[HN Gopher] Apple to end employee gagging clauses after activist...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple to end employee gagging clauses after activist campaign
Author : mfiguiere
Score : 230 points
Date : 2022-12-09 21:28 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ft.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ft.com)
| warbler73 wrote:
| [deleted]
| warbler73 wrote:
| warbler73 wrote:
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| skissane wrote:
| > Apple has agreed to drop all employee gagging clauses related
| to workplace harassment
|
| How long before Apple and an employee start disputing about
| whether an employee's public comments relate to "workplace
| harassment" (now allowed) or other matters (still prohibited)?
|
| I've heard a number of stories about situations in which an
| employee says they are being harassed/bullied/etc and the
| employer insists "no, this is just performance management" or
| "no, the employee just lost some internal argument over business
| strategy/technical decisions/policies/etc". Maybe sometimes the
| employee is right, maybe sometimes the employer is right, maybe
| some cases are more grey and it is harder to say.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| It's not that much of a gray area at this point. I'm not a
| lawyer, but there's a lot of existing case law around this, so
| advocacy orgs could give guidance.
| [deleted]
| josephg wrote:
| I think this stuff will always come down to messy judgement
| calls. Some people come from cultures which see "abrasive"
| behaviour as totally normal. Sometimes, being blunt with
| someone is a sign of intimacy. (We're close enough to "skip the
| BS")
|
| This will always be in uneasy tension with modern "positive
| vibes only" office cultures.
|
| One person's "bullying and harassment" is another person's
| "intimate honesty". There are no easy answers.
| spritefs wrote:
| > One person's "bullying and harassment" is another person's
| "intimate honesty". There are no easy answers.
|
| No. You can be honest with someone about something without
| being an asshole. What exactly do you mean here by "intimate
| honesty"? You should give a concrete example
| spritefs wrote:
| I'll add (after reading some responses here), I'm not
| saying that someone should _always_ be honest, I was just
| saying it 's possible to be frank with someone without
| being a douche
|
| For example, instead of telling someone "this isn't good",
| tell them "use this technique instead" or "it's better to
| do it this way because X"
|
| I get that there are some people who'll take offense to
| everything. Those types have to be managed differently and
| are a headache to deal with. But if you aren't a dick and
| have a paper trail, there's nothing to worry about
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| You're making a very black and white assertion about
| something that seems quite obvious: that there's a grey
| area to communication, especially between people with
| different expectations, communication styles, etc. I don't
| think you're entitled to an example after being so
| reductive about the topic.
| isodev wrote:
| When one is working as part of a team (in a professional
| context), it's one's responsibility to ensure the
| delivery of one's message doesn't "clash" with others in
| a way that may feel as harassment or bullying.
|
| If that's unclear, most companies introduce etiquette and
| guidelines on what constitutes acceptable forms of
| behaviour and communication at the office/during work
| hours. It's also a topic one can bring up with their
| therapist for additional tips and guidelines.
| josephg wrote:
| I agree that this is the rule in polite society, and I
| agree that its a reasonable goal 95% of the time. But its
| an impossible standard to meet 100% of the time. Alan
| Watts makes this point - we can only guarantee that we're
| inoffensive when we're dead. Or when we act like we're
| dead - taking up no space and sharing no opinions.
|
| Walking boldly in the world will necessarily elicit
| reactions in other people. We don't get to control the
| reactions other people have to us. If the only thing
| you're allowed to do when someone hates you is shrink
| into yourself, then you cannot ever be noteworthy or
| famous in any way. (Because you'll get haters if you're
| noteworthy, no matter how lofty your goals are.)
|
| You can also swing this argument the other way around.
| Nobody knows the exact shape of our childhood traumas.
| Growing up requires that we revisit those places that
| still hurt in us to be able to heal our wounds. I don't
| want anyone trying to protect me from that process,
| because I need to go through that pain in order to grow
| into the healthiest version of myself.
|
| Shying away from telling me something because you're
| afraid I'll get hurt also blocks any possibility of
| deeper intimacy.
|
| Kim Scott's Radical Candor is another take on this for
| the workplace. 6 minute video:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLBDkz0TwLM
| skissane wrote:
| > When one is working as part of a team (in a
| professional context), it's one's responsibility to
| ensure the delivery of one's message doesn't "clash" with
| others
|
| I think communication involves mutual responsibility, for
| both sender and receiver. When it goes wrong, sometimes
| the sender has failed to meet their responsibility,
| sometimes the receiver, sometimes both, and sometimes it
| is just one of those regrettable misunderstandings which
| is neither's fault.
|
| > etiquette and guidelines on what constitutes acceptable
| forms of behaviour and communication
|
| It is impossible to craft guidelines which explicitly
| cover every possible circumstance. Guidelines may reduce
| the incidence of cross-cultural misunderstandings
| (although one may be sceptical about how effective they
| really are in doing that), but they can't possibly
| eliminate them.
|
| > It's also a topic one can bring up with their therapist
| for additional tips and guidelines.
|
| I remember my father telling me about how, in the early
| 1990s, he got a job with a US-based company, and he
| started going on regular business trips to the US. He was
| rather struck by how some of his American colleagues
| would talk at work about having therapists - the way
| they'd talk about it, it sounded like they just assumed
| everyone had one (which is how you've talked about it
| here). Judged by the standards of Australian culture, it
| was rather odd - if someone felt they needed to see a
| mental health professional, they'd be unlikely to tell
| random people at work about it, and talking to work
| colleagues in a way which assumed they did have that need
| could cause offence. My father didn't take offence, he
| was just amused by the strange ways of Americans-but
| someone else could have.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| I think it's extremely odd as a younger American. And
| frankly, I think the reality is that many people agree
| with the Australian/my perception, but know to just keep
| it to themselves instead of trying to change the culture.
|
| My biggest gripe is that (1) not everyone has easy access
| to a therapist and (2) it's not a magic bullet.
| Additionally, (3) it's inconsistent with the norm of
| avoiding personal health topics in professional
| environments.
|
| I guess what I'm saying is that many, many Americans
| agree with you, even if that doesn't come across in the
| corporate or pop culture zeitgeist.
| spritefs wrote:
| I wasn't making a universal claim about all
| communication, I was just saying it's possible to be
| honest without being a dick
|
| > I don't think you're entitled to an example after being
| so reductive about the topic.
|
| Am I the one who's being reductive here, or are you the
| one who's taking an ambiguous comment, interpreting it in
| a black and white way, and then posting this
| hypocritically reductive response here?
| maxbond wrote:
| I don't think I've ever pointed out to someone they were
| being a bully, and they didn't respond with, "Hey, I'm
| just trying to show you tough love and honesty, it's not
| my fault you're too much of a wimp to accept it."
| Conversely I've never found stating my opinion tactlessly
| or hurtfully to be effective, and the only times I've
| been able to communicate an uncomfortable truth
| successfully has been in a blameless and empathetic
| manner.
|
| No one is entitled to an example, but it's a good
| suggestion to clear up possible miscommunications.
| Especially if we're talking about complex situations
| potentially involving cultural clashes.
| josephg wrote:
| > the only times I've been able to communicate an
| uncomfortable truth successfully has been in a blameless
| and empathetic manner.
|
| I think I mostly agree with you, and your comment about
| bullying sounds like a great example of your point.
|
| Mitchell Rosenburg (author of Non-violent Communication)
| talks about this a lot. He would point out that calling
| someone a bully is a negative judgemental statement. Who
| are you to say they're being a bully? Maybe their intent
| really is to show tough love and honesty. People almost
| always get defensive when we feel attacked and judged.
| The decision of whether to feel attacked and judged is
| made on the receiving end of a statement.
|
| The NVC approach would recommend that instead of "you're
| being a bully", you could say "When you said XX, I feel
| rejected and small". Its a much more vulnerable
| statement, but its much more powerful to hear. Hearing
| "you're a bully" makes me want to put my walls up.
| Hearing "ouch, hearing that makes me want to cry" will
| open my heart right up.
| maxbond wrote:
| I think I mostly agree with you too, and what you've said
| has been interesting and I appreciate it.
|
| > Who are you to say they're being a bully? Maybe their
| intent really is to show tough love and honesty.
|
| I think there are two places where we differ.
|
| 1. When you are being bullied, you know you are being
| bullied, and you are the expert who can say it's
| happening. It's possible to misinterpret this, and the
| tactics you propose are correct, but I don't like the
| implication that there's simply no way to know. In my
| view, a relationship is an epistemology; you know someone
| is bullying you by the process you know that someone
| loves you, it may not be possible to describe, it may not
| be infallible, but it is real. (Perhaps part of the
| difference in thinking here is that I'm saying you can
| know someone is _being_ a bully in this way, not whether
| they are, in their heart of hearts, a bully.)
|
| 2. Their intent to show you "tough love and honesty" is
| not at all inconsistent with being a bully. Consider the
| character of Tony Soprano, if you're familiar. One of his
| central struggles is that he deeply cares about people,
| but the only way he can relate to the world is through
| violence and intimidation.
|
| When I say that the bullies I've encountered in my have
| justified themselves through "tough love", I don't mean
| to say that they were lying. Only that, as GGGP pointed
| out, it's not an acceptable way to communicate.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| I don't think I agree at all with
|
| > when you're being bullied, you know you're being
| bullied
|
| When I was much younger I had a hard time being teased. I
| genuinely didn't realize that this was normal among my
| friend group, and I was totally misreading the situation
| because I was too caught up in my own head. I don't think
| I was correct about my interpretation of the situation.
|
| I'm essentially disagreeing with any statement of the
| form: two people have different interpretations of a
| subjective situation / interpretation, and one of them is
| always right because they have they think X.
| maxbond wrote:
| > I'm essentially disagreeing with any statement of the
| form: two people have different interpretations of a
| subjective situation / interpretation, and one of them is
| always right because they have they think X.
|
| Well, I wouldn't agree with that either, but that's not
| what I'm saying. As I mentioned it is possible to
| misinterpret. What I am saying is this is knowable. I can
| understand how you took this from what I said, and I'll
| try to express myself more clearly in the future, but
| allow me to highlight part of my comment:
|
| > [I]t may not be possible to describe, _it may not be
| infallible_ , but it is real.
|
| Something to consider is that your criticism works both
| ways. If Fred feels that Bob is bullying him, and Bob
| feels he is offering tough love and not bullying Fred, by
| your logic we can't dismiss Fred's assertion.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| > The NVC approach would recommend that instead of
| "you're being a bully", you could say "When you said XX,
| I feel rejected and small". Its a much more vulnerable
| statement, but its much more powerful to hear.
|
| Telling how you feel instead is self-sacrificial as it
| intuitively feels promoting further bullying and trauma,
| since these feelings must be what the bully wants. To the
| bullied saying something like that may feel as digging
| own grave.
|
| But yes, assuming bullying is assuming what goes on in
| another's head. I can more than identify that mild tease
| can be an indication of familiarity and rapport.
|
| So the best way to stop bullying is from the outside. _If
| you suspect bullying intervene_ , if it's not obvious
| right away you don't need to flat out presume bullying
| takes place but you can engage the participants and get a
| better picture based on their responses.
| maxbond wrote:
| > So the best way to stop bullying is from the outside.
|
| I don't know about anyone else, but I can't recall anyone
| ever sticking up for me or intervening when I was being
| bullied. Frequently this happens outside anyone else's
| view. In the context of school bullying, the teachers
| never seemed to believe me, or would "both sides" the
| issue and punish everyone involved. In the context of
| bullying online, many times this happened to me directly
| in front of mods who didn't really give a shit.
|
| So I'd encourage people to intervene sure, but is that
| really the most effective strategy...? I think being able
| to call this out is a life skill, and being able to
| recognize you're on a path to bully someone and managing
| those emotions is also a life skill.
| josephg wrote:
| > since these feelings must be what the bully wants. To
| the bullied saying something like that may feel as
| digging own grave.
|
| Maybe. Its a vulnerable move because what happens next is
| up to the bully.
|
| Almost everyone in life needs to find a way to tell a
| hero story of themselves. If the bully is telling
| themselves a story that "its just some lighthearted fun",
| then that story will struggle to survive the
| uncomfortable reality of whats going on for you. Almost
| everyone I've ever met is like this. Decent people
| instinctively respond to vulnerability with
| vulnerability.
|
| But yeah - sometimes people are actually sociopathic and
| want suffering for its own sake. Giving sociopaths more
| power is rarely a winning move. I can count on one hand
| the number of people who've responded to me expressing
| vulnerability by doubling down on their awful behaviour,
| or weaponising that against me. I don't think I've ever
| regretted burning people like that out of my life.
| skissane wrote:
| One of the problems with labelling someone's behaviour as
| "bullying", is it risks derailing the conversation from
| focusing on the actual behaviour and the problem it is
| causing, to semantic disputes about what counts as
| "bullying". I don't think there is a single universally
| agreed definition of the term; and even with an agreed
| definition, employment lawyers will make whole careers
| out of litigating the boundaries of that definition
|
| I think it can be much more constructive to focus the
| conversation on (1) what is the behaviour, (2) why it is
| a problem, (3) what could they do instead. That's a
| useful strategy, whether some problematic behaviour
| counts as "bullying" or not.
|
| > If you suspect bullying intervene,
|
| If you see a _problem_ , see to it the problem is being
| handled appropriately. Depending on the situation and
| your own position, that might be either directly
| intervening in the problem yourself, or maybe just making
| sure the appropriate people are aware of it. That's true
| whether the problem counts as "bullying" or not.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| > If you see a problem, see to it the problem is being
| handled appropriately.
|
| This is not what I meant. I meant that bullying is a
| special case, it is insidious because it both traumatizes
| and the only way to handle it properly is often from the
| outside so it is different from many other problems that
| can (and often should) be resolved between parties
| involved.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| josephg wrote:
| > You should give a concrete example
|
| This isn't a perfect example, but -
|
| I was at a personal development workshop a couple of weeks
| ago.
|
| One of the participants was expressing a lot of fake
| positivity. I (and a lot of the other participants) got a
| bit annoyed by that - it felt to us like he was lying every
| time he opened his mouth. At dinner he asked for "honest
| feedback" on why other people didn't like him, and what he
| could do to be more appreciated by the group. He got what
| he asked for. Several people told him how they felt when he
| talked. He got really upset hearing that - saying he was
| being bullied by the whole group. Something he's
| experienced a lot of throughout his life.
|
| How can you be honest with someone like this without him
| being able to turn it into an attack? I don't know if you
| can. The shadow part of him is too clever. Should we have
| refused to give him the feedback he asked for? The same
| pattern played out in small ways a few more times over the
| next few days. Someone would say something in the group
| which related to him in some way. The next morning he'd try
| on a versions of the previous day's events in which
| everyone else's stories were about him. And he was always
| the victim.
|
| In a work setting where people don't have complete
| information, he'd be a menace. He could turn anything he
| didn't like into an instance of "bullying and harassment".
| I don't think he does it on purpose, but that doesn't make
| it any better.
|
| Even weeks after the retreat I'm still thinking about him -
| I have no idea how I'd deal with someone like that if they
| were in my life. A soft "believe all victims of harassment"
| approach would encourage his narcissism. But his pain still
| seemed real. It felt like I kept having to choose between
| self abandonment (staying small, lying about my feelings)
| or risking hurting this guy. I hated it.
| spritefs wrote:
| That guy just sounds crazy and not at peace with himself.
|
| Also in my original comment, I wasn't trying to make a
| universal claim about communication in general. If I was
| dealing with the above person, I'd likely just not
| respond and avoid them for the rest of the workshop
| (because bad vibes). But if I absolutely HAD to respond
| to that kind of person, I would sure as fuck lie to their
| face just to get them to fuck off
| baxtr wrote:
| In a work setting it's crucial not to hire such people in
| the first place. And if you mistakenly did, to remove
| them asap.
| amatecha wrote:
| That's interesting. He "got what he asked for", eh? How
| was the feedback delivered? Did you guys give him neutral
| feedback without applying judgement to how he was acting?
| I'm guessing not. Sometimes people are asking for
| something other than what their literal words mean. (I'm
| not saying you and/or the group did anything wrong, just
| wondering how it all went down, guessing it wasn't the
| most generous delivery haha)
|
| I've known people who have been interpreted exactly that
| way -- they seem "fake" in their positivity, when in fact
| they are just naive or clueless about how an endless
| barrage of overly-kind sentiments will be taken. I've
| watched it unfold over years, and see people continuously
| (and incorrectly) interpret this person as "just trying
| to get people to like [them]". Also, this is a not-
| uncommon criticism of autistic people - many get the
| feedback that they seem totally insincere and even
| sarcastic when they are being totally genuine. Another
| thing I've seen play out tons of times.
|
| He honestly probably shouldn't have even asked for such
| personal feedback, because that wasn't really the
| environment to ask such a personal and potentially-risky
| question, but further, I wouldn't have even answered him
| (though I can't tell without having been there and seen
| the whole day unfold, etc.) ...
|
| You can definitely be honest with someone without it
| being an attack, but it can be an art form. It can be
| really hard to share feedback with sensitive people who
| are extremely prone to taking things personally. IMO if
| you don't feel you have expert-level abilities here,
| don't even bother engaging with a person like that in
| that way, it's just going to end badly. There's a reason
| I'm super sincere and frank with some coworkers, and
| gloss over (or straight-up avoid) that stuff with others.
| I have a sense of who can approach it with maturity and
| who won't. With some people, it's basically a "trap",
| even if they don't consciously intend to be that way.
| Everyone has had their own journey up to the point you
| meet them, and sometimes that journey has been perilous
| and full of harm to their psyche.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| Your first paragraph seems to hint this group of people
| should have done even more than they did: not sharing
| their opinion until explicitly asked. Implying that they
| may ought to have given the feedback with even more
| sensitivity is exactly the problem, it's asking too much
| of the frank/sincere/mature person who to placate an
| adult with an unhealthy perspective of their life.
|
| I'm not sure I explained my point very clearly, but what
| I mean is essentially: how far must we be expected to go
| to anticipate and maneuver around such sensitive souls?
|
| Edit: rereading your comment, I think I didn't respond to
| a key area of confusion / disagreement. Being "fake"
| versus "being naive or clueless". Giving feedback that
| someone comes across as fake could mean that they seem
| dishonest, but I don't think that's the obvious
| interpretation in a situation like this. Being overly
| positive might seem fake on account of naivety or
| cluelessness. Any of these - naivete, cluelessness, or
| dishonesty in communication - are all things that a
| professional should be corrected on when appropriate
| (like asking for honest feedback).
| kodah wrote:
| > How can you be honest with someone like this without
| him being able to turn it into an attack?
|
| The solution is gray manning. Don't react to peoples
| emotional swings, controversial statements, and throw
| everything they say to the wind but the nuts and bolts.
| You don't know this person, you don't need to like them,
| you just need to exist with them for a bit.
|
| Some people from the corporate world I like and become
| friends; everyone else gets a git clone --depth 1 when
| I'm around them.
|
| ---
|
| There are a lot of plausible explanations for his
| behavior. In some he's a bonafide victim, in others he
| could have a personality disorder. To you, as a transient
| existence in his reality and vice versa, none of those
| matter.
| baxtr wrote:
| What is gray manning?
| newaccount74 wrote:
| I think it's more commonly known as "gray rocking", ie.
| pretend to be a gray rock.
|
| Don't make eye contact, don't smile or frown, don't show
| any emotional reaction, reply in the most minimal,
| factual, emotionless manner possible.
| Viliam1234 wrote:
| There is a difference between "abrasive" and "so abrasive
| that you need to legally prevent your employees from
| mentioning it outside the company". Apple is apparently in
| the latter category.
| warbler73 wrote:
| musicale wrote:
| ???
| warbler73 wrote:
| nickff wrote:
| The elimination of the gag clauses will reduce payouts, and
| likely the rate of settlement of these cases, a trade-off I
| rarely see addressed. Could at be that this change will benefit
| many, and cost victims?
| babyshake wrote:
| I don't follow the logic. Why would this reduce the rate of
| settlement?
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Suppose there is a borderline case. Company thinks they have
| a 25% chance or more to win in court, but then reporters
| would write stories about the case it's bad PR. Could be
| better to settle so nobody ever hears about it, even if they
| could win.
|
| If reporters are going to write stories about it anyway,
| might as well fight.
| nickff wrote:
| The purchaser of a settlement (in this case Apple) is buying
| a 'basket' of things (non-disclosure potentially being one of
| them). Taking one item out of the basket will make the basket
| less valuable (less worth pursuing for plaintiff lawyers),
| and disclosure of settlements will (obviously) increase their
| visibility, which is undesirable (and may increase the number
| of victims wishing to pursue them).
| olliej wrote:
| It took me a moment to understand what they're saying, but I
| think that they're talking about post lawsuit settlement
| restrictions which certainly exist, vs speaking out about
| issues before a lawsuit.
|
| Restrictions on talking about an event is standard in most
| settlements as part of the "paying someone to disappear"
| solution to illegal working conditions. Presumably the "just
| shut up about it" has some value to the company which would
| now be lost.
| ProAm wrote:
| How much payout is worth silence for the next generation? Im
| not speaking about Apple specifically but all agreements like
| this are worse for everyone except the stock holder right?
| Companies are people (in the US) so its good for one slice of
| society I guess.
| nickff wrote:
| I don't know the answer to that question, but it's definitely
| worth thinking about!
| gumby wrote:
| There's no need to see it so zero sum. Typically in civil
| cases, especially of this nature, the payment is a combination
| of restitution ("pain and suffering") and a penalty.*
|
| If the lack of gag clauses means there will be earlier
| intervention, then there will be fewer cases that are so bad
| that they need litigation: a good thing (perhaps this is what
| you mean by "benefit many").
|
| Ones that, despite the removal of the gag clause, become so
| egregious that a successful lawsuit results, will still be
| subject to the same calculus: restitution + some penalty that
| may be higher, same, or lower.
|
| So the victims should suffer no loss: any restitution would be
| decided the same way as without the gag rule.
|
| * In a just system the penalty should not go to the victim but
| into the general fund, as punishment is really the
| responsibility of government, not private actors, and in
| awarding punishment the jury is acting as part of the court,
| thus as an organ of government. Giving it to the victim is
| second best, and better than not assessing punishment at all,
| and having these fines stapled to private cases is itself a
| good idea. But they shouldn't go to the victim -- if the
| restitution is inadequate, address that instead.
|
| It's OK that any lawyer commission includes the total sum, as
| reasonable restitution alone may not be a large enough figure
| for a lawyer to take the case.
| BEEdwards wrote:
| >employee gagging clauses related to workplace harassment
|
| maybe I'm incredibly naive to the world, but the fact that this
| is a thing completely baffles me.
|
| How can an employer prevent you from speaking about working
| conditions? Even from the companies perspective, this ban would
| seem to make it more advantageous to go public first, before
| reporting to the company which would limit your ability to do
| so...
| CPLX wrote:
| They can't prevent you from doing anything, but you can agree
| not to and agree to consequences if you don't.
|
| Whether this is ethical or not is another (and important)
| question but that's the legal framework to it.
| pannSun wrote:
| There are plenty of limits on what contracts may contain*, so
| the "it's legal if both parties sign the dotted line" is, for
| now, fiction. It's also what every entity able to compel
| people to agree to its contracts is lobbying for.
|
| *For example, in right-to-work states, employers can't agree
| to hire only union labor. Strange that _that_ is prohibited,
| but an omerta imposed on workers is not.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| The clause likely isn't "you can't talk about harassment" but
| "you can't talk about anything that happens at work". That then
| gets changed into "you can't talk about anything that happens
| at work, except your working conditions which you have a legal
| right to discuss", which means any time you talk you risk that
| your employer will disagree whether it falls under that and
| ruin you with a lawsuit, so you don't talk...
| Hnrobert42 wrote:
| They offer a settlement in exchange for silence. If you talk
| (before or after), you don't get the money.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > New customers only
|
| Back in the old Zortech days, my partner wanted to offer a great
| deal to new customers.
|
| When I'm a long time customer of some business, I get a bit
| miffed when new customers are offered better deals. So I talked
| him into giving the great deal to existing customers, and new
| ones get to pay full price.
|
| It worked out rather well!
| rqtwteye wrote:
| It annoys the hell out of me that in the current economy it
| seems that loyalty gets punished. New customers often get the
| best deals and get fleeced once the promo runs out. New
| employees get hired at higher salaries than people who have
| been with the company for years. I think in the long run this
| is really corrosive for society.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| This is common because there is a cost (usually non-monetary:
| effort, risk, having to evaluate offers etc.) to changing the
| status quo.
|
| You're always to some extent buying a cat in a bag, once you
| know what's in the bag, and the payments are set up etc., it
| makes sense that the service is worth more to you.
|
| The same goes the other way too, however: Acquiring a new
| customer is costly (see above - you usually have to give them
| an extra incentive, you need to find/advertise to customers,
| etc.), so keeping a customer is worth a lot.
|
| Which often means that there are great deals either for new
| customers or to retain ones that are plausibly threatening to
| leave (ever called your ISP to end your contract? wondering
| why many try to force you to talk to them before ending a
| contract?) and the rest that doesn't have the energy to play
| the game gets screwed. So you will get the "loyalty deal" but
| only if you put work into it.
|
| I agree that it really sucks, but I think that's just how
| incentives are aligned, and incentives tend to lead to
| outcomes.
| AmericanChopper wrote:
| I can't see how this is corrosive for society exactly, but
| this strategy exists because it works (even though it's not
| without some downsides). Churning isn't free, the
| employee/customer has to commit resources to churning, and
| especially in the case of an employee, accept risks.
|
| You're always going to have some churn, so no matter what
| approach you're taking you always have to tune the incentives
| so that churn occurs at the level you've deemed acceptable.
| If retention becomes dramatically cheaper than acquisition,
| then the existing customers/employees really only have
| themselves to blame.
| luckylion wrote:
| This exact culture in the economy has made me go from a 15
| year contract with my local utility company to using a
| service (for any Germans: go look up switchup) that handles
| cancelling and getting a new contract with one of the large
| power companies each year. You'll get market rates and a
| substantial bonus.
|
| I wouldn't have made that step if they hadn't originally
| increased the price for me while offering better conditions
| for new customers.
| smarmgoblin wrote:
| I wonder, do you see this changing now that the strategy of
| growth-at-all-costs is, at least for now, receiving more
| scrutiny?
| rqtwteye wrote:
| Somehow I doubt it. They will just use different language.
| culi wrote:
| In this modern age we should be able to offer something
| like "micro-stocks" to customers. Like a "our product
| isn't there all the way there, but you use us because you
| believe in us so we promise that if we are successful
| we'll pay back the people that believed in us".
|
| Even if the fractions are so small that it only amounts
| to cents, early supporters now have every incentive to
| tell ALL their friends about it and root for you however
| they can
|
| As a customer you also get the piece of mind that later
| price changes won't be unfair to you. You know that you
| were somehow compensated for your early commitments. In
| fact you even stand to benefit from all the new customers
| price drops could be bringing in
| ycombobreaker wrote:
| If 500 customers did this, I think the SEC would label
| this as a "security" and the company would be required to
| register as a public company, more or less. This is
| essentially what happened to Facebook which led to them
| going public: the private equity pool became too diverse
| and triggered this threshold, so publicly listing made
| sense.
|
| Why don't Kickstarter campaigns have this problem? AFAIK
| it's because they are just presales, there's no notion of
| ownership so they aren't treated as securities. A poorly-
| designed kickstarter that looked like micro stocks would
| probably get shot down.
| dontknowwhyihn wrote:
| If only there were some way to issue digital "tokens" in
| situations like this..
| culi wrote:
| one bitcoin transaction consumes 1,449 kWh, or about as
| much as 50 days of power for the average US household
| laserlight wrote:
| Bitcoin is not the only digital token technology.
| Ethereum consumes a fraction of the energy Bitcoin
| consumes.
| culi wrote:
| Right Ethereum is really lucky to have Bitcoin around to
| make it look good. It (very recently) cut it's energy
| usage by ~99.84% yet one ETH transaction is still 50x the
| amount of energy as a MasterCard transaction
| laserlight wrote:
| Thanks for clarifying. This seems to be a better picture
| of reality compared to your previous comment.
| DavidPeiffer wrote:
| >one bitcoin transaction consumes 1,449 kWh
|
| Thank you, I knew it was an energy hog, but had never
| looked at it this way.
|
| That's enough electricity to melt 2 tons of aluminum, or
| about half an hour of peak production from an average
| size US wind turbine.
| rightbyte wrote:
| You mean stocks?
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Yes, it is often referred to as a "loyalty tax". Auto
| insurance companies purportedly count on it to increase their
| profits.
|
| And speaking of salaries, I saw fellow engineers that came
| and went from tech jobs, staying perhaps about a year at
| each. I didn't have the self-confidence or stress-tolerance
| to do the same but they always seemed to make bank doing this
| -- getting a larger compensation with each jump.
| davidkuennen wrote:
| Not always. Some services I use have increased their prices
| dramatically, but I'm still on the old grandfathered plans.
|
| I do that for my users as well. If I increase the pricing for
| the paid subscription, all existing paid users will always
| keep the old, cheaper plan.
| pooper wrote:
| quite literally, T Mobile will introduce a new price tier
| iirc next week where bundling any postpaid voice line with
| home Internet will mean your home Internet will be USD 25 a
| month, down from USD 50 a month. Existing home Internet
| customers are excepted.
|
| I am not a big fan of cable but I have since signed up for
| time warner spectrum for Internet just in case...
|
| These companies assume we are too lazy, misinformed, and
| stupid to do anything.
|
| Edit: charter, not time warner (?)
| piskerpan wrote:
| > These companies assume we are too lazy, misinformed,
| and stupid to do anything.
|
| Correctly assume *
|
| HN is not representative of the general population, a lot
| of people don't bother to switch every provider every
| year, especially when they have obnoxious clauses like
| "this will renew in 12 months at 500% the price unless
| you send a signed letter at least 90 days in advance."
| Yes, probably illegal, still doesn't stop them from
| trying.
|
| Even I, attentive as I am, still get fleeced every once
| in a while.
| kodah wrote:
| > New employees get hired at higher salaries than people who
| have been with the company for years
|
| A good number of companies have committees and HR reviewing
| salaries annually for anomalies. That does make employment
| worse in some ways, but at least not in the way you
| specified.
| maxbond wrote:
| I don't disagree your point here, but those seem to serve
| different purposes? Was your partner not trying to address a
| need for new customers/revenue? Did this result in current
| customers expanding their business with you enough that this
| wasn't necessary then?
| User23 wrote:
| It's the same for employees. New hires generally get
| considerably better comp than veterans. In both cases it's
| taking existing relationships for granted.
| TrinaryWorksToo wrote:
| https://archive.vn/1DhBU
| neonate wrote:
| That's down for me but I got to the text by googling the title
| first:
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=Apple%20to%20end%20employee%...
| skissane wrote:
| Do you use Cloudflare DNS, 1.1.1.1? It is a known issue that
| archive.ph/md/vn doesn't work with that due to some dispute
| its operate has with them. Cloudflare refuses to send some
| DNS option on privacy grounds, which the operator of that
| site insists they need; in response, they configured their
| DNS servers to block Cloudflare.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| echo 41.77.143.21 archive.vn >> /etc/hosts
|
| The other issue is archive.ph and friends are DNS-blocked
| in some countries.
|
| 12ft.io is a well-known workaround for ft.com.
| cat > 1.sh #!/bin/sh read x;
| x=$(echo "$x"|yy046); #FN1 URL encoding #echo
| "https://12ft.io/api/proxy?ref=&q=$x"|yy025|nc -vv h1b
| 80|yy054|zcat exec tnftp -4o"|gzip -dc"
| "https://12ft.io/api/proxy?ref=&q=$x" ^D
| echo https://www.ft.com/content/8cd27d16-c996-4dc7-86af-
| ed6f40ff361c|1.sh > 1.htm firefox ./1.htm
| FN1. Use whatever one's own preference for URL encoding.
| Many options, e.g.,
| https://rosettacode.org/wiki/URL_encoding yy046 is mine.
| cat > 046.l int fileno(FILE *);
| #define p(x,y) {putchar(37);putchar(x);putchar(y);}
| %option nounput noinput noyywrap %% \x20
| p(50,48); /* space */ \x21 p(50,49); /* exclamation
| mark */ \x22 p(50,50); /* double quote */
| \x23 p(50,51); /* pound sign */ \x24 p(50,52); /*
| dollar sign */ \x25 p(50,53); /* percent sign */
| \x26 p(50,54); /* ampersand */ \x27 p(50,55); /*
| single quote */ \x28 p(50,56); /* opening
| parenthesis */ \x29 p(50,57); /* closing parenthesis
| */ \x2A p(50,65); /* asterisk */ \x2B
| p(50,66); /* plus sign */ \x2C p(50,67); /* comma */
| \x2F p(50,70); /* forward slash */ \x3A
| p(51,65); /* colon */ \x3B p(51,66); /* semi-colon
| */ \x3C p(51,67); /* less than */ \x3D
| p(51,68); /* equals sign */ \x3E p(51,69); /*
| greater than */ \x3F p(51,70); /* question mark */
| \x40 p(52,48); /* cuneiform */ \x5B
| p(53,66); /* opening bracket */ \x5C p(53,67); /*
| backslash */ \x5D p(53,68); /* closing bracket */
| \x5E p(53,69); /* caret */ \x60 p(54,48); /*
| backquote */ \x7B p(55,66); /* opening brace
| */ \x7C p(55,67); /* vertical bar */ \x7D
| p(55,68); /* closing brace */ \15 %%
| int main(){ yylex();exit(0);} ^D flex
| -8iCrf 046.l cc -O3 -std=c89 -W -Wall -pedantic
| -pipe lex.yy.c -static -o yy046 strip -s yy046
| smeej wrote:
| I use 1.1.1.1 and use archive.ph practically every day
| without issue.
|
| I'm not sure this info is current.
| skissane wrote:
| It definitely used to be true, and if it isn't true any
| more, it isn't clear when it stopped being true.
|
| I found someone 9 months ago reporting the issue was
| still happening for them -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30737328 - so maybe
| something has changed in the last 9 months.
| smeej wrote:
| That's very strange, because I've been using it without
| issue at least twice that long.
| wil421 wrote:
| I've been using it about as long as you and I have had
| issues with the domain.
| alecco wrote:
| CloudFlare is in the right. This is for privacy. Just put
| the IPs on your hosts file, it's easy.
| https://dns.google/query?name=archive.is
|
| 54.37.18.234 archive.today 54.37.18.234 archive.is
|
| While there try a hosts blocklist
| http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29024952
| greenyoda wrote:
| Just wanted to add that archive.* works OK with NextDNS,
| which both Firefox and Chrome allow you to select as a DNS
| provider for DNS-over-HTTPS.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-10 23:02 UTC)