[ChrisMarshallNY]

I suspect that this is more a "certain managers wanted certain types of employees," as opposed to a systemic, companywide decree from Up High (like IBM's ageism).

Apple just makes too damn much money to worry overmuch about salaries. If anything, a lot of managers like H1Bs, because they can drive them like slaves. I've seen exactly that, in front of my own eyes. It's pretty disturbing, if you are a manager like me.

[Jochim]

Weren't Apple one of the ringleaders in the conspiracy to suppress wages between the large tech companies a few years back?

[rexpop]

Yes, ten years back[0]:

> In one email exchange after a Google recruiter solicited an Apple employee, Schmidt told Jobs that the recruiter would be fired, court documents show. Jobs then forwarded Schmidt’s note to a top Apple human resources executive with a smiley face.

> Apple, Google, Adobe and Intel in 2010 settled a U.S. Department of Justice probe by agreeing not to enter into such no-hire deals in the future. The four companies had since been fighting the civil antitrust class action.

0. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-google-settlement-i...

[ChrisMarshallNY]

Good point. I am willing to stand corrected, but I've also seen what I've seen.

[rexpop]

I think the third option is more plausible; neither executive decree nor individual managers' particular penchant drives these trends, but rather widespread cultural trends that individual managers act on subconsciously.

We're likely talking about favoring H-1B visas; predominantly Indian, and predominantly male, with a median age of 34.[0] Do individual hiring managers have individual, personal biases? Yes, but what do you call a collective group who all exhibit the same bias? We can speculate about their personal reasons, but keep in mind that H-1B workers are inordinate victims of wage theft! [1]

> Thousands of skilled migrants employed by HCL Technologies—an India-based IT staffing firm that places H-1B workers at top corporations like Disney, FedEx, and Google—appear to have been underpaid by at least $95 million

So perhaps it is simple economics: precarious immigrant workers are easier to steal from.

0. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/data/H1B_...

1. https://www.epi.org/press/new-epi-report-reveals-wage-theft-...

[closeparen]

FAANG SWE and body-shop “IT” careers couldn’t be more different.

[rexpop]

You exaggerate, but maybe you can instead articulate the differences?

[raincom]

Well, if X is working for a manager M for 3 years at Apple(for that matter, any company), M wants to make sure that wheoever applies to X's role during the PERM process (labor certification to ensure that no US citizens/perm residents are available to fill X's role) gets dinged 100%, no exceptions whatsoever. The way they can ding applicants takes shape in different forms: (a) make the job very very specific, thereby showing that other applicants don't have specific skills (b) make the job very generic, then ask for very very precise skills that X's role needs (c) make the interview really tough (d) add extra rounds of interviews (e) a combination of all of the foregoing.

[addicted]

Or more relevant to this, Apple wanted to retain the employee that had been working for them for 3-5 years instead of replacing them with a completely new hire because of bureaucratic legalese.

The PERM application was almost certainly submitted for an existing employee, who had most likely been employed with Apple for somewhere between 2-4 years. Thanks to bureaucratic nonsense they were then required to open up that position to outsiders instead, and if they found someone else who could be hired fire the person that had been doing the job well enough that Apple was willing to pick up tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to go ahead with their PERM application.

[closeparen]

Apple seems to have an unusually long-term orientation with respect to employees and to value tenure and retention in a way that the rest of Silicon Valley does not.

[astrange]

I believe it's somewhat overrated how often people switch companies; a growing company will have a lot of shorter-career employees simply because it just hired them all. Apple has been around a few more decades is all.

[kristopolous]

Isn't the foreign national's status kind of captured at the discretion of the employer?

It sounds like a larger power asymmetry and as an employer, you want that as large as possible.

I mean it also increases stress on both ends, which affects executive function so the parties become handicapped by the relationship, but that's apparently less valuable than the large power differentials to many.

I wonder if there's quantitative studies of firms performances with respect to this. If the theory is right, it's long term one of the more disadvantageous strategies. (Using Apple as N=1 doesn't cut it as a study here)

[KennyBlanken]

> Apple just makes too damn much money to worry overmuch about salaries.

Apple is a publicly traded company whose shareholders would not tolerate overpaying for labor.

Further: Apple was caught colluding with other major tech industry employers with regards to hiring/salary.

So please do go on about how Apple doesn't care about labor costs.

And also, look at the wages and benefits for Apple Store employees which are shit for the level of technical expertise they're expected to have and the products they're selling (there's usually at least some correlation between compensation and the cost of goods being sold - obviously not anything approaching linearity.)

Then look at how Apple store staff are starting to unionize, much to the terror of their Head of Retail, who likely makes half a million dollars a year in cash compensation alone - $250/hour, which is more than ten times the base wage for a retail employee (supposedly now $22/hour.)

Your naivete is pretty stunning. There isn't a single corporate employer on the planet who doesn't do everything they can to minimize labor costs.

[astrange]

> There isn't a single corporate employer on the planet who doesn't do everything they can to minimize labor costs.

If a company did "everything" they could to minimize labor costs they'd just fire everyone. But they don't, because this is a bad way to run a growth company. Focus on improving what you can get from them instead of managing them out.

Similarly, people say companies care about profit over everything, but they obviously don't because, say, scented candle companies sell scented candles and not fentanyl.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

> Your naivete is pretty stunning.

Yeah, you know, this is a professional forum. I may not be important to your career, but a hell of a lot of other people that are, hang out, here.

That's one reason I don't write stuff like that.

[Longlius]

Ah yes, the classic "I don't like your point so I'm going to gently concern troll you into trying to walk it back with implied threats to your livelihood."

Grow up.

[ethanwillis]

He made an argument for why he found what you do write naive. I think it'd be better to engage with that versus saying that you'd hamstring his career because you don't like that he finds your opinion naive. People can be actually abrasive and rude and I don't think that, that one line reaches that level.

I do find your implication shocking though. Do all Apple managers feel like they should get in the way of someones career progression over a disagreement like the one stated?

[ChrisMarshallNY]

Huh?

I'm not an Apple manager. Never have been one.

I didn't "threaten" anyone, and it's kind of an ... interesting ... leap of "logic" to have arrived at that inference.

All I said, and, if you go back and read it, you'll see this, was that this is a professional forum. It isn't LinkedIn (Thank Yog-Sothoth), but it is probably more relevant than LI, for the careers of many folks here.

I'm retired. I'm not looking for work.

The same cannot be said for most others, participating here.

I find it rather depressing, to see bright, talented folks, letting future managers know that they don't play well with others. As a former (non-Apple) manager, I can tell you that team cohesion is even more important than rockstar coders.

When we share on a forum like this, we are talking to our future peers and managers. We are telling them what it would be like, to have us working for|with them.

No one is doing me any damage, by attacking me. They may be making themselves feel a bit better about themselves, but I guarantee that their propensity for combativeness does not go unnoticed. When our first interaction-ever, with another person, is a direct insult, then that tells people something about the way we interact with our peers.

If we believe that managers would be happy to recruit warriors, then I guess it's OK. I just haven't met any managers (and I've known many) that prefer having staff that like to "stir the pot." That’s not always a good thing, as a truly creative, high-quality workplace will have disagreements; just not poo-flinging matches.

Sure, my original statement was probably provocative. I didn't mean it to be so, but it was interpreted that way. I didn't mean that Apple, as an organization, wasn't interested in saving money, just that the Ockham's Razor thingy says that it's likely to be individual (probably former) Apple managers that were chiefly responsible for the suit. Kind of basic human nature.

One of the ways that I try to be a good citizen on HN, is to not get into fights, here, so that's all I'll say. I apologize (sincerely) for the provocative nature of my original comment. I didn't mean it to be that way, but understand how it was interpreted. That's on me. I should have worded it different.

Now, why don't we all just take a few breaths, and remember that we're (probably) all grown-ups?

[ethanwillis]

I never said you were an apple manager. and I never used the word threaten so I don't know why you put it in quotes.

Not playing well with others? Or not playing well with you?

[ChrisMarshallNY]

> I never said you were an apple manager.

> Do all Apple managers feel like they should get in the way of someones career progression over a disagreement like the one stated?

> I never used the word threaten

> saying that you'd hamstring his career because you don't like that he finds your opinion naive.

Look, you have never met me, and I have never met you. We are unlikely to ever work together, which is, maybe a shame. I'm sure that you are talented. Unfortunately, that is not obvious, from this discussion.

If you want to find out about me, before lobbing insults my way, that's damn easy. I don't hide anything. Just look at my HN profile.

[ergocoder]

H1Bs are more slave-like. They can't quit easily. That alone is worth a lot.

[gymbeaux]

It’s pretty disturbing, if you are a good human