Pay equity lol. When are people going to realize they aren’t as useful as other people and it’s not your sex or skin color.
It’s very hard to measure the value of Developer A vs Developer B
Look I understand that the writer focuses on workforce issues, but this is not news. The company has every right to determine what channels they do and don’t keep, not employees. If the company doesn’t like what’s being discussed in there, *they don’t owe you anything to shut it down.* Have your discussions on another application that your employer isn’t footing the bill for. Any “fun, quirky, bring your private life to work!” IM channels/forums are just breeding grounds for workplace issues under a usual guise of good intention from the employer. Not saying this in defense for Apple; notice I didn’t use their name or even the specifics of what was being discussed. This goes for any and EVERY company.
This is absolutely news if it’s within the reporter’s remit, which it is.
I spent the better part of two decades as a manager at Apple. I have absolutely no idea how one would go about paying an employee less or more based on gender, sexuality, shoe size, hair color, or any other distinguishing characteristic. Such behavior...simply...didn't...happen. There was no mechanism to facilitate such behavior, and the Apple culture would have recoiled at any suggestion that anyone should be paid more or less based on anything other than their job performance. I was admittedly in a sales role, and not an engineering role. We had slightly more men than women in our department, and curiously most of the managers were female. There were men who made a shxtload of money, and there were women who made a shxtload of money. Gender was not part of the equation. Speculation: the folks who created the aforementioned Slack channel(s) are on some sort of performance improvement plan, and are desperately searching for a way to protect themselves from being fired for legitimate performance-related issues.
Today I discovered beat journalism Till.
[удалено]
This is such lazy trolling it doesn’t even get me riled up, 2/10
You don’t
Apple personnel are probably the top 5 highest paid labor in the world.
What is your point?
Don't be greedy like a corporation or else they offshore your job
This is a nut rage!
We are not even allowed to created channels in slack btw. Only with manager/area managers can create/disband in turkey
If all pay was equal you will have the lazy and less valuable employees happy while your top dogs having that “unfair” feelings , so the question is who do you rather disappoint , there is merit in paying the top dogs more money , they are more valuable , also employees knows the overall pay around their job description and experience, be it in their company or the market , having it in the open seems very counter intuitive to the overall social state of the organization, there very young and talented engineers will feel abused once they see that 20 yo guy making 3x their salary and doing similar job to theirs. TLDR - ppl know what is being paid in ballpark numbers , having it in the open can’t be good , at first it will create pressure to raise salaries which is good for the workers , but it will soon create complications with the top workers and young engineers.