Apple tells some retail employees to reapply for their jobs or be laid off | Hacker News Reader

Apple tells some retail employees to reapply for their jobs or be laid off

businessinsider.com

39 pointsworld2vec26 comments

Given that hiring is a costly process, and laying off employees is not free either, what does a company like Apple get by doing this to retail employees. Is saving a few million even worth it if it ends up in articles like this. Regardless of the financial and business soundness, this seems like penny pinching with bad PR. A small dip in the advertising budget might have been a better option if the few millions were so important.

This sort of thing used to be rather common: "Justify your job, or you're laid off".

It might have been common in companies with low margins and not much room to overspend. In a hyper competitive low margin commodity industry, the push to keep costs low ultimately decices a company survive or not. But that is not the case here. The amount saved for a year might not even equal 1 day's ad budget.

The title is misleading. They're not being asked to justify the job they have. These jobs are being cut. Apple is telling people to apply for new roles within the company.

Here's an interesting brain glitch. I read the article but my mind had been primed by the title. The article never came out and overtly said that a layoff had occurred, so my brain kept interpreting it through the lens of the title.

Even as I read it, the article seemed odd and not to make complete sense to me -- because my dumb monkey brain was trying hard to interpret it in a way that agreed with the title.

However, your comment cleared all that fog away instantly.

TFA: "Employees in Apple's Development and Preservation teams, which handle construction and maintenance of the company's retail stores"

So with the related news about the M2 being halted due to weak demand, what we're seeing is the demand is collapsing due to interest rate hikes (and other weaknesses in the US economy).

These aren't retail employees, they're construction overseers of new Apple stores.

>if it ends up in articles like this

>bad PR

It's sad that people get laid off but can you really say this kind of article changes anyones stance on buying Apple products?

It certainly reinforces the many good reasons to not give any money to the company.

>Is saving a few million even worth it if it ends up in articles like this.

Are you not going to be buying Apple's product anymore? I personally don't have any experiences with any Apple retail staff, so this won't affect my opinion in anyway.

Title doesn't quite match the content. They're not reapplying for their jobs because their jobs are being eliminated. They're being told to apply for new jobs within Apple.

The main point is that their jobs as they knew them are effectively being taken out from under them.

What is your point? This is normal stuff that happens with companies when economy is in down swing. You see that your profits are going down, you analyze what part of the company could be downsized or eliminated to increase profits and you do that.

This is normal stuff that happens with companies when economy is in down swing.

Right, and they're normally called "layoffs", and have regulatory and other strings attached.

Which this company seems to be trying to do is achieve the same end but on the sly, by trying to disguise it is something else (and giving the employees the illusion that they have some choice or influence in the matter).

Effectively making an instance of constructive dismissal (in the sense of effecting a "change to employee relationship"):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal

https://archive.is/ldkmR

I feel like if you are reapplying for your own job then you have already been laid off.

Exactly.

Yes. They did this at my company and no one that reapplied was hired.

Well at least they are not laying off thousands and instead give them other jobs.

They don't "give" them those jobs.

They make them execute a stressful performative action (i.e. the whole groveling process of applying for a job, all over again) which they might very well fail.

>the whole groveling process of applying for a job

You might have some unresolved issues. Applying for a job definitely shouldn't be a "groveling process"

Having to prove your worth to a corporation so you can put food on your table and a roof over your head while pretending to have other motives is absolutely a groveling, humiliating process for retail workers.

It is also a humiliating and stressful process for professional workers as well, many of which are not social and haven’t established a proper social network to make it more painless. Having to do a dog and pony to prove yourself is excruciating.

Seriously. Get some help. You ain't all right.

When is the last time you had to undergo a process like that? Never?

Are you implying that I am jobless or that I got a job without interviewing?

I however did not grovel and beg or feel humiliated about getting a job, so I guess never is the correct answer.

This feels very much like this eternal "white-board coding is bad" take which always boils down to the arguer having twisted view of what the point of interviews even are and having mental/socializing issues.

No, but I'll make the claim that you haven't been in the trenches of the modern job search at the commoner level. Perhaps you had a good network, held a job for long enough, or have had some other circumstance. Groveling is an understatement for how bad of an experience the job search can be.

I have been in same job for 3 years, before this I was in last place for 5. For last job I was approached and for current I applied.

I get around 3 interview offers a month, most of which I instantly turn down since they either won’t tell me how much they would be paying or would be paying less than what I am paid now.

I am expecting a raise of some sort this year, if I don’t get one organically I will just stat taking some of those interview offers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com