Apple Reverses Remote Work Policy After Machine Learning Head Decamps To Alphabet (gizmodo.com) 79
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: One of Apple's highest-profile return-to-office detractors reportedly landed a new gig at Alphabet's DeepMind, marking the latest drama over Big Tech's remote work scuffles. That move, ironically, comes right around the same time Apple decided to walk back its most recent return-to-office push. In an internal memo viewed by Bloomberg Tuesday, the company said it will delay its three-day in-office work requirement set to take effect on May 23. The memo reportedly cited the recent uptick in covid-19 cases for the delay and didn't provide any hard date for when they'd try again. Apple workers are still required to work in the office two days per week and will now have to wear masks in common areas.
At the same time, Ian Goodfellow, Apple's former Director of Machine Learning, who dramatically left the company at least in part over its remote work restrictions, will reportedly join Alphabet's DeepMind. Sources told Bloomberg Goodfellow will join DeepMind as an "individual contributor." He had previously worked as a senior researcher at Google back in 2019. That job switch marks a major blow for Apple, a company that's struggled to appease workers at odds with its return to work strategy. Goodfellow, who's the most senior member known to have jumped ship over remote work so far, reportedly addressed the issue directly in a note to staff obtained by The Verge's Zoe Schiffer. "I believe strongly that more flexibility would have been the best policy for my team," Goodfellow reportedly wrote. The report notes that Alphabet hasn't fully embraced a remote-first office either, "thought previous reports suggest Google more regularly approves remote requests [than Apple]."
As office returns accelerate, many workers are willing to give up their jobs over workplace flexibility. According to a survey of 1,000 U.S. adults last year, 39% said they "would consider quitting if their employers weren't flexible about remote work." That figure was 49% among millennials and Gen Z.
At the same time, Ian Goodfellow, Apple's former Director of Machine Learning, who dramatically left the company at least in part over its remote work restrictions, will reportedly join Alphabet's DeepMind. Sources told Bloomberg Goodfellow will join DeepMind as an "individual contributor." He had previously worked as a senior researcher at Google back in 2019. That job switch marks a major blow for Apple, a company that's struggled to appease workers at odds with its return to work strategy. Goodfellow, who's the most senior member known to have jumped ship over remote work so far, reportedly addressed the issue directly in a note to staff obtained by The Verge's Zoe Schiffer. "I believe strongly that more flexibility would have been the best policy for my team," Goodfellow reportedly wrote. The report notes that Alphabet hasn't fully embraced a remote-first office either, "thought previous reports suggest Google more regularly approves remote requests [than Apple]."
As office returns accelerate, many workers are willing to give up their jobs over workplace flexibility. According to a survey of 1,000 U.S. adults last year, 39% said they "would consider quitting if their employers weren't flexible about remote work." That figure was 49% among millennials and Gen Z.
All cities should mandate work from home (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand your property values are going to go down because a lot of those office buildings will get converted into apartment complexes reducing the pressure driving up house prices.
On the other other hand you don't have to worry about getting your skull caved in by an angry and violent gen Z or millennial because they're spending 90% of their income on rent and only had enough money left over for a gun and some ammo to become a roving bandit as a side hustle.
Decisions decisions
Re: (Score:2)
He's been stalking me for a few years now (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
its always about you isnt it? plenty of mod points to go around, maybe you should review the moderation system for some insight as to why you don't get mod points, should be pretty obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, woopsie. Did you forget to sign into your alt before continuing to pretend people agree with you?
Different name and UID:
OP
rsilvergun ( 571051 )
Troll:
rsvilergun ( 9014613 )
Re: (Score:1)
So... did you create your username as a play on the original poster's username just to make this one comment? Or are you a bot? I'm honestly curious...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"My body my choice" is only valid when dealing with vaccines. /s
Re: (Score:2)
I know right? That's as crazy as forcing women to carry their non-conscious, unwanted fetuses to term when they're just a bunch of undifferentiated cells. Gosh, those crazy dictatorial leftists.
Uh, wait....
Re: (Score:2)
Won't happen, even if it makes sense. Why? Taxes.
States that are funded by property tax won't want to give up the property taxes paid by commercial real estate (which in your scenario, would become cheaper residential zoned land), and by grossly inflated residential real estate (which would no longer be sustainable because people could just get a cheap apartment in that formerly commercially zoned area.)
They're ok with doing these "experiments" on a temporary basis, but god forbid you actually try and mak
States can just come up with new (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand your property values are going to go down because a lot of those office buildings will get converted into apartment complexes reducing the pressure driving up house prices.
I hope that's true.
Re: (Score:2)
a lot of those office buildings will get converted into apartment complexes
I hope that's true.
Converting commercial property to residential use is illegal in most big American cities.
Expensive housing isn't something that "just happens." It is deliberate government policy supported by voters who benefit from high property values.
Leave the commercial property empty (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are different building codes between residential and business use classifications -- the differences might be surmounted with retrofitting, but it won't always be cheap or easy. Also, depending on the age of the building, it can be a can of worms due to new codes that went into effect after the original construction had completed.
Re: (Score:2)
There are different building codes between residential and business use classifications -- the differences might be surmounted with retrofitting, but it won't always be cheap or easy. Also, depending on the age of the building, it can be a can of worms due to new codes that went into effect after the original construction had completed.
Yeah, but it's the land that's expensive, not the building on top of it, for the most part. Doubly so for older commercial buildings, which are routinely being bulldozed in the Bay Area and turned into housing.
Re: (Score:2)
They will change their minds when their commercial properties become near worthless as WFH becomes permanent. Then they will be lobbying to be allowed to redevelop them into apartments.
Re: (Score:2)
Converting commercial property to residential use is illegal in most big American cities.
So where did all those 'loft' apartments come from?
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, right, fuck every retail business and restaurant.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, fuck 'em. They can open stuff closer to where people actually want to live, not work. Toxic city centers should be avoided like the plague.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything should be suburbs and strip malls for hundreds of miles in all directions. Mandated.
Re: All cities should mandate work from home (Score:2)
The suburbs should be razed to the ground. They are the source of almost all of our real estate problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, if YOU want to live in a densely packed urban city stacked on top of each other like rats, more power to you.
But, not everyone wants to live their lives sharing walls with neighbors in areas that make spreading a pandemic easier amongst other issues.
The US is perfectly large enough to accommodate whatever lifestyle you want. Don't try to force people to live where they obviously do not want to.
T
Re: (Score:2)
But not all jobs can be WFH like physical construction works. :P
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Few companies can stomach RTO productivity drop (Score:5, Informative)
Feel free to pay me to commute, but you are losing 2 hours of solid work time daily and any medical/child commitments because half a day time off. Plus I generally microwave leftovers and eat in 20 minutes at home, can never be that efficient in office cafe. It's time to quantify in person meeting benefits and evaluate if people can just come for meetings periodically instead of commuting for independent work as well. I am not worried about finding jobs where management would rather see more of my work than more of my face.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If they want to pay me to live close to where they want me to work, I will be a very happy and wealthy! Obviously changing jobs is a thing, I mean just from the perspective of current employer getting good cost/productivity ratio out of me.
Re: (Score:2)
I do agree... except for jobs that can be done from home. If the job can be done from home but the company insists on making you travel in to their office anyway, then they're the ones forcing extra travel on you, and they should be the ones to pay for that.
There might be some room for a middle ground (e.g. a job where 80% of the work can be done from home could reasonably require you to commute in at your own cost one day per week, but at their cost for extra days). Also, an employee choosing to work from
Workers of the world, unite (Score:5, Insightful)
Joking aside, this crisis has helped empower the tech workers. Maybe not thru unions or strikes, but with resignations.
Yes, it was always a two way street. The company can lay you off at any time, or if you get a better offer, you can leave without looking back. However only "job hoppers" actually used this opportunity, and many chose to be loyal. And companies knew this ("what are you going to do? work for Microsoft?").
Today the bluff is finally called. Thanks to tanking stock prices (i.e.: massive drop in total compensation), inflation, and proliferation of remote work, tech workers are finally moving up.
And, no, the company cannot magically replace a senior employee. It would take at least 6 months of adjustment period, during which important project will take a hit.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not thru unions or strikes, but with resignations.
Indeed. Markets work.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is something people always wanted, they just didn't have the balls to ask or unionize about it. What other things are lingering in the "we're too shy to ask"? A contractual annual pay increase that adjusts some percentage above the inflation rate? Some other benefits not currently paid for?
Re: (Score:2)
Joking aside, this crisis has helped empower the tech workers. Maybe not thru unions or strikes, but with resignations.
Yes, it was always a two way street. The company can lay you off at any time, or if you get a better offer, you can leave without looking back. However only "job hoppers" actually used this opportunity, and many chose to be loyal. And companies knew this ("what are you going to do? work for Microsoft?").
Today the bluff is finally called. Thanks to tanking stock prices (i.e.: massive drop in total compensation), inflation, and proliferation of remote work, tech workers are finally moving up.
And, no, the company cannot magically replace a senior employee. It would take at least 6 months of adjustment period, during which important project will take a hit.
To be fair, whilst the pandemic has been a boon for tech workers, we're not talking about some low level tech support flunky overthrowing the technocracy here. This guy is the head of machine learning, which is the latest buzzword. This kind of person doesn't look for jobs, jobs look for them. I've no doubt that Google paid him a shitload of money to move over.
I also have no doubt that the companies that need serfs to lord over in the office will still try everything to get people back there.
Also, "d
Re:Workers of the world, unite (Score:4, Funny)
Re: Oh no it’s CREIMER :( (Score:1)
If anything (Score:4, Interesting)
Less commute time means more time for workers, and odds are a well motivated worker will spend it on work if it needs to get done.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, no. Work is never done. But people will spend more time on "down-time" activities making them more well rested or happier for the next work shift.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed with work is never done.
I know a few people who are working from home, and putting in 10 to 12 hours or more, 5 days a week and another 8 to 10 hours over the weekend on work.
And these are people who used to work office hours, in the office, with an occasional hour or so extra sometimes.
Now that they have the company laptop at home, they seem to be piled on with more and more work and it's getting harder for them to "escape" from work.
Where are the environmental groups? (Score:5, Interesting)
Last year, there were already reports about how much the air in cities got cleaner because of the huge reduction in commute traffic, not to mention the reduction in gas usage, and hence CO2 emission.
Where are the supposedly "green" environmental groups screaming for companies to allow full time remote working? Why aren't Greenpeace naming and shaming companies like Apple calling for a return to office?
Calling for full remote working have more direct and immediate impact on improving the environment than any green energy project, or trying to block yet another nuclear plant, yet we heard nothing from these supposedly green groups on this topic. Doesn't take much to figure what these groups real purpose are.
Re: (Score:2)
Greenpeace doesn’t need to be involved as tech workers are already vocal about it.
Re:Where are the environmental groups? (Score:4, Interesting)
Greenpeace doesn’t need to be involved as tech workers are already vocal about it.
What you really meant was they are not getting any sponsor to pay them to push this agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
These "non-profit" good hearted people aren't. That's the whole secret. Greenpeace is a corporation that needs to cater to a demand. If no demand is generated, it loses business.
Solving a problem is not in the best interest of Greenpeace. Acting like they are working on it is.
It's a similar concept with hospitals... while the workers may or may not have good intentions, their management has other goals.
Re: (Score:2)
Where are the supposedly "green" environmental groups screaming for companies to allow full time remote working?
They've been suggesting it for a couple of decades.
What a horrible headline. (Score:3)
It infers that there's a causal relationship between the two events, when there's literally none.
Not "After", "As". I don't care enough to see if this is the poster's headline or the original article, but it's stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Ian Goodfellow used to work at Alphabet and has continued to collaborate with many of the researchers there. So his reason for boomeranging is likely much more complicated than WFH.
In the works for months (Score:1)
Dumb Apple Policy (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple workers are still required to work in the office two days per week and will now have to wear masks in common area
That is dumb. If you require your engineers and knowledge workers to wear masks in common areas, then it means it is not necessarily safe, and you should let them work from home.
I understand the push to get workers back to the office. But there are better ways to do this than just giving arbitrary mandates. I personally prefer to work a few days a week at the office than to be fully remote. And thankfully most companies are flexible about this.
I find this inflexibility at Apple (or Alphabet) to be quite puzzling, and something that I would expect from less technologically-centered companies.
Re:Dumb Apple Policy (Score:4, Insightful)
That's been my rule of thumb since day 1. If I'm required to wear PPE while I'm within the office workspace, for fear of spreading some disease, then the whole situation seems generally unsafe, and I'm simply not going to participate in that sort of cesspool. Seems like the easiest and most effective solution to me.
Re: (Score:2)
That's been my rule of thumb since day 1. If I'm required to wear PPE while I'm within the office workspace, for fear of spreading some disease, then the whole situation seems generally unsafe
You are absolutely correct. I would refer anyone questioning this way of thinking to the Hierarchy of Controls. Most effective to least effective:
Elimination -> Substitution -> Engineering Controls -> Administrative Controls -> PPE
It's no accident that PPE is down at the bottom. Employers can't just discard the other controls because they feel like it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I'll take this bait.
What is "Ori^H^H^HApple" hiding? It's not Illuminati, obviously the spelling doesn't line up. Enquiring minds want to know.
Also, they might as well just assign 50%+ to the local homeless. It's that or they take up hotel space or keep camping and pooping on the sidewalks. I lived in the Bay area for about 9 months, and I guess covid saved me from a horrible existence, because I moved out of that shithole as soon as I realized what a terrible mistake I'd made.
I wish all the remaining
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To commute is to pollute and waste energy (Score:3)
Commuting is enormously wasteful of time, money, and energy while causing a variety of pollution including that emitting manufacturing vehicles however "clean" they may be.
Commuting is evil expensive waste to be avoided whenever practical.
Re: (Score:1)
previous company gave us lunch (Score:2)
so we always went in (before covid, of course). my new company is too cheap to give us a $5 lunch (that keeps us on campus for that hour). the free lunches usually worked out well for the company, for that $5 they put in, they usually get about 1/2 hour of free work out of us as we grab our slices of pizza (or whatever else was on the buffet line) and then go back to our desks and continue to work. we might chat in the caf for a short bit but its usually short.
now, if you remove that benefit, I either ha
If they sold homes, can't afford to buy back in (Score:2)
With the long period of work-from-home, some of the workers moved to more affordable locations. If they must return to the office, they have to move back to the area.
Some of those sold their houses, rented them out, dropped leases, etc.
The housing market in the Bay Area is sky high, and selling out then buying back in would both lose a bunch of bux and the Proposition 13 tax beneifits: The new, more expensive, house would be taxed at the current rates. Not affordable. (Renting a Silicon Valleyroom these
Re: (Score:1)