People venerate Jobs for being they stereotypical drive-people-to-death toxic boss, but he was also the "take credit for everyone else's ideas" toxic boss.
They are famous for destroying anyone who leaks. It's admirable that they don't leak, but their methods for cracking down on leaks are draconian, to say the least. This includes illegally spying on employees.
They participated in the cartel that engaged in wage-fixing and limiting employee mobility. They were sued by employees for denying breaks that were mandated by law.
And on and on.
It is unsurprising that they are harsh to former employees. When you look at their stance relative to their current employees, it would be surprising if they took a "live and let live" approach to those who leave.
People say that using Apple products is a cult, and liking their products is "drinking the kool-aid.". I say that working for Apple is joining an abusive, tyrannical cult, and if you don't know where the expression "drinking the kool-aid" came from, you ought to find out before working there.
(Serious question) I tried Googling it but all the results are either about this article (Google is obsessed with newness) or about employees suing Apple, not the other way around.
[1] https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/28/apple-fires-employee-ove...
Apple may be in the wrong, but I can't imagine the average potential hire giving a shit at this point.
It's pretty easy to see the huge conflicts of interest here.
I'm sorry, but when I go home at night and choose to spend my remaining hours awake on my own project, that's 100% mine. I bought and paid for it. Instead of spending time with friends or loved ones, playing video games, going out and having fun, I labored.
> wandered the hallways recruiting people for it
This makes it sound like you can't have professional relationships or friends at work. Or that you wouldn't want to work with those people after joining another company.
The problem comes in when you blur the lines between your personal project and what you are paid by Apple to do. At what point are you working on your thing versus Apple's and who is paying you to do it?
The big question is what he was doing while purportedly on the clock. Was he using Apple provided hardware, software, and time to further his own personal ends?
> This makes it sound like you can't have professional relationships or friends at work.
Ethics are hard, lines are blurry. It's best to avoid the blurry bits and keep to the places where you are clearly in the right.
Maintaining relationships while working is fine. Recruiting for a side business on the other hand is a clear conflict of interest and crosses an ethical threshold IMO.
Calling your existing friends up after you quit and offering them jobs is fine.
I have no idea what this guy did, but it sounds like he was definitely in the grey areas of ethics and from the sounds of it the law.
It's unethical, arguably, but most companies show again and again that they're willing to behave unethically toward their employees, so I'm not sure why I should feel bad for them given that employment is a two-way business relationship. The pervasive focus on employees being "bad employees" and simultaneous tacit acceptance of corporate dickishness is an insidious and toxic double standard that should not be tolerated.
What the company isn't doing is billing you for the time they spend doing it, or having you spend your free time doing it while you are at home.
What someone does in their own free time with their own resources is their business. What they do while they are at work, getting paid is "company" business and should be treated as such.
Beyond this, I find it ridiculous that you're comparing humans with thoughts and feelings and limited time on this earth to wholly inanimate corporations. We should err on the side of giving humans more freedom and liberty.
That's exactly what Apple this case is about, an employee who is being accused of using his employer's time, money, and resources to not just search for a better job, but to create a multi-million dollar company.
What basis remains upon which they can claim that I used "their" time and/or their resources and/or their equipment to conduct personal business?
particularly for anyone in software you have to heavily weight how good apple will look on your resume vs just submitting code to random open source projects.
As a hiring manager I definitely prioritize people who have code I can view vs people who's code has been locked in somewhere with vague claims of what they added.
California laws protect these actions. A "conflict of interest" is not illegal in California, lol.
Apple could fire him, sure, but that doesnt mean he broke any laws.
If an Apple employee is solicited and accepts, then they're finding the opportunity or terms more agreeable than whatever Apple currently provides, why should an employee be denied the opportunity?
I trade my time, skills and knowledge for money. I don't owe my employer anything other than the above. If I receive a better offer, why shouldn't I take it?
Take steps internally to fix this. It isn't a bad look to step down. In fact, you'll improve your standing if you consider how the engineering community views this.
This action is hostile and will greatly impact your hiring and retention of talent.