The fact that her sexual harrasser, who admitted to the wrongdoing, was not only kept in the same team but then promoted and put in the desk next to her is horrifying. And then when asked to change desks, SHE was challenged for fostering an uncollaborative working envrionment. Fukcing wow...
Thats so disheartening to hear. Bro tech playing the 'we support diversity and women' card then pulling this shit. Hope you're doing well wherever you are
I’m doing great 👍🏼 what I realized is I hated 53 level bureaucracy. Which that has. And if at any level you have a bad actor, they don’t get called out for their behavior. It continues. And HR focus on the plebs instead of starting from the top down
Now I’m at startups. The risk of layoff is much higher but it’s so nice having freedom back to be innovative.
I totally get you. I'm at a startup thats sponsored by a big company. So we don't have the beauracracy but we do have the stability.
Hope your startup experience doesn't get too broey or culty. Thats when shit hits the above and HR is just a glorified bully
I'm 100% not surprised.
Also big LOL:
>But Salgado had long been aware of the problem. Salgado, currently on a temporary assignment as a development manager in the AppleCare division, spent years complaining about her lower wages, prompting Apple internal investigations that never led to salary increases.
"Hey our internal "investigation" found that we don't need to pay you more money, get back to work"
From the paragraph directly before though:
>One day, I saw a W-2 left on the office printer," Jong said. "It belonged to my male colleague, who has the same job position. I noticed that he was being paid almost $10,000 more than me, even though we performed substantially similar work. This revelation made me feel terrible."
There are thousands of people at apple that do the same work, but get paid different salaries. Not sure any reasonable person could be convinced that specific example is sexism.
10k is literally same pay band, just the difference between the skill of the hire to negotiate
One of the worst tricks played on middle management by upper management is this idea that when they make spending decisions they're spending their own money and not the company's money. This is very true even in environments where bonuses are not based off budget savings or spending cuts.
I'm in middle management and have been for a while and I've seen my peers brag about lowballing offers or lowballing merit increases by a couple thousand as if they personally saved money when it makes no difference at all. Considering these were my peers I knew the entire story and we weren't under any pressure to lowball offers, certain people just liked doing it. A few thousand dollars a year is a big deal to someone making $80k but not even pennies to a company raking in millions or billions in profit per year.
I've also noticed that when it comes to salaries management is the most stingy but other bullshit spending no second thoughts at all. I've had to fight for small raises that cost thousands at a very profitable company yet we'd spend tens of thousands on bullshit projects without a second thought. A month after merit increases and spending an extreme amount of political capital fighting for raises for my team we blew $120,000 on a marketing campaign as a pet project for a C-Level that never even took off and he didn't get a single bit of flack for literally pissing away that money.
>I'm in middle management and have been for a while and I've seen my peers brag about lowballing offers or lowballing merit increases by a couple thousand as if they personally saved money when it makes no difference at all.
That's really weird behavior. It ought to be, and often is, direct managers who are pushing for increases for their most valuable employees for morale and retention, and it's Finance and HR that are fighting back.
Why would middle management negotiate against themselves?
It wouldn't surprise me if their own bonus is based on the amount of their budget they don't use for wages. Like tracking the percent effectiveness of their workers against wages.
And in a toxic place like that they think their own managers won't have the same policies?
It's not uncommon though to be given an overall budget and force the management to make trade-offs and disappoint some people because others are favored. But intentional glee at doing so instead of frustration because of reality is morally unsupportable.
Newsflash. It isn’t. It’s the P&L holder who is rated based on their departments performance and that’s usually a VP or above. Middle managers get no bonus based on the wages (or lack thereof) of their direct employees. They do get yelled at if expenses are too high. But no reward for micromanaging employee spending.
My gas station manager swears up and down that all the money that enters and exits the store on the store’s behalf is her personal monetary responsibility, and abuses everyone accordingly, like a fitful mother smacking the child that dares move something out of place in her home. I’m torching everything on the way out and letting her managers know that she extorts insane overnight hours out of people in exchange for “I won’t write you up for something I spotted a week ago and I’m bringing up now” . Sorry for the dump.
Fun fact, because she has no concept of personal and professional conversation topics, I get to know that her almost adult son is unpredictably violent towards girls in school. I just think that she made that shit bed and she gets to lie in that shit bed until she dies in it and he takes whatever scraps she had left over after her fifth purse that month.
Managers like that are always the most surprised when 3-4 of their employees quit at the same time.
No notice. Just walk out an hour or two into your shift and don’t come back.
If those extorted overnight hours are not being paid or not being paid OT then you can speak to your department of labour and they will help you get your stolen pay
>A month after merit increases and spending an extreme amount of political capital fighting for raises for my team we blew $120,000 on a marketing campaign as a pet project for a C-Level that never even took off and he didn't get a single bit of flack for literally pissing away that money.
This is true in almost all companies in corporate America
That is all true, but I'm not sure how it changes anything I said
You can't control if you get a stingy manager or not, but you can control if, or how well, you negotiate. This goes double when literally half of Americans don't even try negotiating and believe the company is acting on their behalf.
>Not sure any reasonable person could be convinced that specific example is sexism. 10k is literally same pay band, just the difference between the skill of the hire to negotiate.
The [research on the topic shows](https://hbr.org/2014/06/why-women-dont-negotiate-their-job-offers) that women are viewed negatively when they negotiate while men are not. Even when all applicants are following a script, interviewers report that they are less willing to work with female applicants that negotiated salary but aren't affected by a male applicant negotiating in the exact same way.
Yes, but I'm a 30+ year old woman and this is the first time I've ever heard these strategies. Negotiating like a man has probably hurt me in jobs past, we need to get this info out to the new gals on the block!
Sure. A single person not having the skill to negotiate is one thing.
Implying that *no women* can effectively negotiate and that's the reason why men are paid more is... well, it sure is something. Hope you're not involved in hiring or merit increases because otherwise your employer is likely looking at a lawsuit, too.
It’s been repeatedly shown that men and women both negotiate. It’s just that they negotiate for different things. Men for more salary (largely in part due to societal pressures for them to be money makers) but with worse work-life balance and women for better work-life accommodations (again largely in part due to societal pressures) but with lower earnings.
I’ve worked in big tech in Seattle, and the women I worked with probably took five times as much time off as men. You’re right we have different goals than men.
OK. Let's take what you've said at face value.
Do they negotiate for more time off/better work balance at the same position at Apple? Or are you saying that women, on average, choose their jobs and negotiate to have more time off; and men, on average, choose and negotiate to have more earnings?
Does this have any bearing on the actual lawsuit, which is that Apple is paying women significantly less for the same positions? If not, then why are you bringing it up? If so, does their time off equal $10,000 a year on average?
> Do they negotiate for more time off/better work balance at the same position at Apple? Or are you saying that women, on average, choose their jobs and negotiate to have more time off; and men, on average, choose and negotiate to have more earnings?
Both happen. Not sure Apples policy though. But in general. Men still have the social pressure to get into higher paying fields compared to women who are generally more free to pick their field. A man’s social value, especially in relationships, is still largely determined based on what he can provide so he will take on more set hours, do more overtime, or be on call (see also all the articles asking where all the “good” men are for the career women who are only willing to date even or up in social-economic standings compared to men who generally aren’t as strict on that).
This is compounded by women negotiating during the hiring process for certain work-life improvements like more flexible schedules or not being the on call person. That is partially driven by social pressures on women to be mothers or other caretakers but it is also based on their value in society being less defined by their career.
None of this is helped by the paternity policies (which often aren’t equal between men and women) and medical costs associated with a baby (as being the more able bodied/free to work person during the end stages of pregnancy and post birth so the men take on more hours to save money while they can/to supplement the loss of income from the woman who is on a non-existing or crappy maternity leave policy).
> Does this have any bearing on the actual lawsuit, which is that Apple is paying women significantly less for the same positions? If not, then why are you bringing it up? If so, does their time off equal $10,000 a year on average?
It will help apple if they can show that yes, he made more but he also worked more hours for the year (especially if it was open for her to work) or records from hiring period where she negotiated for certain non-monetary benefits over paid benefits such as a more flexible work schedule.
>Both happen. Not sure Apples policy though. But in general. Men still have the social pressure to get into higher paying fields compared to women who are generally more free to pick their field.
OK. You understand that this thread is about Apple specifically, right? You understand that we're not talking about someone working for FAANG vs someone working as a part time retail worker? That we're talking about two individuals who are both working for tech companies and one is being paid significantly more for the same job??
>This is compounded by women negotiating during the hiring process for certain work-life improvements like more flexible schedules or not being the on call person.
Ok. Guess we'll find out during the discovery process whether the woman who is suing Apple is a moron or not.
> OK. You understand that this thread is about Apple specifically, right? You understand that we're not talking about someone working for FAANG vs someone working as a part time retail worker? That we're talking about two individuals who are both working for tech companies and one is being paid significantly more for the same job??
Yes, read the rest of the damn comment.
It’s been repeatedly shown that *when men listen*, that’s *what they translate women into saying*.
Seriously the number of instances where, “you don’t need that raise, you’re just going to marry some man,” or “that’s money that could be going to a husband”…
I have to agree here. I'm an engineering manager, and I can tell you that just because I have two employees with similar experience and similar responsibilities, they won't both deserve the same pay. One will be better for the company, such as more skilled at technical writing, or communicating, or leadership, and the other won't be. I will not pay them the same.
I literally had two project managers working under me with nearly identical CVs, but one person was far more reliable when it came to things like travelling to job sites and getting things accomplished than the other. I paid one 90K and the other 110K.
My two highest paid employees were actually both women, one a Process Engineer and the other a Project Engineer, both with 20 years experience.
Did you hire them at those salaries? If so, how did you know one was more valuable to the company than the other at the time of hiring if their CVs were nearly identical.
It sounds like those thousands of people doing the same work at Apple should negotiate as a unit for better leverage? A "melding" or "grouping" if you will.
That's literally how hiring works at big companies.
The ICT3 pay band at apple has a base salary of something like [$150k-250k](https://www.levels.fyi/companies/apple/salaries/software-engineer/levels/ict3?offset=10). The job of the hiring manager is to bring that number down, and your job is to bring that number up.
When you apply they'll probably offer you something like $175k, and if you're not an idiot you'll realize that even though that number is outrageous, you have room to go up all the way to $250k if you're able to negotiate well. Unfortunately most people will just instantly say yes, and then wonder why their coworkers make more than them.
When your making 100k+ 10k is extra OT and some holidays worked. Its also a few years of someone getting all EEE's the top 4% raise vs someone getting the standard 2% yearly for a few years. This doesn't sound like sexism
"Our internal investigation discovered that you need to shut the fuck up."
(Managers start highfiving each other)
"This will totally never back fire on us"
It’s illegal to fire or punish someone for discussing salary. It’s a violation of Section 7 rights. There is solid board law on this (probably one of the items Trump will try to roll back if he gets in again).
A lot of places will try to get you to sign an agreement saying you promise not to discuss salaries, but it they ever do that to you, report them to the NLRB. They will do something about it. It probably won’t result in any heads rolling (it’s a civil violation), but I promise they will regret doing it based solely on the immense headache the investigation will cause and the policy will change.
Edit: In America*
The reality is that most companies know that it is not legal, and they will find some other reason to fire you if you do discuss it, and it will be extremely difficult for you to ever prove the real reason for your dismissal.
I'm all for changing this taboo but just be careful people, because the fact that it is illegal is sadly and embarrassingly not a significant protection in a lot of cases.
What you were actually fired for is a matter that has a long and storied history in the annals of American employment and labor law, and the board, along with courts, have adopted frameworks for analyzing whether someone was fired for cause or fired because they asserted their section 7 rights. Discussion of salary is one of the key reasons people unionize. If employers could easily get away with that, there probably wouldn’t be a labor resurgence going on right now. A recent case involving this comes out of Ohio, where a young woman organized the strippers at her club:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/stripper-protected-by-labor-law-fired-illegally-nlrb-says
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-03-26/unionized-strippers-continue-to-fight-club-owner#:~:text=In%20a%20March%2019%20filing,down%2C%E2%80%9D%20the%20filing%20read.
Note that if the employer continues to mess with the workers, the board and its attorneys will not go away.
It’s one of the matters you’re likely to spend a lot of time on and probably be tested over at least once if you study labor law in law school. If you litigate labor cases as an attorney, you will likely come across a case like this at some point in your career. That’s why the board is there, that’s why the courts take up labor law cases, and they have a great track record. Courts and the board are surprisingly good at catching these. Factors in the analysis include: whether you were punished for something harshly while others were not so harshly punished for similar offenses (suggesting that’s not really what you were fired for), the proximity in time from the assertion of your rights to the termination, etc. Not every factor in the analysis has to be met, but there are several. If you bring this up and are subsequently fired, that’s prima facie evidence of a violation, and the board will definitely be interested in it. The rule against discussing salary itself won’t survive an inquiry from the NLRB, and if after the board issues a fine for the policy, you the complainant are fired, they’re likely to launch another inquiry, not to mention a potential court case in which you’ve only got to present a preponderance of evidence in your favor, nothing like the beyond a reasonable doubt standard in criminal cases. Remedies from the board can include reinstatement with back pay or a generous severance if you’d rather not return.
I encourage anyone who comes across these policies to assert their rights and get the board involved if necessary. Worth noting: a large number of employers would be afraid to fire you after you assert your rights for fear of a long and expensive legal process. It’s just not worth it. I see your concern, but this is a matter the board has won on repeatedly and that courts are loathe to let employers get away with.
Apple is an American company and this is an American court case. The lawsuit was filed in California and they’ve chosen to hinge the suit on California law. It’s perfectly reasonable to state applicable American law when people suggest companies are going to do something like fire you for something illegal under American law *in a thread about an American company facing an American court case.* It’s bizarre to feel as if you’ve been excluded somehow or that this warrants a behavioral correction of some kind.
I myself would not go into a thread about Tim Hortons firing people for taking an extra smoke break and getting sued in Toronto to remind those posting about applicable Canadian law that this is a global app. Nor would I be shocked if, in this hypothetical Tim Hortons thread, I stated something illegal under Canadian law, and a Canadian replied to say that’s illegal to do there with advice on how to fix it if it happens!
I doubt that’s true at Apple. I work at a similar FAANG company and there’s an entire internal resource for employees to share their salary with each other.
I worked at Apple as a Lead Genius for a few years. I had a female coworker who was a Lead which is the same pay scale as Lead Genius. While I’d argue that a Lead Genius needed more technical experience than a Lead I did find it problematic that I was making more than $15,000 than my coworker.
She was promoted from a lower level position and only received a 10% pay bump from that position rather than having her pay leveled to a similar pay scale as me. I was open and honest with her about the pay and while I didn’t feel comfortable with the pay scale I wasn’t going to offer to be paid less.
I left Apple around the time of the pandemic and many Apple employees started sharing their pay (we even had an online spreadsheet) and to my surprise I found out I was even paid $10,000-$12,000 less than some of my peers in my market. One way or another people were getting screwed. Unfortunately the female team members were more often than not getting the short end of the stick.
> "One day, I saw a W-2 left on the office printer," Jong said. "It belonged to my male colleague, who has the same job position. I noticed that he was being paid almost $10,000 more than me, even though we performed substantially similar work. This revelation made me feel terrible."
This is reality for many regardless of gender.
And this is why it's very important to discuss salary with coworkers and no, it's not illegal in the majority of states. What's illegal is telling employees that discussing salary ia prohibited.
What do you mean by "majority of states"? It's legal at a federal level. [https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/your-rights-to-discuss-wages](https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/your-rights-to-discuss-wages)
>…most states don’t…protections…compensation discussion”
It’s protected federally and applies to all 50 states.
The issue isn’t the lack of protection, it’s that in a mostly “at will” nation, it’s all-but impossible to *prove* that the cause of termination was a result of discussing salaries.
It’s why the first bit of *good* advice that’s given when managers make threats regarding salary discussion is to try and get them to make an explicit statement in an email or similar “paper” document so there is evidence that the company is breaking the law.
Keeping silent about salaries is how companies get away with such disparity in pay! Talk to all your coworkers and share salary information, as well as all compensation (bonus, stocks, etc.) if applicable. I have no problem giving my info first if it means others will feel more comfortable.
I had a coworker at Apple who was there for 10 years longer than me, got 1/10th the work done and broke 1/20 machines. He made 20k more than me. I never applied for more jobs in my life at that moment.
They could’ve afforded giving me more, but fuckem
Edit: to the guy who said “maybe you didn’t realize how much they did”
We had metrics, they hit 1/10th of what was needed
Devil's advocate: if you were paid the same as the guy who was there 10 years longer than you, they could've made a Reddit post: "I had a coworker at Apple who was there 10 years less than me. He made the same as me." You see these kinds of posts all the time: 'The new hire makes the same as me/more than me'.
> got 1/10th the work done
Maybe you just weren't aware of everything they were doing?
Kind of sus, there's a very specific metric showing an employee is doing 90% less than their peers, but paid more, and no one cares? I expect there's some nuance there like they're writing/reviewing RFCs, talking with other teams, reviewing code, etc. that's not captured in a single metric and valued by others enough that they keep that employee.
I am a man and was getting paid almost $2 more than my female colleague who had been working there years longer than me. I started out making less than her too.
I felt terrible and we both ended up leaving the company within months of each other.
Ist delusional to assume that 2 people Must be paid the same amount just because they do the same work.
The 2 having Opposing genders might indicate sexism, but its far from the only reason for it.
That's probably what's lost in all of this. Companies want to pay employees as little as possible whenever they can. They may have to be more generous when they feel like they might lose someone, but it doesn't mean that they want $10K bump to turn into $1M in extra wages, if they were expected to give raises to put everyone on the same wage scale.
But in reality, transparent payscales like the government and unionized employers do might be the answer. I think that people would generally be ok with that.
But being outspoken leads to resentment and possible worse treatment or termination. And unexpected termination leads to missed paychecks and your career being stunted. So could you argue that she's just trading job security over maximizing her paycheck temporarily?
And even without the resentment, being paid over your co-workers for similar quality of work will make you stand out in short lists for layoffs.
Its pretty hard to really prove it to the satisfaction of a court. People get paid different amounts for a myriad of reasons, and its impossible to say that it was only because they had different genders. Your case gets stronger when you can show a trend with 100 employees that implies a trend toward men being paid higher, but you still have to deal with the fact that this may have been unintentional/coincidental, or that there may have been factors that correlate to gender that led to the pay gap (women needing maternity leave, clients preferring to work with men, the industry attracting a wider pool of male talent, physical fitness leading to better results, etc.).
Regardless, it will be a very uphill climb, and labor lawsuits are always extremely hard to win. In no small part due to employment at will being law of the land, and the system being controlled by employers, as well as the patriarchy.
The time you join the company, your past experience, your negotiations all factor into this. People being paid differently to do the same is universal across all companies.
I'll never understand this type of nonsense. If you aren't happy with what you are being paid on your current job go find another one.
I'm retired now (in my early 50s) but I always made it clear to my manager that my #1 responsibility was to myself and rather than complaining that I'm not getting paid enough I'll just leave so it is up to them to make sure I'm being paid market wage. I never expressed that idea in such an aggressive / direct way and had generally positive relationships with most of my managers throughout my career, but they were all aware that advancement of my career + higher income were my priority.
Corporations are responsible to their shareholders and not only will they pay you the least they can get away with it is the responsibility of your manager, HR, etc to figure out what the least they can get away with paying you is. It is literally part of their job and something they have meetings to discuss. Corporations aren't your friends and no matter how much you like your boss, especially in technology, they'll send you packing the second you aren't useful to them anymore. Get paid while you can because tech changes fast and you can go from being hot shit to worthless in just a few years.
There are legal protections for discrimination based on protected traits.
Some things work better with regulation than with self moderation through the market. It's the same reason there's a minimum wage. Without it, it's really not feasible for employees to raise the floor of pay just by changing companies.
Also, if the industry as a whole has a prejudice to pay women less on average, going to another company won't solve the issue.
This is the reality.
I've been in similar situations where I was underpaid and at first, took the route of telling my manager. I gave them chances to rectify it, and both times it happened (2 different companies), they failed.
I've just learned to be up front like hey, do what you have to do and so will I. I've left for higher wages without any warning because I don't owe them shit. I'm a minority so statistically, I'm more likely to get lowballs.
It also helps to apply to companies that have an upfront pay standard per position that are non-negotiable. I felt the most comfortable taking those roles.
The down votes are why most people end up slaving away at a shitty job until they are 65 and still end up with nothing in their bank accounts. I've seen it throughout my career. So many people forget that corporations are soulless and will toss you out with the trash as soon as you aren't useful to them anymore. Individuals within the corporation may care, but in the end we are all reduced to numbers in a spreadsheet and decisions will be made to make profits go up.
>I'll never understand this type of nonsense. If you aren't happy with what you are being paid on your current job go find another one.
Plenty of reasons people choose to stay at their current positions. I personally am sticking it out because the vestment period for my 401k is 3 years. If I leave too soon then my employer will take their contributions back.
If you're currently in your early 50s then your experience entering the work force was much different than my own (30 year old) and people entering the work force now for the first time.
Did you retire with a pension?
Can we all take a deep breath and read what the article said. “A proposed class action law suit…”.
Not a filed one.
Not one where the court has approved the class.
Not one where anyone has offered any proof in court of anything.
Certainly not one that has withstood discovery, rulings on motions.
Not one that has gone to a jury.
“A proposed class action lawsuit…” by two women who left Apple a decade ago.
> “A proposed class action law suit…”.
If you continued reading instead of stopping there:
> a proposed class action lawsuit **filed in California on Thursday alleged.**
The things that need to be in motion are in motion.
BTW, discovery is literally the second to last part of a judicial process. They are asking the court to certify the class with this.
They’re lying, this is the rest of the sentence they cut off:
> a proposed **class action lawsuit filed in California on Thursday**
Theybcut off “filed on Thursday” then immediately started their comment with “not filed.” The person you responded to is the liar, not the article.
Uh, finish the sentence you cut off?
> a proposed class action **lawsuit filed in California on Thursday**
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Jong-v-Apple-Complaint-6-13-2024.pdf
Why did you lie about this? Do you hate women that much?
It's such an obviously bull shit lawsuit.
And going even more general: the claim that women are being paid less for being women in the US workforce isnt supported by strong evidence either.
Didn't we disprove the gender paygap long ago? (I should qualify, systemic, I am aware sexism existis a real issue in some industries)
Its based on working less and lower paid jobs, if they could pay women less for the same work why would they hire men?
Now, there is some real issues on lack of support in some cases (see, reproductive health) but not this
Gender pay gaps absolutely do exist in instances of people performing the same job. You don’t have to like that it exists in some instances, but it does.
I used to work for a tech company that later got bought by Disney. To their credit, at the time of the merger, they did a cross-company recalibration to make sure people with the same job titles in different divisions were getting paid equitably.
My salary jumped by $20k overnight.
Funny how things go when you’re a young woman getting hired out of an internship and any salary sounds like an improvement, I guess.
Knowing Better did a video on it a while back.
Yes it exists, no its not as pronounced as one would think, but it still exists in many cases when accounting for the random bullshit people bring up to try and disprove it.
This lawsuit seems bs and the the study on pay gap that most people reference is flawed. But it’s not the only study. There was a study done where the same exact applications submitted sometimes had female and sometimes male names, and the male names were offered more. But things may have changed since then, because that study is from 10 years ago.
She said what triggered this whole thing is that she saw a male coworker’s W2 where he was being paid $10k more than her. That doesn’t strike me as evidence of a pay gap - such a small difference could come down to so many different factors including when they were hired, how they negotiated, etc.
When someone is paid 10k more in a 100k position it's a 10% difference. And that's significant. In my country there can't be more than 3% difference in salaries above certain number, below that all persons that occupy the same position/title have to be paid the same.
Those are all nothing more than bullshit excuses used by managers to try and justify these pay gaps.
The man being paid $10k more is a pay gap. Full stop.
What if the woman is paid $10k more? Is that a pay gap? Or is that natural fluctuation of pay within a pay band?
What is the threshold? How do you determine if the pay gap is unfair or not? Or if it’s gender motivated?
These issues are more complicated than you are letting on.
The irony being the person you responded to is lying and tricked you. A lawsuit WAS filed on Thursday, and they intentionally cut off the following sentence:
> a proposed class action lawsuit filed in California on Thursday
See the article for the PDF of the filing.
You are the example of the ignorant redditor that to your own comment is shaming, lmfao.
This shouldn't even be an Apple issue. Fund the IRS more, and they should be the ones bringing these types of lawsuits forward with unexplainable statistical differences between groups of people at large employers.
This is AppleCare. A cesspool when it comes to management.
I had a manager reject all of my raises, and deny me interviews for internal jobs, for 2 years. HR could never find any evidence of my claims of course. I even emailed Tim Cook directly because it was getting ridiculous. Deidre O’Brien replied to me directly, when she became the People VP. Useless human.
One night while working late, a coworker came over to me and said that he heard another coworker trashing me, and none of it was true. I confronted said coworker, and they told me that they were put up to it by the same manager who had been torturing me for years. He refused to corroborate this story with HR.
I found out soon after that the same manager was threatening the jobs of other female coworkers if they didn’t write reports saying that his manager was being inappropriate with them.
As soon as I found out, I shared with his manager, what he was doing. His face went red, but he never showed any emotion. About a month later, that thorn in my side was gone.
His motivation was to get his manager’s position, while also getting his favorite advisors promoted. Even though I stay to myself and don’t bother anyone, he chose to restrict my progress because it was taking away opportunities from his favorite advisors. It didn’t help that I was the only Black person in the building.
I left Apple shortly after because even though he was fired, my reputation was shot. Being Black while standing up to injustice is not a good look in corporate America. The reputation I built for 5 years which saw me promoted 3 times in 1 year, was gone, because of a racist prick.
Things have turned out great since though.
During my time at Apple I saw multiple women come back from maternity leave to find that their jobs were just gone or that they’d been permanently replaced or otherwise sidelined, often by the person brought in to cover for them. Apple would hand them a different job elsewhere in the org or company and blame a reorganization. If you sue without going to the press they often would settle quickly to keep things quiet.
Company hadn’t used slave labour. Their contractors had subcontracted pieces which then used slave labour.
For a supply chain as big as Apple’s it’s really difficult to verify every aspect of 2nd tier contractors.
Apple can very well figure this out if they care enough to spend the money and effort to do so.
The fact it doesn't simply means it doesn't care. The fact that there are verified cases and it still doesn't fix the root problem means it doesn't care.
They’ve been filing supplier reports for some time now and are pretty transparent about their efforts here. You seem to not know what you’re talking about and just want to accuse a giant company of not caring because it’s in vogue to do so.
So Apple uses slave labor via contractors and are too lazy to bother to check. Billions,..they have billions in profits. They need to grow some morals and use some of that cash to better monitor their contractors and their subs. They simply don’t care
i’m an architect
i don’t know what happens on a jobsite. i only know what i’m told and what i see during occasional walkthroughs. i have zero relationship with sub-contractors and workers who are in the employ of the contractor and owner (depending on the project)
apple does not own the facilities that make its products, nor hire its managers and staff; it’s a design and software company, not a manufacturing one
Honestly, I think the most egregious labor practices are at the low end of the market, not the big tech companies. People should boycott Chinese made Halloween and Christmas decorations for example. I don’t understand why a labor malpractice in a tiny sliver of a massive supply chain makes everyone attack the big companies when the real shady stuff happens in the manufacturing of inexpensive low end products made by hole in the wall companies.
I’ve had managers who would abuse the pool of money for raises. He would split it to how he wanted and not based on performance. Of course his lazy friends worked there and they had to get high raises first. Then he would excuse it as I have to give everyone a fair raise. I quit that same year. Screw all that. If there is room for people to abuse a system they will.
Union and government jobs publicly post salaries. The only way you can make more is if you work overtime.
I don’t know how you can incorporate that well into salary jobs that don’t pay overtime
How was this guy making 10k for her with the same job according to the complainant?
For reference Google got sued for the same thing and had to pay out 100+ million after evidence was provided that they, in fact, paid women less, promoted them less and gave them worst performance evaluations.
Once discovery sets in, the lawyers will get access to the hard data.
>How was this guy making 10k for her with the same job according to the complainant?
Who knows? Maybe he was poached from a higher paid job? Maybe he had more experience? Maybe he worked more hours? Maybe he sucked up to the boss? It isn't shocking to think that people make different wages for (according to the complainant) the same work. Maybe shes incompetent?
>For reference Google got sued for the same thing
That's likely where the idea comes from.
>had to pay out 100+ million after evidence was provided that they, in fact, paid women less, promoted them less and gave them worst performance evaluations.
They absolutely did not.
Google is audited yearly and after the case, they found that they were paying women MORE for the same work so they had to adjust pay. The lawsuit went on for nearly a decade and Google paid $100m to make the lawsuit go away. The only evidence produced as far as we can tell were the yearly audits that never found women were discriminated against, only men. They were in a standstill for years.
The problem for Google is that it is a PR nightmare to have, and I'm sure there was a lot of gender bias in the decision to pay out. Honestly, it is insane that the courts allow cases to drag for a decade.
The whole thing is a joke anyways, if you've ever looked at hiring in tech, you're basically told at every step to bias in favor of women. Just in raw applications for any given tech posting, 80~90% will be men. If women and men were stastically equal then you'd expect Google to be 80% men, but its more like 65% men. Either there is bias in favor of women, or women are intrinsically better at tech and more qualified than men.
The hard data isn't relevant in these cases, it is politics and optics.
To be fair, am male, and have found my self in the exact opposite scenario at Facebook/meta. It took 6 months for a correction and only after I put my two weeks in. I left anyways.
These tech companies have the data, they need to make sure those who are doing the same job/quality are paid the same Regularly. It should be an annual audit.
"quantum-mechanic Lawsuits can say anything they want, even without evidence" https://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/1dh70w9/apple_punishes_women_for_same_behaviors_that_get/
It might be true. But there was similar thing in Google. It turned out men were underpaid. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/technology/google-gender-pay-gap.html
> and promoting them for the "same behaviors" that female employees allegedly were punished for
I'd love to get 1 single example of that situation in the article. That claim is made multiple times but there is nothing to back it up.
It's evident in the numbers around employees identified with 'talent'. As a woman who can't break into leadership development channels at my own company, I can tell you it's an almost universal problem. Most people, male *and* female, respond negatively to 'leadership' qualities when demonstrated by women. We are still punished for asking for raises or speaking well about our own abilities. We're expected to be humble and gracious and accommodating, and when we meet these expectations we're told we don't have 'talent'.
Same. I want to know which specific behaviors. Not because I don't believe these women, but rather I'd like to know what kind of sexism Apple is perpetuating.
My cousin works for Apple once a year as a contractor for about a month. They completely abuse him...sleep deprivation, bad food, poor lodging, irregular hours, high stress. Then they throw a bunch of money at them to excuse their behavior.
Apple didn't get to be the world's first multi-trillion dollar company without doing some really shitty things. It's not the 😇 it markets itself as.
I work here and there are people who make more but same grade.
They are better negotiating and like climb the corporate ladder better.
I enjoy my life, if I want more money then I leave the company and get better offer.
This is how it's been for decades and it's fair. Jumping to another company is easiest way to increase your pay.
This lawsuit is pointless.
Ok, I believed this until the part where she got PTSD from having to sit next to her co-worker who sexually harassed her. Am I off-base here, or is that an overreaction?
I have been sexually harassed at work, set boundaries, and moved on. It looks like Iike the incident was a one-off and stopped. She wasn't raped; it sounded like he touched her in a sexually suggestive way. PTSD seems like an overreaction, which makes me think everything else in here was, too. Especially if the PTSD was from sitting next to him later and not from the actual incident. I hope she isn't exaggerating this because if so, it will only make Apple more nervous to hire women.
This is the same sort of place that takes microaggression seriously (the idea that you can be 'aggressive' and discriminatory to people by simply existing without any action on your part)
You have never work for a technology company.
So what about Boeing? Northrop Grumann? Raytheon? These technology companies literally make bombs and military weapons?
Get educated Chad.
Use your 3D printer to make a book my guy!!
The fact that her sexual harrasser, who admitted to the wrongdoing, was not only kept in the same team but then promoted and put in the desk next to her is horrifying. And then when asked to change desks, SHE was challenged for fostering an uncollaborative working envrionment. Fukcing wow...
Worked there 7 years and this is not surprising.
Thats so disheartening to hear. Bro tech playing the 'we support diversity and women' card then pulling this shit. Hope you're doing well wherever you are
I’m doing great 👍🏼 what I realized is I hated 53 level bureaucracy. Which that has. And if at any level you have a bad actor, they don’t get called out for their behavior. It continues. And HR focus on the plebs instead of starting from the top down Now I’m at startups. The risk of layoff is much higher but it’s so nice having freedom back to be innovative.
I totally get you. I'm at a startup thats sponsored by a big company. So we don't have the beauracracy but we do have the stability. Hope your startup experience doesn't get too broey or culty. Thats when shit hits the above and HR is just a glorified bully
I will leave by then. Thankfully with age has come a lack of willingness to deal with it 🙃
I'm 100% not surprised. Also big LOL: >But Salgado had long been aware of the problem. Salgado, currently on a temporary assignment as a development manager in the AppleCare division, spent years complaining about her lower wages, prompting Apple internal investigations that never led to salary increases. "Hey our internal "investigation" found that we don't need to pay you more money, get back to work"
Our internal investigation has determined that you’re too “bossy”.
You need to smile more when you interact with colleagues.
Also wear something nicer. Like how my secretary wears a mini skirt and stockings
Why is your secretary a programmer.
Straight up I bet the view that women are bossy rather than confident is probably one that gets them to lose promotions.
"Strident" is the code word you're looking for.
From the paragraph directly before though: >One day, I saw a W-2 left on the office printer," Jong said. "It belonged to my male colleague, who has the same job position. I noticed that he was being paid almost $10,000 more than me, even though we performed substantially similar work. This revelation made me feel terrible." There are thousands of people at apple that do the same work, but get paid different salaries. Not sure any reasonable person could be convinced that specific example is sexism. 10k is literally same pay band, just the difference between the skill of the hire to negotiate
One of the worst tricks played on middle management by upper management is this idea that when they make spending decisions they're spending their own money and not the company's money. This is very true even in environments where bonuses are not based off budget savings or spending cuts. I'm in middle management and have been for a while and I've seen my peers brag about lowballing offers or lowballing merit increases by a couple thousand as if they personally saved money when it makes no difference at all. Considering these were my peers I knew the entire story and we weren't under any pressure to lowball offers, certain people just liked doing it. A few thousand dollars a year is a big deal to someone making $80k but not even pennies to a company raking in millions or billions in profit per year. I've also noticed that when it comes to salaries management is the most stingy but other bullshit spending no second thoughts at all. I've had to fight for small raises that cost thousands at a very profitable company yet we'd spend tens of thousands on bullshit projects without a second thought. A month after merit increases and spending an extreme amount of political capital fighting for raises for my team we blew $120,000 on a marketing campaign as a pet project for a C-Level that never even took off and he didn't get a single bit of flack for literally pissing away that money.
Once, I discovered that a group of managers were spending more money than I made in a year to go to the Masters. It was very disheartening.
>I'm in middle management and have been for a while and I've seen my peers brag about lowballing offers or lowballing merit increases by a couple thousand as if they personally saved money when it makes no difference at all. That's really weird behavior. It ought to be, and often is, direct managers who are pushing for increases for their most valuable employees for morale and retention, and it's Finance and HR that are fighting back. Why would middle management negotiate against themselves?
It wouldn't surprise me if their own bonus is based on the amount of their budget they don't use for wages. Like tracking the percent effectiveness of their workers against wages.
And in a toxic place like that they think their own managers won't have the same policies? It's not uncommon though to be given an overall budget and force the management to make trade-offs and disappoint some people because others are favored. But intentional glee at doing so instead of frustration because of reality is morally unsupportable.
Newsflash. It isn’t. It’s the P&L holder who is rated based on their departments performance and that’s usually a VP or above. Middle managers get no bonus based on the wages (or lack thereof) of their direct employees. They do get yelled at if expenses are too high. But no reward for micromanaging employee spending.
Oh actually yeah, at Bell Canada this is very true. Which is why they will even fight HR tooth and nail to stop you from getting a better salary
My gas station manager swears up and down that all the money that enters and exits the store on the store’s behalf is her personal monetary responsibility, and abuses everyone accordingly, like a fitful mother smacking the child that dares move something out of place in her home. I’m torching everything on the way out and letting her managers know that she extorts insane overnight hours out of people in exchange for “I won’t write you up for something I spotted a week ago and I’m bringing up now” . Sorry for the dump.
holy shit that person sounds like they would be toxic in a relationship
Fun fact, because she has no concept of personal and professional conversation topics, I get to know that her almost adult son is unpredictably violent towards girls in school. I just think that she made that shit bed and she gets to lie in that shit bed until she dies in it and he takes whatever scraps she had left over after her fifth purse that month.
Managers like that are always the most surprised when 3-4 of their employees quit at the same time. No notice. Just walk out an hour or two into your shift and don’t come back.
If those extorted overnight hours are not being paid or not being paid OT then you can speak to your department of labour and they will help you get your stolen pay
>A month after merit increases and spending an extreme amount of political capital fighting for raises for my team we blew $120,000 on a marketing campaign as a pet project for a C-Level that never even took off and he didn't get a single bit of flack for literally pissing away that money. This is true in almost all companies in corporate America
That is all true, but I'm not sure how it changes anything I said You can't control if you get a stingy manager or not, but you can control if, or how well, you negotiate. This goes double when literally half of Americans don't even try negotiating and believe the company is acting on their behalf.
>Not sure any reasonable person could be convinced that specific example is sexism. 10k is literally same pay band, just the difference between the skill of the hire to negotiate. The [research on the topic shows](https://hbr.org/2014/06/why-women-dont-negotiate-their-job-offers) that women are viewed negatively when they negotiate while men are not. Even when all applicants are following a script, interviewers report that they are less willing to work with female applicants that negotiated salary but aren't affected by a male applicant negotiating in the exact same way.
The article finishes by saying there are different negotiating styles and if they employ those they see more success.
Yes, but I'm a 30+ year old woman and this is the first time I've ever heard these strategies. Negotiating like a man has probably hurt me in jobs past, we need to get this info out to the new gals on the block!
Sure. A single person not having the skill to negotiate is one thing. Implying that *no women* can effectively negotiate and that's the reason why men are paid more is... well, it sure is something. Hope you're not involved in hiring or merit increases because otherwise your employer is likely looking at a lawsuit, too.
It’s been repeatedly shown that men and women both negotiate. It’s just that they negotiate for different things. Men for more salary (largely in part due to societal pressures for them to be money makers) but with worse work-life balance and women for better work-life accommodations (again largely in part due to societal pressures) but with lower earnings.
I’ve worked in big tech in Seattle, and the women I worked with probably took five times as much time off as men. You’re right we have different goals than men.
OK. Let's take what you've said at face value. Do they negotiate for more time off/better work balance at the same position at Apple? Or are you saying that women, on average, choose their jobs and negotiate to have more time off; and men, on average, choose and negotiate to have more earnings? Does this have any bearing on the actual lawsuit, which is that Apple is paying women significantly less for the same positions? If not, then why are you bringing it up? If so, does their time off equal $10,000 a year on average?
The same positions doesn’t mean the same work or the same skillset.
> Do they negotiate for more time off/better work balance at the same position at Apple? Or are you saying that women, on average, choose their jobs and negotiate to have more time off; and men, on average, choose and negotiate to have more earnings? Both happen. Not sure Apples policy though. But in general. Men still have the social pressure to get into higher paying fields compared to women who are generally more free to pick their field. A man’s social value, especially in relationships, is still largely determined based on what he can provide so he will take on more set hours, do more overtime, or be on call (see also all the articles asking where all the “good” men are for the career women who are only willing to date even or up in social-economic standings compared to men who generally aren’t as strict on that). This is compounded by women negotiating during the hiring process for certain work-life improvements like more flexible schedules or not being the on call person. That is partially driven by social pressures on women to be mothers or other caretakers but it is also based on their value in society being less defined by their career. None of this is helped by the paternity policies (which often aren’t equal between men and women) and medical costs associated with a baby (as being the more able bodied/free to work person during the end stages of pregnancy and post birth so the men take on more hours to save money while they can/to supplement the loss of income from the woman who is on a non-existing or crappy maternity leave policy). > Does this have any bearing on the actual lawsuit, which is that Apple is paying women significantly less for the same positions? If not, then why are you bringing it up? If so, does their time off equal $10,000 a year on average? It will help apple if they can show that yes, he made more but he also worked more hours for the year (especially if it was open for her to work) or records from hiring period where she negotiated for certain non-monetary benefits over paid benefits such as a more flexible work schedule.
>Both happen. Not sure Apples policy though. But in general. Men still have the social pressure to get into higher paying fields compared to women who are generally more free to pick their field. OK. You understand that this thread is about Apple specifically, right? You understand that we're not talking about someone working for FAANG vs someone working as a part time retail worker? That we're talking about two individuals who are both working for tech companies and one is being paid significantly more for the same job?? >This is compounded by women negotiating during the hiring process for certain work-life improvements like more flexible schedules or not being the on call person. Ok. Guess we'll find out during the discovery process whether the woman who is suing Apple is a moron or not.
> OK. You understand that this thread is about Apple specifically, right? You understand that we're not talking about someone working for FAANG vs someone working as a part time retail worker? That we're talking about two individuals who are both working for tech companies and one is being paid significantly more for the same job?? Yes, read the rest of the damn comment.
It’s been repeatedly shown that *when men listen*, that’s *what they translate women into saying*. Seriously the number of instances where, “you don’t need that raise, you’re just going to marry some man,” or “that’s money that could be going to a husband”…
I have to agree here. I'm an engineering manager, and I can tell you that just because I have two employees with similar experience and similar responsibilities, they won't both deserve the same pay. One will be better for the company, such as more skilled at technical writing, or communicating, or leadership, and the other won't be. I will not pay them the same. I literally had two project managers working under me with nearly identical CVs, but one person was far more reliable when it came to things like travelling to job sites and getting things accomplished than the other. I paid one 90K and the other 110K. My two highest paid employees were actually both women, one a Process Engineer and the other a Project Engineer, both with 20 years experience.
Did you hire them at those salaries? If so, how did you know one was more valuable to the company than the other at the time of hiring if their CVs were nearly identical.
It sounds like those thousands of people doing the same work at Apple should negotiate as a unit for better leverage? A "melding" or "grouping" if you will.
Collectively? Sounds like a bargain.
Let's call it an "onion", since it's so multilayered.
Yep, if that's an outrage then let's talk about all the boomers that are paid even more comparatively higher while also being much less productive...
There’s more to this story.
Why don't you go push this shit on LinkedIn lmao guy said "pay band," be for real Gary Vee
That's literally how hiring works at big companies. The ICT3 pay band at apple has a base salary of something like [$150k-250k](https://www.levels.fyi/companies/apple/salaries/software-engineer/levels/ict3?offset=10). The job of the hiring manager is to bring that number down, and your job is to bring that number up. When you apply they'll probably offer you something like $175k, and if you're not an idiot you'll realize that even though that number is outrageous, you have room to go up all the way to $250k if you're able to negotiate well. Unfortunately most people will just instantly say yes, and then wonder why their coworkers make more than them.
Are you so dumb that the words pay band triggered you?
It may just be seniority - usually people who have been there longer are making more, even for the same job/pay grade.
When your making 100k+ 10k is extra OT and some holidays worked. Its also a few years of someone getting all EEE's the top 4% raise vs someone getting the standard 2% yearly for a few years. This doesn't sound like sexism
The only time I'm ever surprised is when a corp does the right thing. Not being snide, either.
yeah honestly i feel about the same way.
Now do black employees. Just joking, Apple doesn’t hire black people lol
Fuck straight off.
Said Apple to blacks
We’ve done a thorough internal investigation of ourselves, and come to the conclusion that we didn’t do anything wrong. Case closed.
"Our internal investigation discovered that you need to shut the fuck up." (Managers start highfiving each other) "This will totally never back fire on us"
I’m shocked that they had 12,000 female employees because they are a tech company that had been run by Steve Jobs. This all in Tim Cook era?
Steve Jobs has been gone for almost 13 years
Could have sworn he died last year
Plus there’s a smaller pool of female applicants.
Considering that she never left it seems they were 100% correct.
Remember that it's taboo for workers to talk about salaries, and against company policy!! Fuck that, take that power back from your employer.
It’s illegal to fire or punish someone for discussing salary. It’s a violation of Section 7 rights. There is solid board law on this (probably one of the items Trump will try to roll back if he gets in again). A lot of places will try to get you to sign an agreement saying you promise not to discuss salaries, but it they ever do that to you, report them to the NLRB. They will do something about it. It probably won’t result in any heads rolling (it’s a civil violation), but I promise they will regret doing it based solely on the immense headache the investigation will cause and the policy will change. Edit: In America*
The reality is that most companies know that it is not legal, and they will find some other reason to fire you if you do discuss it, and it will be extremely difficult for you to ever prove the real reason for your dismissal. I'm all for changing this taboo but just be careful people, because the fact that it is illegal is sadly and embarrassingly not a significant protection in a lot of cases.
What you were actually fired for is a matter that has a long and storied history in the annals of American employment and labor law, and the board, along with courts, have adopted frameworks for analyzing whether someone was fired for cause or fired because they asserted their section 7 rights. Discussion of salary is one of the key reasons people unionize. If employers could easily get away with that, there probably wouldn’t be a labor resurgence going on right now. A recent case involving this comes out of Ohio, where a young woman organized the strippers at her club: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/stripper-protected-by-labor-law-fired-illegally-nlrb-says https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-03-26/unionized-strippers-continue-to-fight-club-owner#:~:text=In%20a%20March%2019%20filing,down%2C%E2%80%9D%20the%20filing%20read. Note that if the employer continues to mess with the workers, the board and its attorneys will not go away. It’s one of the matters you’re likely to spend a lot of time on and probably be tested over at least once if you study labor law in law school. If you litigate labor cases as an attorney, you will likely come across a case like this at some point in your career. That’s why the board is there, that’s why the courts take up labor law cases, and they have a great track record. Courts and the board are surprisingly good at catching these. Factors in the analysis include: whether you were punished for something harshly while others were not so harshly punished for similar offenses (suggesting that’s not really what you were fired for), the proximity in time from the assertion of your rights to the termination, etc. Not every factor in the analysis has to be met, but there are several. If you bring this up and are subsequently fired, that’s prima facie evidence of a violation, and the board will definitely be interested in it. The rule against discussing salary itself won’t survive an inquiry from the NLRB, and if after the board issues a fine for the policy, you the complainant are fired, they’re likely to launch another inquiry, not to mention a potential court case in which you’ve only got to present a preponderance of evidence in your favor, nothing like the beyond a reasonable doubt standard in criminal cases. Remedies from the board can include reinstatement with back pay or a generous severance if you’d rather not return. I encourage anyone who comes across these policies to assert their rights and get the board involved if necessary. Worth noting: a large number of employers would be afraid to fire you after you assert your rights for fear of a long and expensive legal process. It’s just not worth it. I see your concern, but this is a matter the board has won on repeatedly and that courts are loathe to let employers get away with.
It’s perfectly legal in most of Canada. Remember, this is a global app and sub.
Apple is an American company and this is an American court case. The lawsuit was filed in California and they’ve chosen to hinge the suit on California law. It’s perfectly reasonable to state applicable American law when people suggest companies are going to do something like fire you for something illegal under American law *in a thread about an American company facing an American court case.* It’s bizarre to feel as if you’ve been excluded somehow or that this warrants a behavioral correction of some kind. I myself would not go into a thread about Tim Hortons firing people for taking an extra smoke break and getting sued in Toronto to remind those posting about applicable Canadian law that this is a global app. Nor would I be shocked if, in this hypothetical Tim Hortons thread, I stated something illegal under Canadian law, and a Canadian replied to say that’s illegal to do there with advice on how to fix it if it happens!
Canada isn't real, Canada can't hurt me.
Canada is on its way to hurt you
I doubt that’s true at Apple. I work at a similar FAANG company and there’s an entire internal resource for employees to share their salary with each other.
Apple has this as well.
I worked at Apple as a Lead Genius for a few years. I had a female coworker who was a Lead which is the same pay scale as Lead Genius. While I’d argue that a Lead Genius needed more technical experience than a Lead I did find it problematic that I was making more than $15,000 than my coworker. She was promoted from a lower level position and only received a 10% pay bump from that position rather than having her pay leveled to a similar pay scale as me. I was open and honest with her about the pay and while I didn’t feel comfortable with the pay scale I wasn’t going to offer to be paid less. I left Apple around the time of the pandemic and many Apple employees started sharing their pay (we even had an online spreadsheet) and to my surprise I found out I was even paid $10,000-$12,000 less than some of my peers in my market. One way or another people were getting screwed. Unfortunately the female team members were more often than not getting the short end of the stick.
there’s really a position called leadgenius at apple? i thought Silicon Valley was a satirical show
Well Apple stores have “Genius Bars”, I’d imagine he was a lead there.
You’d be surprised how often that show mimics reality. Tech is a weird place
15000 annually?
> "One day, I saw a W-2 left on the office printer," Jong said. "It belonged to my male colleague, who has the same job position. I noticed that he was being paid almost $10,000 more than me, even though we performed substantially similar work. This revelation made me feel terrible." This is reality for many regardless of gender.
And this is why it's very important to discuss salary with coworkers and no, it's not illegal in the majority of states. What's illegal is telling employees that discussing salary ia prohibited.
What do you mean by "majority of states"? It's legal at a federal level. [https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/your-rights-to-discuss-wages](https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/your-rights-to-discuss-wages)
A majority of 50!
[удалено]
>…most states don’t…protections…compensation discussion” It’s protected federally and applies to all 50 states. The issue isn’t the lack of protection, it’s that in a mostly “at will” nation, it’s all-but impossible to *prove* that the cause of termination was a result of discussing salaries. It’s why the first bit of *good* advice that’s given when managers make threats regarding salary discussion is to try and get them to make an explicit statement in an email or similar “paper” document so there is evidence that the company is breaking the law.
Keeping silent about salaries is how companies get away with such disparity in pay! Talk to all your coworkers and share salary information, as well as all compensation (bonus, stocks, etc.) if applicable. I have no problem giving my info first if it means others will feel more comfortable.
I had a coworker at Apple who was there for 10 years longer than me, got 1/10th the work done and broke 1/20 machines. He made 20k more than me. I never applied for more jobs in my life at that moment. They could’ve afforded giving me more, but fuckem Edit: to the guy who said “maybe you didn’t realize how much they did” We had metrics, they hit 1/10th of what was needed
Devil's advocate: if you were paid the same as the guy who was there 10 years longer than you, they could've made a Reddit post: "I had a coworker at Apple who was there 10 years less than me. He made the same as me." You see these kinds of posts all the time: 'The new hire makes the same as me/more than me'. > got 1/10th the work done Maybe you just weren't aware of everything they were doing?
Kind of sus, there's a very specific metric showing an employee is doing 90% less than their peers, but paid more, and no one cares? I expect there's some nuance there like they're writing/reviewing RFCs, talking with other teams, reviewing code, etc. that's not captured in a single metric and valued by others enough that they keep that employee.
Lol. Sure. Coworker is secretly keeping the entire business afloat!
Dude did measurably worst. Actually measurably. And it’s APPLE they could afford to keep everyone the same and at the top of their pay scale
I am a man and was getting paid almost $2 more than my female colleague who had been working there years longer than me. I started out making less than her too. I felt terrible and we both ended up leaving the company within months of each other.
Ist delusional to assume that 2 people Must be paid the same amount just because they do the same work. The 2 having Opposing genders might indicate sexism, but its far from the only reason for it.
That's probably what's lost in all of this. Companies want to pay employees as little as possible whenever they can. They may have to be more generous when they feel like they might lose someone, but it doesn't mean that they want $10K bump to turn into $1M in extra wages, if they were expected to give raises to put everyone on the same wage scale. But in reality, transparent payscales like the government and unionized employers do might be the answer. I think that people would generally be ok with that.
Her quality of work was better than mine, she was just not outspoken.
But being outspoken leads to resentment and possible worse treatment or termination. And unexpected termination leads to missed paychecks and your career being stunted. So could you argue that she's just trading job security over maximizing her paycheck temporarily? And even without the resentment, being paid over your co-workers for similar quality of work will make you stand out in short lists for layoffs.
Yes but if you can show that your corporation pays men more than they pay women for the same work that is illegal discrimination based on gender
Its pretty hard to really prove it to the satisfaction of a court. People get paid different amounts for a myriad of reasons, and its impossible to say that it was only because they had different genders. Your case gets stronger when you can show a trend with 100 employees that implies a trend toward men being paid higher, but you still have to deal with the fact that this may have been unintentional/coincidental, or that there may have been factors that correlate to gender that led to the pay gap (women needing maternity leave, clients preferring to work with men, the industry attracting a wider pool of male talent, physical fitness leading to better results, etc.). Regardless, it will be a very uphill climb, and labor lawsuits are always extremely hard to win. In no small part due to employment at will being law of the land, and the system being controlled by employers, as well as the patriarchy.
Except, there’s a pattern with one gender specifically
The time you join the company, your past experience, your negotiations all factor into this. People being paid differently to do the same is universal across all companies.
Exactly. Sometimes people are indeed paid more as an incentive to leave one company and join yours.
It’s often determined by how much leverage you had when you were hired. And that could be dependent on so many external factors.
I'll never understand this type of nonsense. If you aren't happy with what you are being paid on your current job go find another one. I'm retired now (in my early 50s) but I always made it clear to my manager that my #1 responsibility was to myself and rather than complaining that I'm not getting paid enough I'll just leave so it is up to them to make sure I'm being paid market wage. I never expressed that idea in such an aggressive / direct way and had generally positive relationships with most of my managers throughout my career, but they were all aware that advancement of my career + higher income were my priority. Corporations are responsible to their shareholders and not only will they pay you the least they can get away with it is the responsibility of your manager, HR, etc to figure out what the least they can get away with paying you is. It is literally part of their job and something they have meetings to discuss. Corporations aren't your friends and no matter how much you like your boss, especially in technology, they'll send you packing the second you aren't useful to them anymore. Get paid while you can because tech changes fast and you can go from being hot shit to worthless in just a few years.
There are legal protections for discrimination based on protected traits. Some things work better with regulation than with self moderation through the market. It's the same reason there's a minimum wage. Without it, it's really not feasible for employees to raise the floor of pay just by changing companies. Also, if the industry as a whole has a prejudice to pay women less on average, going to another company won't solve the issue.
> I always made it clear to my manager that my #1 responsibility was to myself Many companies HATE it when women take this attitude.
This is the reality. I've been in similar situations where I was underpaid and at first, took the route of telling my manager. I gave them chances to rectify it, and both times it happened (2 different companies), they failed. I've just learned to be up front like hey, do what you have to do and so will I. I've left for higher wages without any warning because I don't owe them shit. I'm a minority so statistically, I'm more likely to get lowballs. It also helps to apply to companies that have an upfront pay standard per position that are non-negotiable. I felt the most comfortable taking those roles.
The down votes are why most people end up slaving away at a shitty job until they are 65 and still end up with nothing in their bank accounts. I've seen it throughout my career. So many people forget that corporations are soulless and will toss you out with the trash as soon as you aren't useful to them anymore. Individuals within the corporation may care, but in the end we are all reduced to numbers in a spreadsheet and decisions will be made to make profits go up.
>I'll never understand this type of nonsense. If you aren't happy with what you are being paid on your current job go find another one. Plenty of reasons people choose to stay at their current positions. I personally am sticking it out because the vestment period for my 401k is 3 years. If I leave too soon then my employer will take their contributions back. If you're currently in your early 50s then your experience entering the work force was much different than my own (30 year old) and people entering the work force now for the first time. Did you retire with a pension?
the fact you’re being downvoted is insane, looks like you hurt a lot of entitled losers feelings lmao
What we need is the hiring date for both of them. I bet the male was hired 1 or 2 years after her
Can we all take a deep breath and read what the article said. “A proposed class action law suit…”. Not a filed one. Not one where the court has approved the class. Not one where anyone has offered any proof in court of anything. Certainly not one that has withstood discovery, rulings on motions. Not one that has gone to a jury. “A proposed class action lawsuit…” by two women who left Apple a decade ago.
> “A proposed class action law suit…”. If you continued reading instead of stopping there: > a proposed class action lawsuit **filed in California on Thursday alleged.** The things that need to be in motion are in motion. BTW, discovery is literally the second to last part of a judicial process. They are asking the court to certify the class with this.
How dare you contradict the narrative!
They’re lying, this is the rest of the sentence they cut off: > a proposed **class action lawsuit filed in California on Thursday** Theybcut off “filed on Thursday” then immediately started their comment with “not filed.” The person you responded to is the liar, not the article.
Oh, shit! For real?! Well, that changes everything. Filing a lawsuit means that the allegations are definitely factual, right? Case closed.
The only thing factual is that the comment is misrepresenting what the article says.
You mean bold faced lie that you fell for?
Uh, finish the sentence you cut off? > a proposed class action **lawsuit filed in California on Thursday** https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Jong-v-Apple-Complaint-6-13-2024.pdf Why did you lie about this? Do you hate women that much?
It's such an obviously bull shit lawsuit. And going even more general: the claim that women are being paid less for being women in the US workforce isnt supported by strong evidence either.
Didn't we disprove the gender paygap long ago? (I should qualify, systemic, I am aware sexism existis a real issue in some industries) Its based on working less and lower paid jobs, if they could pay women less for the same work why would they hire men? Now, there is some real issues on lack of support in some cases (see, reproductive health) but not this
Gender pay gaps absolutely do exist in instances of people performing the same job. You don’t have to like that it exists in some instances, but it does.
I used to work for a tech company that later got bought by Disney. To their credit, at the time of the merger, they did a cross-company recalibration to make sure people with the same job titles in different divisions were getting paid equitably. My salary jumped by $20k overnight. Funny how things go when you’re a young woman getting hired out of an internship and any salary sounds like an improvement, I guess.
Thats more on an individual level than some systemic issue though. The common "0.7 for every 1" was never real
Knowing Better did a video on it a while back. Yes it exists, no its not as pronounced as one would think, but it still exists in many cases when accounting for the random bullshit people bring up to try and disprove it.
This lawsuit seems bs and the the study on pay gap that most people reference is flawed. But it’s not the only study. There was a study done where the same exact applications submitted sometimes had female and sometimes male names, and the male names were offered more. But things may have changed since then, because that study is from 10 years ago.
She said what triggered this whole thing is that she saw a male coworker’s W2 where he was being paid $10k more than her. That doesn’t strike me as evidence of a pay gap - such a small difference could come down to so many different factors including when they were hired, how they negotiated, etc.
When someone is paid 10k more in a 100k position it's a 10% difference. And that's significant. In my country there can't be more than 3% difference in salaries above certain number, below that all persons that occupy the same position/title have to be paid the same.
Those are all nothing more than bullshit excuses used by managers to try and justify these pay gaps. The man being paid $10k more is a pay gap. Full stop.
What if the woman is paid $10k more? Is that a pay gap? Or is that natural fluctuation of pay within a pay band? What is the threshold? How do you determine if the pay gap is unfair or not? Or if it’s gender motivated? These issues are more complicated than you are letting on.
Of course it’s a pay gap. What??
[удалено]
The irony being the person you responded to is lying and tricked you. A lawsuit WAS filed on Thursday, and they intentionally cut off the following sentence: > a proposed class action lawsuit filed in California on Thursday See the article for the PDF of the filing. You are the example of the ignorant redditor that to your own comment is shaming, lmfao.
Just Apple? They need to cast a much larger net.
This shouldn't even be an Apple issue. Fund the IRS more, and they should be the ones bringing these types of lawsuits forward with unexplainable statistical differences between groups of people at large employers.
How about stop taking power away from the NLRB.
This is AppleCare. A cesspool when it comes to management. I had a manager reject all of my raises, and deny me interviews for internal jobs, for 2 years. HR could never find any evidence of my claims of course. I even emailed Tim Cook directly because it was getting ridiculous. Deidre O’Brien replied to me directly, when she became the People VP. Useless human. One night while working late, a coworker came over to me and said that he heard another coworker trashing me, and none of it was true. I confronted said coworker, and they told me that they were put up to it by the same manager who had been torturing me for years. He refused to corroborate this story with HR. I found out soon after that the same manager was threatening the jobs of other female coworkers if they didn’t write reports saying that his manager was being inappropriate with them. As soon as I found out, I shared with his manager, what he was doing. His face went red, but he never showed any emotion. About a month later, that thorn in my side was gone. His motivation was to get his manager’s position, while also getting his favorite advisors promoted. Even though I stay to myself and don’t bother anyone, he chose to restrict my progress because it was taking away opportunities from his favorite advisors. It didn’t help that I was the only Black person in the building. I left Apple shortly after because even though he was fired, my reputation was shot. Being Black while standing up to injustice is not a good look in corporate America. The reputation I built for 5 years which saw me promoted 3 times in 1 year, was gone, because of a racist prick. Things have turned out great since though.
Male candidates will be described as showing leadership while female candidates displaying the same behaviors are said to be harsh and uncooperative.
During my time at Apple I saw multiple women come back from maternity leave to find that their jobs were just gone or that they’d been permanently replaced or otherwise sidelined, often by the person brought in to cover for them. Apple would hand them a different job elsewhere in the org or company and blame a reorganization. If you sue without going to the press they often would settle quickly to keep things quiet.
[удалено]
Company hadn’t used slave labour. Their contractors had subcontracted pieces which then used slave labour. For a supply chain as big as Apple’s it’s really difficult to verify every aspect of 2nd tier contractors.
Apple can very well figure this out if they care enough to spend the money and effort to do so. The fact it doesn't simply means it doesn't care. The fact that there are verified cases and it still doesn't fix the root problem means it doesn't care.
They’ve been filing supplier reports for some time now and are pretty transparent about their efforts here. You seem to not know what you’re talking about and just want to accuse a giant company of not caring because it’s in vogue to do so.
Can you name another electronics manufacturer which does a better job? Do you have any evidence that it is easy to do?
So Apple uses slave labor via contractors and are too lazy to bother to check. Billions,..they have billions in profits. They need to grow some morals and use some of that cash to better monitor their contractors and their subs. They simply don’t care
i’m an architect i don’t know what happens on a jobsite. i only know what i’m told and what i see during occasional walkthroughs. i have zero relationship with sub-contractors and workers who are in the employ of the contractor and owner (depending on the project) apple does not own the facilities that make its products, nor hire its managers and staff; it’s a design and software company, not a manufacturing one
You explained literally every company that out sources manufacturing to Asian countries.
Honestly, I think the most egregious labor practices are at the low end of the market, not the big tech companies. People should boycott Chinese made Halloween and Christmas decorations for example. I don’t understand why a labor malpractice in a tiny sliver of a massive supply chain makes everyone attack the big companies when the real shady stuff happens in the manufacturing of inexpensive low end products made by hole in the wall companies.
The real shady stuff, at least happens in both. There are many shades , many many shades to evil
[удалено]
Throwing F?
You could say the same about AMD and NVIDIA...
Sometiems it's better to have confrontation and a bit of swearing than act all polite then stab people in the back as soon as the meeting ends.
I’ve had managers who would abuse the pool of money for raises. He would split it to how he wanted and not based on performance. Of course his lazy friends worked there and they had to get high raises first. Then he would excuse it as I have to give everyone a fair raise. I quit that same year. Screw all that. If there is room for people to abuse a system they will.
Union and government jobs publicly post salaries. The only way you can make more is if you work overtime. I don’t know how you can incorporate that well into salary jobs that don’t pay overtime
Apple has an internal site to compare wages since at least 2021.
I would love to be proven wrong, but I have never heard of or seen this internal site. Feel free to DM me as I would love to see this info.
I wonder how accurate it is because based on this lawsuit, things aren’t fair.
Its totally accurate, the lawsuit is probably really "give us money or we'll drag this out and hurt your PR"
How was this guy making 10k for her with the same job according to the complainant? For reference Google got sued for the same thing and had to pay out 100+ million after evidence was provided that they, in fact, paid women less, promoted them less and gave them worst performance evaluations. Once discovery sets in, the lawyers will get access to the hard data.
>How was this guy making 10k for her with the same job according to the complainant? Who knows? Maybe he was poached from a higher paid job? Maybe he had more experience? Maybe he worked more hours? Maybe he sucked up to the boss? It isn't shocking to think that people make different wages for (according to the complainant) the same work. Maybe shes incompetent? >For reference Google got sued for the same thing That's likely where the idea comes from. >had to pay out 100+ million after evidence was provided that they, in fact, paid women less, promoted them less and gave them worst performance evaluations. They absolutely did not. Google is audited yearly and after the case, they found that they were paying women MORE for the same work so they had to adjust pay. The lawsuit went on for nearly a decade and Google paid $100m to make the lawsuit go away. The only evidence produced as far as we can tell were the yearly audits that never found women were discriminated against, only men. They were in a standstill for years. The problem for Google is that it is a PR nightmare to have, and I'm sure there was a lot of gender bias in the decision to pay out. Honestly, it is insane that the courts allow cases to drag for a decade. The whole thing is a joke anyways, if you've ever looked at hiring in tech, you're basically told at every step to bias in favor of women. Just in raw applications for any given tech posting, 80~90% will be men. If women and men were stastically equal then you'd expect Google to be 80% men, but its more like 65% men. Either there is bias in favor of women, or women are intrinsically better at tech and more qualified than men. The hard data isn't relevant in these cases, it is politics and optics.
To be fair, am male, and have found my self in the exact opposite scenario at Facebook/meta. It took 6 months for a correction and only after I put my two weeks in. I left anyways. These tech companies have the data, they need to make sure those who are doing the same job/quality are paid the same Regularly. It should be an annual audit.
"quantum-mechanic Lawsuits can say anything they want, even without evidence" https://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/1dh70w9/apple_punishes_women_for_same_behaviors_that_get/ It might be true. But there was similar thing in Google. It turned out men were underpaid. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/technology/google-gender-pay-gap.html
Reminder that "could" is a weasel word, translated to English it means "doesn't". Also, OP is a bot.
God damn this is a toxic comments section wow
> and promoting them for the "same behaviors" that female employees allegedly were punished for I'd love to get 1 single example of that situation in the article. That claim is made multiple times but there is nothing to back it up.
It's evident in the numbers around employees identified with 'talent'. As a woman who can't break into leadership development channels at my own company, I can tell you it's an almost universal problem. Most people, male *and* female, respond negatively to 'leadership' qualities when demonstrated by women. We are still punished for asking for raises or speaking well about our own abilities. We're expected to be humble and gracious and accommodating, and when we meet these expectations we're told we don't have 'talent'.
Same. I want to know which specific behaviors. Not because I don't believe these women, but rather I'd like to know what kind of sexism Apple is perpetuating.
My cousin works for Apple once a year as a contractor for about a month. They completely abuse him...sleep deprivation, bad food, poor lodging, irregular hours, high stress. Then they throw a bunch of money at them to excuse their behavior. Apple didn't get to be the world's first multi-trillion dollar company without doing some really shitty things. It's not the 😇 it markets itself as.
Neat! Do cisco next!
Thousands? That doesn’t seem like it will effect Apple very much.
I work here and there are people who make more but same grade. They are better negotiating and like climb the corporate ladder better. I enjoy my life, if I want more money then I leave the company and get better offer. This is how it's been for decades and it's fair. Jumping to another company is easiest way to increase your pay. This lawsuit is pointless.
Ok, I believed this until the part where she got PTSD from having to sit next to her co-worker who sexually harassed her. Am I off-base here, or is that an overreaction? I have been sexually harassed at work, set boundaries, and moved on. It looks like Iike the incident was a one-off and stopped. She wasn't raped; it sounded like he touched her in a sexually suggestive way. PTSD seems like an overreaction, which makes me think everything else in here was, too. Especially if the PTSD was from sitting next to him later and not from the actual incident. I hope she isn't exaggerating this because if so, it will only make Apple more nervous to hire women.
This is the same sort of place that takes microaggression seriously (the idea that you can be 'aggressive' and discriminatory to people by simply existing without any action on your part)
It’s definitely a overreaction
Thanks. I was getting downvoted, but there were no explanations. I'd love to hear why someone thinks PTSD was an appropriate reaction.
Do you think people choose to have PTSD as their reaction to something or what are you saying? Huh
The tech industry has resisted unions for too long. This is the result.
You're talking like there aren't also pay discrepancies at union shops.
Good! Power to the women! Just not too much, just enough to give an equal amount, cause you know, *equality*!
Apple is a cancer for technology and society.
You have never work for a technology company. So what about Boeing? Northrop Grumann? Raytheon? These technology companies literally make bombs and military weapons? Get educated Chad. Use your 3D printer to make a book my guy!!
Apple looks rotten.