> You’re hardly representing an unbiased viewpoint, and this isn’t a problem Apple has.
It absolutely is a problem Apple has, judging by at least three lawsuits which I could find in literally 30 seconds of Googling [1][2][3] - and it isn't just recent claims either, I could find one that went back to 2001 [4].
And yes, a lack of diversity in hiring can also lead to other problems down the road, such as racial bias in sensors [5].
All of these events could have been prevented by focusing on an inclusive corporate culture.
> It absolutely is a problem Apple has, judging by at least three lawsuits which I could find in literally 30 seconds of Googling [1][2][3] - and it isn't just recent claims either, I could find one that went back to 2001 [4].
You're moving the goalposts. In your opinion, is being "very Trumpian" a problem that Apple has? Is Tim Cook running around in a MAGA hat and I totally did not notice?
Edit: Regarding that 2001 article, it's just an article about a lawsuit being filed, which anyone can do whether they have a case or not. I haven't yet found that case, but I found a similar one from 2005 by an apparently obese Black lesbian woman represented by the same law firm:
Here's the trial order. Skimming it, it seems the plaintiff was a terrible employee and her case was so bad she and her lawyers were sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit:
> Burmeister offered plaintiff an opportunity to support the Apple Hardware Engineering organization, believing that this opportunity would give her a chance to showcase her skills and build a base of support for her clients.... This assignment was not successful. Plaintiff's engineering clients, including Cheryl Smith ("Smith"), an African-American HR Senior Director, found plaintiff to be unresponsive, unhelpful, and rude. Smith believed plaintiff had minimal interpersonal skills. According to Smith, plaintiff frequently responded, "No," or "That's not my job," when Smith sought her assistance. Plaintiff was also resistant to providing data on bonuses, stating that the task was hard. Smith received complaints from her HR team about plaintiff's attitude and refusal to perform work. These problems caused Smith ultimately to limit her interaction with Smith, and to seek intervention from Burmeister.
> Judy Goodson ("Goodson"), another African-American HR Director, found plaintiff to be often unavailable, rude, disrespectful, and negative. To create an opportunity for plaintiff, Goodson invited her to make a presentation to a Senior Vice President and his staff. However, plaintiff declined....
> According to plaintiff's colleague Deborah House ("House"), plaintiff was frequently absent from department staff meetings and quarterly HR Department meetings. According to Burmeister, plaintiff was rude to her colleagues in the Compensation Group, prompting Burmeister to counsel her repeatedly about her inappropriate tone, demeanor, and ability to work with others and be a team player.
> Plaintiff's work day was also interrupted by ongoing personal appointments and activities. She maintained a standing weekly hair appointment during working hours. Starting in February 2002, she commenced weekly sessions with a psychologist whose office was in Oakland, approximately 60 miles from Apple's Cupertino offices. She also spent up to and hour and a half a day trading her personal stock portfolio, and at other times played video games and did crossword puzzles on her computer.
> Plaintiff believed she was entitled to yearly merit increases and promotions. However, Apple had a salary freeze in effect from the time plaintiff was hired until late 2003. Thus, the first opportunity for plaintiff to receive a merit increase was in connection with the review cycle in November 2003. When plaintiff learned that she was not receiving a merit increase, she accessed two Apple databases during work hours to obtain confidential salary and tenure information regarding certain of her colleagues....
> Subsequently, as part of the investigation, plaintiff met with Parker and Hull. Plaintiff confirmed that she had accessed and reviewed her manager's and co-workers' salaries and confidential information independent of any business reason. She considered it appropriate to access the information, and admitted that she had distributed the information to her attorney and therapist. She also confirmed that she had chosen to use a personal laptop for her work at Apple, and therefore possessed confidential Apple information on that laptop. At the conclusion of the meeting, Parker told plaintiff she was suspended with pay pending the outcome of the investigation....
> On November 18, 2003, plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC (charge No. 377-2004-00145), alleging discrimination on the basis of race, and retaliation for engaging in protected activities.
> The court finds that the motion must be GRANTED. Plaintiff has provided no facts to support the racial harassment claim against Walker, failed to state any factual or legal basis for the retaliation claim or the defamation claim against Walker, and stated no facts showing that her invasion of privacy claim was well-grounded in fact or law. On more than one occasion, defendants put plaintiff on notice that her claims against Walker were frivolous, but plaintiff persisted...
> The court awards defendants $5,000 in sanctions against plaintiff and her counsel, the Law Offices of Waukeen Q. McCoy.
> You're moving the goalposts. In your opinion, is being "very Trumpian" a problem that Apple has? Is Tim Cook running around in a MAGA hat and I totally did not notice?
I never set goalposts to begin with ffs. The post my original reply was aimed at claimed that:
> > I'm thinking those accusations are probably just slurs by someone with a grudge.
To which I replied that essentially every organization will have bad apples and it's good corporate governance to weed these bad apples out.
Then, in response to someone else thinking it might be a civilized idea to claim I might be biased in favor of anti-discrimination, I listed sources proving a decades-long history of Apple teams and leadership being independently accused of discrimination because apparently one needs to prove what should be common sense, and now you come on and accuse me of moving goalposts? WTF?
> Edit: Regarding that 2001 article, it's just an article about a lawsuit being filed, which anyone can do whether they have a case or not. I haven't yet found that case, but I found a similar one from 2005:
Just saw your edit as well. Yes, people can feel free to file whatever claims they want, but the key thing is that there is a pattern of allegations. It is the very nature of discrimination claims that they are excessively hard to prove unless you have recordings or someone willing to act as a witness and burn themselves along with you on blacklists.
> Just saw your edit as well. Yes, people can feel free to file whatever claims they want, but the key thing is that there is a pattern of allegations. It is the very nature of discrimination claims that they are excessively hard to prove unless you have recordings or someone willing to act as a witness and burn themselves along with you on blacklists.
I don't know if you saw my subsequent edit (and long quotes from the court), but the case I found was frivolous.
A "pattern of allegations" doesn't prove anything if the allegations are lies. People lie all the time. They can even lie to themselves and convince themselves they were wronged to avoid dealing with their own problems.
You’re exhibiting exactly the kind of “bad apple” behavior that organizations must weed out to stay healthy — not unlike the people that filed those frivolous lawsuits and ridiculous public claims.
You’re primed to see your ideological enemies hiding everywhere, and so you do.
> You call it "alt-left", I proudly call it "Antifa"
You’re hardly representing an unbiased viewpoint, and this isn’t a problem Apple has.