And you can voice your opinion and work for what you want without being a "sqeaky wheel" - which I take to have a negative connotation as a "complainy pants".
Sometimes you have to "bring out the big guns" and send a letter to the CEO... sometimes you just have to say "I want to continue to work remotely as has been proven to make me more productive." and be ready to find another job if the company doesn't meet your needs any more. Work is a two way street and Apple employees can probably find work elsewhere easily enough.
That's on a personal level though... this happens to be on a "union" level ("employee group"? not sure if that's a union per-se but it's more than just a single person). I think a union (or whatever this is) has the obligation to make these sorts of moves - so there is a difference there.
I skimmed the article before and just reread it - 80 people wrote the letter and 2800 joined a slack channel for it - so this does go beyond individuals into a more "our voices will be heard" direction.
Still need to stand up to be heard and you can do so without being a squeaky wheel :)
Personally, I don't think they'll find a way to make EVERYONE happy. Someone isn't going to get the option they want (100% wfh? work at a remote location because they don't like the main office? etc). There's no way they can.
BUT
The group speaking up CAN put more pressure to have options that will make more people happy. If hundreds of employees say "Look at the numbers and look at news stories talking about 40%+ of employees willing to leave a job without WFH and etc"...
If I say "I'm not open to 100% in the office" and Tim says no?
If 80 say it... if 2800 say it...
Tim can ignore 1 person. Can he ignore 80? 200? 2000?
If you aren't interested in leaving but you want better options then you have two things at odds with each other. You may be interested in staying but if staying means you work in a office you hate or have a commute you hate or whatever... then that's on YOU to decide what's more important - a job at apple or a job with WFH.
At the end of the conversation... the letter tells Tim (or whatever CEO gets a similar letter with more than a couple signatures) that he risks losing a sizable number of employees. That letter isn't from one person... it's from a large group of people.
It's up to Tim to decide if the risk of losing talent is worth sticking to the currently given options.
It's up to you and me if it's worth the lack of option you want to stay at the current job.
Like i said... I'd probably look for work if asked to be in the office 5 days a week due to my commute. I don't blame them for asking and given some thought I don't think a letter from a "union" or "employee group" in this circumstance is bad.
Although I would love to know if you're also doing work in union/labor organization either at your employer or otherwise.
From what I see of the market, its an employees market - "there are hundreds of people waiting to replace you" doesn't mean those people are good, experience or worth what they would replace. It's EXPESNIVE to replace an employee and the prospect of doing it for 80? 100? 500? employees is something that Tim (and his management) can't ignore.
I would tell my manager if it was just me - I wouldn't send a letter to Tim ("The CEO")... but this is a weird time and there are PLENTY of stories on HN or... well everywhere... about how many employees have a taste of WFH and are considering job hunting if the options aren't acceptable after COVID.
I do agree everyone is replaceable though... but the cost would be extensive if it comes down to it and THAT many people leave.
Haha, so we were in agreement the whole time. The whole idea of a tech collective goes against this being an employee's market. But perhaps we are starting to see a more concrete shift in the tech world from a white collar "you have your ticket to anywhere you want" environment to a blue collar "you better have a union/collective or you'll probably get screwed out of perks like remote work" environment.