Apple terminates employee for allegedly helping a customer with a data transfer outside work.

[Master Disaster]

7 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

The article is poorly written. Doesn’t provide an area where this takes place. Labor laws differ for each state. Non compete clauses are not valid in all states or are very limited. It all comes down to the state. 

Helping out a relative is not competing with Apple and despite my feelings towards Apple I don't believe they're stupid enough to believe that's the case.

[Donut417]

2 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Helping out a relative is not competing with Apple and despite my feelings towards Apple I don't believe they're stupid enough to believe that's the case.

Remember stores are not ran directly by Tim Cook. Store managers are generally given bring and firing powers. Vast majority of people in management are their because they kissed someone’s ass. Most of them are not qualified. Most of them don’t know labor laws. 

[Sauron]

19 hours ago, kQuote03 said:

Obviously the first thing that sticks out is the timing of this article, right when Apple is at it's lowest PR wise, chugging it as "Covid gave me time to think about it" is a convenient excuse.

There's no shortage of news about Apple acting shitty all year round, I can believe this is a coincidence or at least not exclusively attention seeking.

19 hours ago, kQuote03 said:

Second off, discussion towards this article has been rather negative on sites like reddit, it maybe the nature of the subreddit this is currently being discussed at but I didn't think that it would get such reception regardless.

That's a weird argument to make... why do people on reddit not like the article? Them not liking it isn't a reason to distrust it onto itself...

19 hours ago, kQuote03 said:

Thirdly, the writer provides 0 evidence of the termination or even them working at Apple, so I would be REALLY cautious.

Fair.

19 hours ago, kQuote03 said:

Finally, the article seems to throw a surprising amount of shade towards Apple, going as far as recommending competitors such as Spotify instead of Apple Music.

If this is true I wouldn't blame that person for feeling a bit of animosity... however pointless calls to action like these are, especially in this naive "go with other faceless megacorps that don't care about you".

19 hours ago, The_russian said:

My opinion is either some key information was not provided, or the information was falsified or completely made up. Why would helping someone on your own time be considered Conflict of Interest? Especially if the service you are doing is done for free by Apple, it’s not like you are taking a money-making opportunity away from them.

If you use regular human reasoning, sure. That's not how megacorps (and Apple in particular) think though. I don't know whether this is true or not but I don't struggle to believe it's possible.

 

Apple places particular emphasis on the veneer of operating "magic" or at least something extremely complex and best left to their "geniuses" when they design and service their products. Offering this service off work by yourself may be seen as cheapening the brand. Apple cares so much about this appearance that they specifically instruct "geniuses" on what to say in various situations and what the corporate approved language is - which isn't something they can control when people do it on their own time.

[kQuote03]

3 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Them not liking it isn't a reason to distrust it onto itself...

Agreed, I was trying to illustrate more of "things piling up" in that scenario but in hind sight I probably shouldn't have even mentioned the reddit post and kept the discussion local.

Edited August 19, 2020 by kQuote03
grammar

[Roswell]

3 hours ago, Donut417 said:

The article is poorly written. Doesn’t provide an area where this takes place. Labor laws differ for each state. Non compete clauses are not valid in all states or are very limited. It all comes down to the state. 

Non compete contracts aren't really for the purpose of being legally binding. That store could have fired the employee for being a Yankees fan, it doesn't matter. At-will employment means you can get the axe for absolutely no reason at all at any time. 

[Blade of Grass]

3 hours ago, Donut417 said:

The article is poorly written. Doesn’t provide an area where this takes place. Labor laws differ for each state. Non compete clauses are not valid in all states or are very limited. It all comes down to the state. 

Keep in mind, non-compete enforcement after termination is generally severely limited (on the grounds that it could prevent you from making a livelihood). Company policies which prevent you from doing competing work while employed are generally completely enforceable. 

[steelo]

As much as I despise Apple, I'm 99% confident in saying there's more to this than what he's telling us.

[DeScruff]

22 hours ago, The_russian said:

My opinion is either some key information was not provided, or the information was falsified or completely made up. Why would helping someone on your own time be considered Conflict of Interest? Especially if the service you are doing is done for free by Apple, it’s not like you are taking a money-making opportunity away from them.

Because Apple is not getting the credit, for having done the job.
Any business would dislike if their employees did their craft for someone other then for the business. I doubt your ISP would like if their technicians started fixing things for people on their own.

The rule is probably a broad blanket rule written something like "Techs cannot repair or service machines outside of the company."  - And is really meant to be so employees don't take away business using the knowledge gained from working at the place, and possibly getting payed for their work. (hence conflict of interest)

Some people have bosses that are that much of a dick, and stickler of the rules.
Hell my own boss recently threatened me because I (and everyone else from customers, to the managers) took a video of a very famous person passing by our establishment and posted it to Youtube... because the rulebook says you cannot "Take pictures, or video on, or of company grounds, and you cannot blog about the company.". Even though I was clocked out (We had closed up 30 minutes prior) and was forced by law enforcement to stay on the property for 45 minutes till this very famous person passed by, and STILL had trouble leaving afterwards due to multiple roads being closed. (hint hint who it was...), and nobody in the video mentioned my workplace at all.
- And yes I did say "Of company grounds." He has fired someone in the past because a 14 year old who's parents took a picture of them from the street going to their first day of work and posted that to Facebook. Where I work HATES having ANY kind of publicity at all. Any publicity is bad publicity in my boss' and the board of directors eyes. (Probably because any publicity would show how bad the place is)

ummm anyway If my workplace magically transformed into an Apple store, my boss would have totally fired me for doing something as stupid as... I dunno factory resetting a iPad for my sister who wanted to sell it.  Because that would mean my sister wouldn't be coming to the store, but would be coming to ME for her Apple technician needs. Some people get into management positions who really should not get into those positions, and it's entirely possible this Apple store just has a dick of a manager.

[Donut417]

2 hours ago, Vitamanic said:

Non compete contracts aren't really for the purpose of being legally binding. That store could have fired the employee for being a Yankees fan, it doesn't matter. At-will employment means you can get the axe for absolutely no reason at all at any time. 

Yes and no. If the employee feels they were discriminated against then they could invoke employment law. If you read my post above. 

 

Quote

Back in 2016, employees at a Sports bar were fired due to shit talking on social media because the business owner didn't take out the correct taxes and they owed. A customer joined the discussion. They were promptly terminated. They complained to the National Labor Relations Board. They found it as an illegal firing. The business asked for a second consideration. Again it was ruled an illegal firing. It ended up in court. The Judge said it was an illegal firing. Based on that case, this could be interesting. 

 

The Article in question is "Employees Have the Right to be Disloyal and Use Vulgarity in Social media posts about their employees" It was published in the Management Report Vol. XXXIX, No.1 in January of 2016. This was an article I used in my last semester at school. 

The reason the manger fired the employee could be called in to question legally. As a result the government could step in and force them to hire the person back, or pay some kind of penalty. Most times even in At Will employment you will likely want some reason, and something that not protected under law. Such as down sizing or poor performance. But if You're fired due to questionable circumstances the employer could get in to trouble. ALSO at least in Michigan, if they dont provide a valid reason then the employee gets to collect unemployment.  

[Donut417]

2 hours ago, Blade of Grass said:

Keep in mind, non-compete enforcement after termination is generally severely limited (on the grounds that it could prevent you from making a livelihood). Company policies which prevent you from doing competing work while employed are generally completely enforceable. 

What I said was some states have made them ILLEGAL. So Apple can have all the non competes they want but what the states employment laws say NO then they dont much they can do. Also some states have limited non compete clauses, limiting them to only certain industries. Again the article doesn't go in-depth enough to know for sure. 

[Blade of Grass]

2 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

What I said was some states have made them ILLEGAL. So Apple can have all the non competes they want but what the states employment laws say NO then they dont much they can do. Also some states have limited non compete clauses, limiting them to only certain industries. Again the article doesn't go in-depth enough to know for sure. 

I'm 98% sure the laws you speak of are about post-employment non-compete clause enforcement, not about preventing employees from working at a competing company during their employment. Employees working for a competitor is a clear conflict of interest, and I can't imagine any court or legislature would require a company to keep employees that do so.

 

Do you have any example states that have laws, such as you describe, that prevent employers from limiting employees from working at competing companies during their employment? 

[GDRRiley]

22 hours ago, TheBritishVillain said:

Keeping in line with Apple being a bit mean, was Steve Jobs really as much of a dick IRL as he appeared in the film adaptation? 

yes I've worked with an electrical and audio engineer who said he was a pain.

[Tieox]

If Apple is legit in their claims then this is a fucking dangerous precedent if tolerated.  What else will become non tolerated? using a fucking Windows machine at home and proclaiming PCMR when drunkenly paying Cyberpunk during the Xmas Holidays?

 

They can claim policies all they want, it comes down to personal freedoms and what is fucking right.  But of course and being more calm we need far more clarity on what occurred here. 

[Donut417]

5 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

'm 98% sure the laws you speak of are about post-employment non-compete clause enforcement, not about preventing employees from working at a competing company during their employment. Employees working for a competitor is a clear conflict of interest, and I can't imagine any court or legislature would require a company to keep employees that do so.

 

Do you have any example states that have laws, such as you describe, that prevent employers from limiting employees from working at competing companies during their employment? 

https://www.callahan-law.com/are-non-competes-enforceable-in-california/

 

California doesn't seem to allow them. While you may be asked to sign a non compete. Under California law only California courts can rule on them. And from what I also read, it seems its likely for non compete clauses to be rendered void in the state period. So yeah, you can be under them, but its likely the court will tell the company "It sucks to be you". I think outside of stealing and selling trade secrets from a company and selling them to a rival, that's probably the only way to get one enforced there. 

 

But at the end of the day, employers would have to prove that you broke the clause. Not easy to do when you're like I did a solid for a friend. What also matters is how the employer found out. Because many states have restrictions on employers using Facebook and other Social Media for employment purposes. As the article I posted earlier in the thread states, Employees can literally say my employer is an idiot and pretty much not be able to be fired for that. So even if the if the employee was under a non compete, if the store manger found out via social media that could be a whole other can of worms. 

[Roswell]

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

Yes and no. If the employee feels they were discriminated against then they could invoke employment law. If you read my post above. 

 

The reason the manger fired the employee could be called in to question legally. As a result the government could step in and force them to hire the person back, or pay some kind of penalty. Most times even in At Will employment you will likely want some reason, and something that not protected under law. Such as down sizing or poor performance. But if You're fired due to questionable circumstances the employer could get in to trouble. ALSO at least in Michigan, if they dont provide a valid reason then the employee gets to collect unemployment.  

I think you’re confusing the legality of labeling someone as fired vs laid off. One would disqualify you from being able to collect unemployment and other benefits, the other wouldn’t.

 

Again, you can lay off anyone for any reason whatsoever if they sign an at-will employment contract as long as it doesn’t fall under age/race/religion/gender/disability  discrimination. That includes being able to lay off someone for talking poorly about the company.

[Blade of Grass]

26 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

https://www.callahan-law.com/are-non-competes-enforceable-in-california/

 

California doesn't seem to allow them. While you may be asked to sign a non compete. Under California law only California courts can rule on them. And from what I also read, it seems its likely for non compete clauses to be rendered void in the state period. So yeah, you can be under them, but its likely the court will tell the company "It sucks to be you". I think outside of stealing and selling trade secrets from a company and selling them to a rival, that's probably the only way to get one enforced there. 

 

But at the end of the day, employers would have to prove that you broke the clause. Not easy to do when you're like I did a solid for a friend. What also matters is how the employer found out. Because many states have restrictions on employers using Facebook and other Social Media for employment purposes. As the article I posted earlier in the thread states, Employees can literally say my employer is an idiot and pretty much not be able to be fired for that. So even if the if the employee was under a non compete, if the store manger found out via social media that could be a whole other can of worms. 

My dude from your own link

Quote

A non-compete is something called a “restrictive covenant” that is used to restrict an employee’s behaviors or actions once they are no longer working for a company.

Like I said, NCAs are for post-employment. Restrictions for your job (while employees) generally are by the company’s employee handbook, and companies have a lot of latitude when crafting those policy. 

[Donut417]

6 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

the other wouldn’t.

In Michgiran if your fired for no good reason you get unemployment. If you are fired for reason then you pretty much dont. 

[justpoet]

23 hours ago, TheBritishVillain said:

Keeping in line with Apple being a bit mean, was Steve Jobs really as much of a dick IRL as he appeared in the film adaptation? 

Jobs was certain about what he knew, and certain he knew enough if he didn't know.  He expected that if you actually knew more and were worth your paycheck, you'd convince him to think differently.  He had no problems telling anybody exactly what he thought of them or their idea, good or bad.  He was eccentric in various ways as well.  But…he was Steve Jobs…and he was awesome…and he got things to happen that people said couldn't be done.  Part of the reason was the extremely high bar he held for everybody around him…which of course would often come across as being a dick...but he didn't have time to deal with anything less than exceptional.

 

Note: Worked there, saw it, didn't have direct dealings with him other than saying hi a couple times as I was crossing the campus at the same time he was.

 

Woz on the other hand, is as hilariously fun and good natured (and then some) as anybody might think.  Also a genius, but in a different way.

[Guest]

I wouldn’t be surprised if this was an issue. These days even a tweet can get you fired. Although I’m pretty sure MacOS has a migration assistant, so I don’t know how the company could have fired him on the grounds of using an Apple computer outside of work? 

[Bombastinator]

Smells like there’s something missing here.  What is being described is totally illegal.  Except in specific circumstances.  Where is the wrongful termination suit? 

 

 I suspect something really really large is being conveniently left out here. 

[Donut417]

On 8/19/2020 at 7:23 PM, RorzNZ said:

These days even a tweet can get you fired.

Depends. Because in some states employers tracking you via Social media is illegal.  There has been a Federal Court case that pretty much stated that an employee can bad mouth their employer on social media and cant be fired. Look to one of my previous posts for more details. Because once that case went thru that set a precedent. 

 

 

[Tellos]

@DeScruff Not jsut credit, it's often in many companies including my own for hourly employees as stealing company time/moeny. Because you see if they work off clock and are not salary they can claim they were not paid and get apple into deep shit. My own Company would be royally upset at me if I worked off clock as an hourly. Because they have to pay me for that time! So somebody doing official work with company tools or data off hours means their on the hook for it still and with an employee they have to pay possibly OT for work they did not sanction.

[Vishera]

On 8/19/2020 at 2:13 AM, Kisai said:

You know what's funny. That's how long it takes to migrate data on a Windows machine without SSD's. 1Gbit = 125MB/sec and about the same speed as the highest end 7200RPM drives. So it takes 16 hours to transfer the data without an intermediatary, or 32 with one(that isn't a SSD) With a SSD, you need both machines connected by 10Gbit, but is slower than a NVMe drive.

 

Like today it took 3 hours to transfer 80GB on a windows machine. Those mechanical laptop drives suck, a lot. If I had to transfer the entire 500gb drive it would have taken 18 hours.

My high-end 1TB 7200 RPM HDD from 5 years ago takes 8 hours to back it up,a current high end 3TB 7200 RPM that i have takes 6 hours per 1TB.

And 80GB transfer takes 15~20 minutes on my high end 3TB 7200 RPM HDD.

[AngryBeaver]

Don't forget people that most states in the USA are At-Will. Meaning you can be terminated for pretty much anything or quit for pretty much anything without much recourse. Now there are some right to work states and there are also other things that cloudy this like contracts, but in the vast majority of cases you don't get much other than unemployment. Even then more and more companies dispute it every time they let someone go to help with their premiums.

 

Now you can take them to court, but that is also hit or miss and in most cases the best you can get out of it is lost wages for X amount of months.

[Mark Kaine]

On 8/19/2020 at 1:34 AM, kQuote03 said:

Finally, the article seems to throw a surprising amount of shade towards Apple, going as far as recommending competitors such as Spotify instead of Apple Music.

Why is that surprising to you exactly?