121 Apple workers have until the end of January to choose.

I’m sure women will be stoked to have Apple relocate them to a state that could kill them.

  • menthol@lemm.eeEnglish
    1458·
    10 months ago

    Leave a state with abortion protections and move to a hellhole where you can be thrown in jail if you have an abortion, or left to die if you have a complicated pregnancy. This is basically a potential death sentence (or jail sentence) for any women on the team.

    That’s according to Bloomberg, which reported that an Apple spokesperson confirmed that the team, which listens to recordings of Siri interactions to make sure it responded appropriately, will “have the opportunity to continue their role with Apple in Austin.”

    Why do you need to uproot people and force them to relocate to a dangerous backwoods shithole just to listen to recordings on their computers anyways? This is a work from home job.

    • jonne@infosec.pubEnglish
      112·
      10 months ago

      It’s just another stealth layoff. They’ve calculated that x% would rather quit than move, and that probably roughly corresponds with the amount of people they want to cut. On top of that, Texas probably provides tax incentives and has a cheaper labour pool and fewer labour protections.

      • NollijEnglish
        38·
        10 months ago

        Return to office has roughly 30% quit rate across the board.

        Job relocation, especially that far away, is nearly 100%. Very few people are willing to uproot their entire lives, and those of their family, just for a job.

        In effect, Apple has decided to lay off this entire office and hire a new one in Texas.

      • namingthingsiseasy@programming.devEnglish
        131·
        10 months ago

        Speaking of labour protections, is this even legal? Or is it a case of illegal, but good luck with the courts? I would think that at least California would have protections against something like this.

        For example, let’s just consider housing: imagine you bought a house when interest rates were 3% - now they can just force you to sell it and buy a new one with a 9% rate (or force you to rent)?

        But I guess they can just call it a layoff instead so they can get away with it or something

        • NollijEnglish
          12·
          10 months ago

          It’s perfectly legal, unless there are some additional details not mentioned. For instance, if it amounted to discrimination on race, or was in retaliation for unionizing. What would be illegal about it? California can’t just force a company to stay in one place. Companies move offices, even headquarters, all the time.

          Your math would be covered by what’s known as a relocation package. Often, it’s a basic lump sum to (theoretically) cover the costs of moving. You can either accept it or not. Same for any pay adjustments that may come with it.

          Layoff isn’t a legal term. The closest would be terminated without cause, which is exactly what this is. Since California (along with every state that isn’t Montana) is an “At will” state, this again is perfectly legal.

          It’s a shitty decision, but there’s nothing stopping them from making it.

          • namingthingsiseasy@programming.devEnglish
            7·
            10 months ago

            Thanks for explaining. That’s insane. I guess the only real solution is to unionize. If there’s no legal protection, then I suppose a union is the only thing you can rely on to prevent yourself from getting fucked over like this.

            I sincerely hope people take their experiences from this dark period of history and learn from them.

    • planish@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      2·
      10 months ago

      I’m sure that the Title IX people will be very excited to hear about the disparate impact of this decision.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.worldEnglish
        274·
        10 months ago

        Bullshit. In California you have rights. In Texas they have the explicit right to deny you a lifesaving abortion. The degree of human rights you have used to be generally the same state by state until roe was killed

        • thoughts3rasedEnglish
          31·
          10 months ago

          It’s still an insult that it was only upheld by precedence and wasn’t enshrined into a federal law. This isn’t something that states should have the choice of deciding, as it massively affects the quality of healthcare across the country.

          • captainlezbian@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            10 months ago

            Of course, but also the last democratic supermajority barely lasted long enough to get a pared down ACA which was an immediate priority at the time. The implied right to privacy was seen as fairly stable until the republicans began stealing Supreme Court seats.

      • djquadratic@kbin.social
        132·
        10 months ago

        Nah it’s not just a state. A lot of Ob/Gyn physicians no longer feel comfortable practicing in states with extremely prohibitive abortion laws because it genuinely limits what kind of healthcare they can practice. This limits access to care, which can result in poor outcomes.

      • Bo7a@lemmy.caEnglish
        154·
        10 months ago

        Have you been paying attention to the news coming out of texas? I’m guessing not.