Apple's Texas-Sized Problem
daringfireball.net
daringfireball.net
For all it's horrible flaws, this was something passed by the Texas government. I can at least understand the structural justification for the law. People voted for a state representative, state senator, and a governor who signed the bill. The authority and responsibility is clear. The feedback mechanism is also clear - vote. And, I do hope a lot of them lose their seats as a result of the backlash. But again, I think the power to address this Texas-Sized problem should primarily be in the hands of Texans, rather than giant multinationals like Apple.
Mind you, representatives choose their voters to ensure that they will win elections. The power has been removed from voters hands via gerrymandering
You have every right to be an asshole, but you don't have a right to make other people put up with it. If you're going to enact something that a large swath of your population finds deeply offensive, don't be surprised if they leave, and don't be surprised if the economic activity they generate leaves with them.
I have coworkers living in Texas and while they’re disappointed in the ruling, I haven’t heard of a single person planning on moving because of it. Most people I know moved there because of the land, property taxes, climate, etc. The politics situation is unfortunate to them, but not a defining problem. And considering these same people have the resources to get abortions no matter what (not to mention the fact that most abortions happen in low-income, marginalized communities), I don’t foresee many people leaving because of this.
On another note, I know people who were thinking about moving to Texas. They're not now. On the flip side I know people who moved to Austin in the past two years. They're now looking at leaving. One has already done so. This is where renting and working from home is a blessing - you can quickly change residence.
Seems like Apple supports their employees by maintaining offices in different places.
It's not a given that you can transfer between offices for personal (or political) reasons; normally there are requirements based on team & organizational needs.
The actual nail-in-the-coffin for her is the school board situation, although she's pretty furious about the abortion law, the way they've handled COVID, the power utility situation, etc.
For most of the last couple decades you could be liberal in most of the big cities and basically just go about your business. Texas was pretty big on "live and let live", after all. Apparently it's not like that anymore, and the more conservative factions are very in-your-face about owning the libs now.
If I don't like what Amazon is doing, how can I possibly boycott a company that has meshed itself into the backbone of the internet at almost every level? As a Texan, at least I can vote in the next election. I have virtually no power over these big companies.
> Sadly, I think the "free market" system of voting with your wallet is also broken, if not moreso.
It's definitely more broken, at least from a democratic perspective. In the free market, you vote with your dollars and shares, and those with more money have more votes (sometimes many orders of magnitude more). One man one vote it ain't.
This idea that you can put yourself into an ideological bubble and just assume that the world outside the bubble is the same as the world inside the bubble is a form of self-deception.
Most people don't hate Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. All these companies have huge user/customer bases. Even when the whole Microsoft is Evil thing was going on, most people were sufficiently self-aware to understand that this was a niche view. For some reason, that connection with reality became unhinged and many people really think they are in the majority now, and that's when they experience these types of coginitive shocks such as realizing that most people in Texas are pro-life or that most Brits voted for Brexit. For some, the shock of reality is so devastating that it deeply wounds them and they start massively freaking out when they see a tear in the fabric of their self-constructed reality.
Note that I am not arguing against self-constructed realities. It's necessary, but you have to keep in mind that
1) odds are most people don't share your views
2) odds are that you yourself will change your mind later in life as you become wiser.
3) odds are very good that your grandchildren will repudiate your views.
The number of views that we have that we can think are truly universal and will stand the test of time is very small, and almost all of them already have existed for a very long time.
Well you're a little late on that, business has been influencing policy since the East India company was chartered in 1600.
I'm perplexed how people don't perceive business has been influencing policy for centuries until they start intervening recently for employees who are women and what have you.
Seeing things as not being political is political unfortunately.
After a war ends, companies can be judged for collaboration with the enemy. Until then, it’s all grey area.
Why does the issue begin and end here for so many people?
> Okay, but where is this energy when companies donate to politicians? Or spend millions lobbying for specific policies?
What do you mean? Isn't there a huge amount of energy in those areas?
> Or contract with the police or military?
That's not at all like the first two things you listed. Refusing to contract with the police or military (because they're the police or military) is probably a greater interference with democratic government than not siting an office in an area because you don't like the laws the legislature passed.
Apple and many other US employers extended health and other benefits to LGBTQ partners of employees for a couple of decades before Obergefell. Do you think they shouldn't have?
They very much were
What if a law is being drafted that directly affects their business? Should they still be quiet? Or is there a list of issues that can be vocal about, and a a list of issues they should be quiet about?
Apple's secret power is that they integrate everything really really well. So your laptop works seamlessly with your phone, your watch, and soon Texas too.
I hate to break it to you, but everything IS political, all the time. If you don’t believe that, it’s likely because nobody’s coming for your rights in particular.
I, like you, am a resident of Texas. I think for Apple to do what the article is suggesting is taking away my right as a Texan to have my representatives craft laws. Politicians need the consent of the governed, and now apparently, the consent of Bay Area corporations who are decidedly progressive.
In other words, your right to have your representatives restrict the liberty of the rest of us Texans for no good reason.
Sadly, the motto of the Texas Legislature seems to be "Local control!" when it comes to national policy — at least if the federal government is controlled by Democrats — but just the opposite when it comes to blue cities' enactment of progressive local ordinances that offend rural conservatives and/or their corporate donors.
(Houstonian here, formerly a lifelong, pretty-conservative Republican.)
There's something very entitled to the idea that "I support democracy as long as it advances my agenda. Otherwise (if I'm economically privileged), I'll move to California >>> Canada >>> Overseas somewhere more aligned with me."
Please re-read what I said: I was calling out the hypocrisy of the Texas GOP: Local control for me but not for thee.
And "democracy" does not mean "democratic authoritarianism." (Or as the sour joke went about hard-line Islamist parties during the Arab Spring: One man, one vote, one time.)
Let the large cities in Texas decide if abortion should be allowed within city limits. That's totally possible if the state govt delegates powers to counties/cities. Oh wait, that's small govt but goes against the agenda so it will never happen.
>There's something very entitled to the idea that "I support democracy as long as it advances my agenda. Otherwise (if I'm economically privileged), I'll move to California >>> Canada >>> Overseas somewhere more aligned with me."
Not allowing this sounds like an abusive relationship, like a dictatorship like North Korea where people seeking to leave are killed. Just like the Taliban stopping people in Afghanistan from leaving. The new law also comes from an extremist view of a world religion so the argument has a parallel in that they take a dim view of people trying to leave the extremist religion adherence imposed on others.
Yes. That is at the heart of my belief in representative government. And it wasn't my representative alone who voted for this, it was enough of them to get it passed.
I've already stated many times that I think this is an atrocious bill and I hope it gets overturned. But at the very least, it was passed by duly elected representatives and it appears to have withstood the courts (for now).
Indeed, it's hard to find anything that does not somehow touch on group decision making because so little is truly private e.g. want to have a loud party in your apartment? Whether societal norms approve or not will determine you can do that or whether you're forbidden to do that or allowed to potentially bother your neighbors; part of the group.
Once properly framed, the idea is practically tautological. But even without that framing it's usually much more obvious for people for whom the status quo is a rough deal.
Sorry, yes, I do think it's naive to think a business - particularly a trillion dollar omninational - can operate in ignorance of the laws and politics that their staff experience. A business is a construct of between some and a lot of individuals, not an entry in the NASDAQ.
>What gives Apple more of a right to counter what the duly elected representatives of a state government have enacted, than the voters of that state themselves?
It's a false premise, since there is no additional right, but the employees are voters.
Does this remind anyone else of the pre Civil War period?
Both sides are using cultural hot button issues to consolidate their base.
There's a long game to be played here: as more progressives arrive (and as conservatives "see the light"), eventually the balance will change to tip the state blue. Conservatives see the writing on the wall, too, which is why they're resorting to ever-more-desperate tactics.
The losing side of the war is always the one who fights the craziest before the final defeat.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21053747/9-1-21-texas...
So, it's going to wend its way through the Federal court system and back up again, where they will either decline or agree to hear the case.
Can you show me, from the text of the constitution, why this law would be unconstitutional?
Our president says that the law is an "assault on a woman’s constitutional rights under Roe v. Wade". However, the constitutional doesn't guarantee _anything_ under Roe v. Wade. RvW was used as the impetus to allow something which the law in many state explicitly forbid.
The democrats know this and this is why other states have passed abortion laws of their own (like NY) because they know that legally abortion isn't constitutional.
The laws that make federalism unworkable ended up being unconstitutional over time because the SC has a vested interest in maintaining federalism.
I’ll get the popcorn.
It doesn't have to be from the text of the constitution if the right derives from it under case law.
As such, here you go:
"In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. But it also ruled that this right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life. The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother. The Court classified the right to choose to have an abortion as "fundamental", which required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the "strict scrutiny" standard, the highest level of judicial review in the United States." [1]
Here [2] is the exact opinion from the Supreme Court. The Opinion starts on p.4 of the document. Go ahead and read through it to see exactly what is Constitutional and what is not.
So, under current law, there should be no question, right?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
[2] https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...
This is why we are now "decriminalizing" things: In a plurality of states, you have fetal homicide laws where the life of the unborn is equated to another human life. Courts and prosecutors have simply chosen to ignore the law and the left has pretty consistently used the courts to bypass actually changing or doing anything with the law (probably because the support just isn't there).
You might not understand how (or agree) that follows from the text, but that doesn’t matter. Only the Supreme Court’s interpretation is canonical; ergo, the Constitution guarantees the right to an abortion.
There is reason to believe the Supreme Court might change constitutional law when given the chance; which will happen in a few months when they hear a case about Mississippi's law.
The Texas law is different. It is designed specifically to avoid judicial review.
This is already happening btw: https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1440059654789165057
That the Democrats somehow goaded the Republicans into passing something so abhorrent that even a large number of republicans would switch vote come next election.
Abbott is doing this because he wants the Republican Presidential nomination, and to do that he has to fend off the not-insignificant number of right wingers who want to primary him due to some of his early actions during the pandemic.
But people need to let this play out before making business decisions or boycotting Texas. This thing will go away. It just needs to find its way to the courts. Cancel culture demands instant action, but that’s not how government works.
There is a doctor in San Antonio that just notified the state/medical board that he performed abortions after the law went into effect. It’s expected that he’s ready for the fight and I’m sure he’ll get all the legal support he needs. If apple or others want to be a part of the solution, there are certainly less kneejerking ways to do it.
This is definitely not it, replace blue with red, Republicans with Democrats & replace Texas with California, is California trying to "widen the shrinking margin of power the Democrats hold" ? Definitely not...
This sort of presumes that Texas is an empty plot of land where no one lives. This is obviously not the case. There are millions of people that live there and need jobs. So what about women who want to work for a cool consumer technology company and are anti-abortion. Why would it be "untenable" to hire those women?
Of course, that doesn’t solve the problem for those who strongly prefer to live in a state where nobody’s allowed to have an abortion.
Being forced to carry a pregnancy to term -- even an especially risky one, or one that's the result of rape or incest -- has significant impacts on both the mother and the community that could be net negative instead of positive.
Everything about a vaccination is supposed to have net positive effects, both for the individual recipient and the public health and welfare.
They've got big money on expanding offices in Texas.
Over time this perk grows across the Texas economy and causes political change, or continues to be a few companies offer it and people can virtue signal by choosing where they work.
There are many reasons (e.g. abortion is a very private and personal matter and most people probably wouldn't want to involve their employer), but primarily, it would count as assisting abortion and could open Apple to liability under this law.
I like reading Gruber usually, but this comment is completely asinine.
https://nypost.com/2021/09/17/pentagon-admits-its-killed-civ...
Also, the economic opportunity in this case is zero sum; if Apple is intent on expanding, while reducing their presence in Texas, women in general would still have a net gain, just located in areas that are friendlier to women.
Each small mandate will add up over time to something we cannot currently imagine.
Take the executive order mandating vaccination for companies with over 100 employees.
Say this is challenged in court and it is upheld on some grounds. This might set some precedent. Then say at some point later the Texas law goes before SCOTUS. The initial precedent might provide a win for Texas.
This is all speculation, but it not entirely out of the real of possibility.
1. Accelerating the trend of companies taking sides on political issues. Think about how many companies you use and imagine half of them taking your side, and the other half taking the opposing side.
2. Expanding the already outsized influence of corporations in government.
3. Apple having to contend with their China-Sized Problem re: factory workers, Hong Kong, Taiwan and the Uyghur population.
The only logical conclusion from this is that Apple has (correctly) decided to take a position on this. Unfortunately, by doing so, they’ve invalidated the typical justification for not speaking up on Chinese atrocities against their own marginalized citizens. Barring a more detailed explanation, the only conclusion that you can draw is that they (again, correctly) disagree with how the state of Texas treats it’s citizens, but agree with how China treats it’s citizens.
This is hardly the only conclusion you can draw. Another is that Apple (correctly imo) sees that they have a lot of influence over the law in Texas, and none at all in China.
That’s the answer. You move your business out of Texas. Any company that expands or initiates new operations in Texas implicitly supports Texas’s abortion ban.
-
So should they also stop selling to Texans iPhones? Or just close the stores there or the manufacturing facilities?
Meanwhile Austin has different politics to elsewhere in Texas. Should Apple carve out an exception there as well?
So I guess I just don't agree that it's a corporate dystopia. It's a popular opinion dystopia, actioned through corporate activism. To use a sports metaphor badly, Apple is the football, not the quarterback.
(And to be clear, I don't think it's dystopic at all, at least compared to the alternative, which would be to forbid this type of corporate activism)
You think we're not already there? Optimist...
A huge amount of modern life on the internet is intermediated by a very, very small list of giant companies. And those companies have started going, rather aggressively, after points of view they don't like - Amazon has recently announced they're going to be paying more attention to what's running on AWS, etc.
They can try to limit new hires to people already in Texas, or only move single males in, but these options aren't appropriate for the 21st century. Simple retail operations, or even warehouse operations, aren't really non-local-hiring issues. So they're the least offensive/most-explainable options.
Yeah, they can go all sports league and boycott Texas, but then they'd have to get out of China or other distasteful places. Or, they should just admit "we're just in it for the money, suck it up" and stopping their posturing.
And no matter what you say or do re: Austin, it's in Texas. Nothing they can do, really, against their own state laws. Similarly, Montreal is a great city, but it's in Quebec and thus under the rule system of Quebec.
At the end of the day, it's up to people to follow their moral compass in their daily lives. Companies are sociopathic.
You know there are plenty of women who are strongly anti-abortion as well, right? Handwaving within a few percent, about 40% of women and 50% of men in the US are strongly anti-abortion according to Gallup and Pew surveys from the last few years.
> ...but then they'd have to get out of China or other distasteful places.
If only. They can't. China has Apple by the balls, and Apple knows it. The downsides of moving literally all of your manufacturing to a country that's increasingly "Do what we say or else."
Granted that comes with a substantial can of worms around privacy.
Now that I think about it though, the 'conditions for employees' argument is pretty much just as morally hypocritical as a boycott when you bring China into play.
Maybe Apple has some framework for medical privacy in place they could leverage for this, and I've read Salesforce has already done it.
Most workers will most likely be remote from now on meaning they have a choice in what state they work in so they can address this regardless of where Apple chooses to locate physical facilities.
Further, I keep wondering what % of females are having 1 or more abortions for this to be such a critical issue for most?
https://www.kxan.com/news/business/apples-1b-austin-campus-n...
Longer term, they've talked about making that 15,000 employees.
If the people and government of Texas feel that way about abortion, far be it for me or frankly any of us (not from Texas) to question it.
Frankly, if you need an abortion you can go to another state. It’s probably <$200 flight almost anywhere in the country. Apple could literally offer flights to California for any medical procedure no questions asked and problem solved.
I also don’t see Apple as having the moral high ground here. They employ slaves in China. Apple respects the Chinese government and says nothing. They’re sterilizing people, organ harvesting on live people (Christians and Muslims) in China. But this... this is what people care about?
But... is that what’s this really about?
I don’t think so.
Additionally, Apple does not determine the law. If legislature responds to Apple, that would be due to the structural aspects of democratic government, in other words, the voters want something and will place pressure during elections. And Apple is just one of the many big companies in TX.
The statute is blatantly unconstitutional, and Apple has enough high-powered lawyers to fight any lawsuits.
This methods used were actually similar to the way the old police system worked. They'd put out bounties and citizens would bring people in.
For reference, bail and repos are done in a similar manner and are way more intrusive (taking someones car). I don't really see your point? In this case, someone is merely sued for $10k (as opposed to jail or losing license).
That's fair, I was trying to indicate they could offer all expense paid flights to Cali any time to headquarters or something. Don't ask why, don't even make it related to medical.
I personally have flown to other states & countries for medical procedures. Further, there's a boat load of other methods of mitigating the need for abortions within the law.
It's insane to me that Apple, a business, should apply pressure.
Most people in Texas don't want this insane law either, but gerrymandering diminishes their voices.
edit: downvoters should explain why they are downvoting :)
Are you Texan, or do you have a source for your statement?
This is all so reactionary. As GP pointed out, Apple is fine with a China presence while they sterilize Uighurs and harvest organs.
I live in Texas, yes.
Here you go: https://avowtexas.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/EMBARGO4-29...
Questions 5 through 8 are related to this abortion law.
> Texas has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, and laws could get even more restrictive due to the makeup of the current U.S. Supreme Court. Generally speaking, do you think that laws regarding abortion access in Texas should be more restrictive, less restrictive, or kept the same as current state law?
We used to call that a leading question.
The Texas legislature voted this into law with a sizeable majority. If the large majority of people are against this law, they should organize, vote new people in, and have it overturned.
The problem with liberals is they're just terrible politicians. Everything is an appeal to the courts or their mega-corporate employers to help establish agendas instead of doing the only thing that works: getting bills signed.
I find it disturbing that so many people only think about mothers right to abortion, and have no qualms whatsoever about taking the life of perfectly formed humans and destroying the life they would/could have been living . . .
This is the kind of privileged naivete I come to HN for. The cost of an airplane ticket isn't the only cost to travel out of state for a medical procedure. At a bare minimum you also have to consider the person's time and that many people don't have flexible enough employment to take time off for something like this.
https://qz.com/1702181/a-third-of-americans-dont-get-paid-va...
If you qualify financially, there is a program that helps you pay for travel and board as well as the procedure if you need it.
(the procedure is about $650 which is the bulk of the expense)
Here's a good video about the subject: https://youtu.be/PnO7pL-QWyc
I'm pretty sure this is how the old policing system worked in the U.S. they would set bounties and citizens would bring people in.
In this case, I'm 99% confident it'll be deemed constitutional and isn't really a problem.
States can do what they want, it's extremely problematic that people in other states feel they should apply pressure on people thousands of miles away.
It's incoherent.
I'm pointing out that you everyone should really be focused on local politics. And suggesting the bullies who disagree should leave Texans alone.
This law does almost no damage and from the majority of Texas perspective it's a net positive. I don't see why anyone, especially Apple, should be applying pressure externally.
Saying Apple does bad things elsewhere doesn't make this a non issue. People criticize Apple for these issues and rightly so. Apple criticizing Texas over these issues doesn't change the reality about the issues in Texas.
Apple and everyone else should be criticizing Texas.
I don't care if people discuss at all, but take a moment to think about what you're actually questioning.
You're questioning the choices of the people of another sovereign state. Not only that, but your advocating that because the people of that state believe your killing babies with a heart beat... they should be punished by Apple? a phone manufacturer? By the way, this phone manufacturer literally uses slave labor of Christians and Muslims in China.
If you want to have a discussion, I'm all for it. But I don't think that's really what most people want here. I think they want fascism. Effectively a corporation enacting on a political ideologies behalf. That's dangerous and will lead to massive conflict.
In reality, the people of Texas have the right (via the constitution and state government) and through their representatives, to say they don't think it's okay to kill babies with a heart beat. Imagine if oil companies stopped providing oil to California
If we give companies the power the lobby and push agenda, then yes, I think Apple should be allowed to push social agendas and punish Texas for enacting draconian laws that are designed to hurt women and set the country back decades. Apples actions here and what they do in China can both exist and don't make one action OK because the other is NOT OK. Or are you going to say only the perfect moral entity can have an opinion on any topic? Because there will always be some moral critique of anyone who says anything.
If we are going to let people subject their ridiculous religious beliefs despite the supposed separation of church and state, what's the difference with letting companies? It's just another organized group with lots of money. Why let one get away with it and restrict the other?
Personally, I'd like to see religious groups lose any tax benefit if they participate in politics. I'd also like to see Citizens United overturned and get corporate money out of politics. But given the status quo, if corporations want to fight the religious right pushing their anti-women agenda? It's better than saying 'companies shouldn't be involved in politics.'
By your own argument, companies have the right to not employ people in a State that is pushing an agenda against a protected class of people. The current set of laws says this is OK, ergo, Apple has the right to do it. This is the same logic that the people of Texas have the right to enact a draconian anti abortion bill. The rest of the country, people and companies, have the right to say fuck off and try to change the law.
Something like 40-50% of the country disagrees.
This is kinda my point, you’re coming across like you believe half of the citizens beneath you or just dead wrong. In fact, the entire election incident was requesting a forensic audit and canvass because the numbers didn’t make sense to them — citizens have a right to that, no?
Regardless it’s alright there’s disagreement, just like you they’re questioning things we all can. I think it’s entirely fine to try to convince people. So, again to be clear — good to question, discuss, reason, I agree with that.
Where the disagreement occurs is trying to get a tech company to utilize leverage to hurt the people of Texas. I don’t think we should hurt Texans who have a belief that those with a heart beat should be civilly protected.
I think generally we should separate businesses from donating to or actively supporting politicians. More importantly, we shouldn’t be trying to harm those of a different ideology (harm is different than supporting opposition). That has been a move recently and is leading towards authoritarianism and is dangerous.
Imagine if the oil companies decided to not operate in California or sell to Californians because they didn’t agree with “murdering babies”. It’s a contrived example, but I’m hoping you can see the two way street.
I’m merely pointing out the can of worms that’s being opened here.
> If the people and government of Texas feel that way about {white lunch counters, segregated schools, sodomy laws}, far be it for me or frankly any of us (not from Texas) to question it.
> Frankly, if you need {to eat lunch, go to school, fuck your boyfriend} you can go to another {restaurant, school, state}. It’s probably <$200 flight almost anywhere in the country.
As to the whataboutism regarding China, I don't like that either! But it's never going to be useful to demand ideological consistency or purity from my allies when advocating for any one particular cause. Lots of 60s civil rights campaigners also hated gays, lots of pro-choice proponents are also anti-trans, and lots of EFF-style activists are also climate change deniers. If you draw enough boundaries around what you consider an acceptable ally in any given fight, you'll find yourself fighting alone.
Apple may not be on the moral high ground WRT China, but that doesn't mean they can't be on this issue. I don't think discussing this in terms of "moral high grounds" is really useful, though. I'm fine if Apple's motivation is just virtue signalling. As long as it leads somewhere.