this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2024
125 points (95.0% liked)

Anti-Corporate Movement

425 readers
1 users here now

This community is the first one on lemmy of its kind. It sits between the idea of anarchism/anti-capitalism and left leaning economic policy.

Our goal is to make people aware of the dangers of corporate control, its influence on governments and people as well as the small but steady abrasion of empathy around the world indirectly caused by it.

Current topics this includes but is not limited to:

Feel free to debate this but beware, corporate rhetoric is not welcome here. If you have arguments, bring them on. If its rhetoric trying to defend the evil actions of corporations, we will know and you will go.

Our declared goal so far is to have all companies and individuals worldwide capped at 999 mil USD in all assets, including ownership of other companies, sister companies and marital assets. The reason for this is that companies (and individuals) are not supposed to resemble small(?) countries with a single leader(-board) and shareholder primacy. Thats why we feel like they must be kept in check indefinitely.

But companies will just wander off The argument that large companies will just wander off is valid, which we embrace. We dont need microsoft, apple, google, amazon and other trillion dollar companies. There are small competitors being kept small and driven into brankruptcy by anti competitive behavior of these giants or simply bought up and closed. If starbucks left tomorrow, we would not have an issue with this.

But then we have x little microsofts that all belong to the same person(s) If in fact nobody was allowed to accumulate more than 999 mil in assets, they would not be able to own all these. And like defending agains burglary, it is not about complete defence but time and effort. You only have to keep the thief occupied long enough for them to be caught, give up or make a mistake.

But these giants have tons of IP which would then limit our growth Thats another topic we must touch on. We will (only this one time) take a page out of russias playbook and demand that IP of non complying companies (assets over 999 mil USD) will be declared invalid, which opens them up to be copied.

But then they will "live" in one country that doesnt accept this Correct, and they should be taken into custody the moment they enter the airspace of a country that supports this act.

founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
 

Jong, currently a customer/technical training instructor on Apple's global developer relations/app review team, said that she only became aware of a stark pay disparity by chance.

"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."

[...]

According to the complaint, several of Apple's policies favoring men have further entrenched the alleged pay gap. That includes Apple's performance evaluation system, which women suing alleged rewarded men in categories such as teamwork and leadership but "penalized" women for excelling in those areas.

Apple also seemingly has "a policy or practice of selecting individuals who have 'talent' and compensating those persons more highly than other employees." But neither Jong nor Salgado—although both have held various leadership roles—were ever designated as "talent" deserving of a pay increase, the lawsuit said. They've alleged that this Apple policy is biased against women, more often rewarding male "talent" while female talent goes unacknowledged.

"More men are identified as having talent," the complaint said.

Separately, Jong has also alleged that Apple subjected her to a hostile work environment after a senior member of her team, Blaine Weilert, sexually harassed her. After she complained, Apple investigated and Weilert reportedly admitted to touching her "in a sexually suggestive manner without her consent," the complaint said. Apple then disciplined Weilert but ultimately would not allow Jong to escape the hostile work environment, requiring that she work with Weilert on different projects. Apple later promoted Weilert.

As a result of Weilert's promotion, the complaint said that Apple placed Weilert in a desk "sitting adjacent" to Jong's in Apple’s offices. Following a request to move her desk, a manager allegedly "questioned" Jong's "willingness to perform her job and collaborate" with Weilert, advising that she be “professional, respectful, and collaborative,” rather than honoring her request for a non-hostile workplace.

As a result of Weilert's promotion, the complaint said that Apple placed Weilert in a desk "sitting adjacent" to Jong's in Apple’s offices. Following a request to move her desk, a manager allegedly "questioned" Jong's "willingness to perform her job and collaborate" with Weilert, advising that she be “professional, respectful, and collaborative,” rather than honoring her request for a non-hostile workplace.

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] s38b35M5 29 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Apple could also be on the hook for hundreds in civil penalties per class member per pay period between 2020 and 2024.

Emphasis mine. Doesn't seem like much of a deterrent to a multi-trillion dollar company, does it...?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago

If we low-ball that estimate at $200 per pay period per person, someone who worked there the full 5 years would get $26,000. Their north America operations were 33.6% women in 2022, but no clue how many women total that translates to. They have 161,000 employees globally. If they have 20,000 women in the US, that would translate to $520,000,000. If it's 40,000, then $1 billion. Yes, they could afford it, but they're not going to like it.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

There is no rule anywhere that says you are not allowed to talk about your pay. I openly talk about my salary at work, I will tell literally anybody who asks - i’d say about half my company (a few dozen employees) knows what I make. If we all operate that way it will save us a lot of trouble. This nonsense where it’s considered impolite to talk about your salary is purely to the benefit of companies and is designed so that revelations like the one this employee experienced don’t happen.

[–] s38b35M5 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

One job I held had an employee handbook that included a blurb about how and individual's salary is their own business, and in order to foster collaboration and unity, it was best to avoid the topic entirely (I'm paraphrasing; I don't remember the wording).

Hogwash, of course, for the reasons you mentioned.

[–] aeronmelon 5 points 5 months ago

Apple Retail had the same "guidance" when I was there.

[–] SquiffSquiff 4 points 5 months ago

It's fine at work. Frankly it's a problem socially: everyone wants to judge- if you earn more then they resent it, if you earn less, they sneer at you, if you earn 'about the same' then people want to calculate how you spend your money and criticise something about that.