by dc1rjj on 12/6/22, 10:32 AM with 143 comments
by peterjmag on 12/6/22, 12:16 PM
by halpmeh on 12/6/22, 12:52 PM
So, in essence, there is zero incentive for Apple to change its behavior.
by danuker on 12/6/22, 11:16 AM
That is because, in case of disagreements, an employee's prospect (losing 100% of their income) is a much worse negotiating position than a large company losing <1% of its workforce.
by mikeyouse on 12/6/22, 5:05 PM
by phone8675309 on 12/6/22, 2:24 PM
by jimbob45 on 12/6/22, 3:23 PM
So it sounds like Apple's tactics weren't illegal but this new counsel wants to reverse precedent to make sure they are now illegal. Seems bizarre to try and change precedent from the side of the lawyers rather than the judges. Paired with the PR-tone of this article, it looks like an upstart lawyer trying to win the court of public opinion rather than a legal court.
by WeylandYutani on 12/6/22, 12:09 PM
You'll see increased lobbying from companies for increased migration to keep wages down.