Hacker News Reader

Comment by _rend | Hacker News Reader

As someone who has previously (recently) worked for Apple as a software engineer, I have a feeling there's something more to this story that we don't know about. There's nothing that would indicate to me any sort of conflict of interest in what this person did, and the most I can construe things is that _maybe_ they were a Genius Bar employee, and _maybe_ this would count as a conflict of interest _if_ their manager was really looking for a reason to fire them, but I have a hard time imagining that anyone would go out of their way to investigate this otherwise.

Working there, there have been plenty of no-no's that we had to be careful about, and periodic training about conflicts of interest and similar, but helping out family, friends, and acquaintances was certainly not it.

View on HN

Sure an excuse, but probably for an equally petty thing.

Like speaking with another employee that it's kinda petty from apple to sue a small company with a peach logo which doesn't even compete with Apple.

Or agreeing that the Ab store sometimes acts abusive (not because of the 30% cut but because of everything else).

Or honestly speaking about a customer about all kinds of repair related thinks (like telling them that data recovery is sometimes possible after water damage but apple just doesn't provide such service, similar with any proper efficient repair, apple only replaces components, which there aren't that many as everything is soldered on the main board).

Or...

What I want to say is currently there are a lot of things an Apple employee might not like about Apple and I wouldn't be surprised if a petty boss will try to fire you if you speak about them with other employees during your brake.

"I have a feeling there's something more to this story that we don't know about."

The part that didn't make sense to me is how a manager even knew to ask the guy if he had helped someone. My guess -- and this is only speculation -- is that the "friend" came into the store to buy the new machine and/or have the data transferred, objected to having to leave his old and new machines there for a couple/few days, and the tech offered to just take care of it for him at home, off the clock, since the tech knew the customer. Again, that hypothesis could have nothing to do with the actual facts but it would explain how the manager would even know there was a potential customer service event that never happened... not to mention the liability to the Apple Store if an unofficial agreement to work on the friend's computer happened in the Apple store: what if the tech had accidentally bricked the computer?

Liability? What liability? It was the person acting separate from Apple. Minimizing liability is not some blanked argument you can throw out there in an attempt to justify whatever nonsensical actions you happen to see before you.

If the employee offered to service the computer while the customer was in the Apple Store, the customer could have misunderstood the offer or assumed it was sanctioned by Apple. I'm not sure the customer would win the case but Apple has deep pockets and a good lawyer will extract a sizable sum just to make the case go away.

Seems to me like an employee helping a customer out, on their own free-time, fostering goodwill and a good customer experience in the overall ecosystem...

would be something Apple would want to encourage?

I agree something is missing.

There could be a liability issue here. The customer knew the employee worked at an Apple Store. If the employee offered services to the customer while they were in the store, and something goes wrong, a good lawyer could make a case that Apple was responsible. We do not know where or how the offer of services was made.

No, they wouldn't want to encourage that at all. Employees doing work off the clock and unpaid, especially for the betterment of the company as a whole, is exactly the sort of thing an employer want to steer very far away from.

You're on the verge of an epiphany about how full-time SWEs are treated versus retail employees, but it'll require grappling with the fact its unlikely he made up 100% of the story

I believed he got fired. And I believe he thinks he got fired for helping an elderly relative.

Do I think that's the whole truth? No.

>About 2 weeks later I was approached by my boss. Someone told him that I had helped a friend with his computer. I told him that yes I had in fact helped a friend with a data transfer (something Apple does for free) and that I had helped him on my own time. He told me that I had just admitted to a major conflict on interest, and that an official investigation in to my actions would now start, two days later I was suspended.

It's a very weird story. What normal co-worker runs tattling to their boss that so-and-so had the nerve to help an elderly neighbor that weekend? And major conflict of interest? Was borrowed equipment perhaps involved or...? Yes, I'm sure even Apple retail is sucky but something that he may genuinely think is unimportant seems to be missing from this story.

Not all co-workers are normal. Some are rivals.

Some supervisors are threatened by someone's expertise, look for a reason to fire them, find one, get the support of management and take it to an HR hearing. This is one reason why a good HR department is required, and the lack of them can be a problem for the unwary (or opportunity for the psychotic) at a smaller outfit. They will / should defend the company against a news story of employee bullying.

The article mentions many years of tenure. Maybe he was a manager and one of his subordinate got him fired to take his position. That's one way to go up the hierarchy.

I mean, I was trained alongside retail employees and went through the same NDA processes and secrecy training. I doubt he made up the story — I fully believe he was fired for this reason, but it seems a lot more likely to me that someone was looking for an excuse to do the firing and this was it, rather than actively hunting down and terminating employees helping the elderly in their spare time. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Did you receive the Genius Bar contract and training regarding moonlighting. I doubt it.

> actively hunting down

I realize the article was hugged to death, but once it comes back online you should reread the story, where this is explained as mandatory reporting not active hunting.

> Did you receive the Genius Bar contract and training regarding moonlighting.

I did not, but if you did, I'd love to know more about what it says that I'm not aware of. If this was explicitly listed in your employment contract but not mine, that's a valuable piece of information to know for interpreting the context here.

> explained as mandatory reporting not active hunting

I did not get the sense that this was mandatory reporting, only that his manager had heard about it (potentially off-the-cuff or through unrelated channels), but will gladly re-read the article again when it comes back up.

Indeed, from the article:

> About 2 weeks later I was approached by my boss. Someone told him that I had helped a friend with his computer. I told him that yes I had in fact helped a friend with a data transfer (something Apple does for free) and that I had helped him on my own time. He told me that I had just admitted to a major conflict on interest, and that an official investigation in to my actions would now start, two days later I was suspended.

This did not sound to me like mandatory reporting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com