Apple is singled out as a result of their high profile, coupled with recent reports of their recent financial disclosures of very high profits. Nothing strange or untoward about that; just another American company making a killing selling products at a price premium to a loyal following who doesn't want to be disturbed by conditions external to their own existence.It would be nice if a company as successful as Apple, with an almost cult-like grip on its customer base, could figure out a way to keep a little more of the action in the U.S.
Free advertisement for both. Front page news. The media is shrinking before your eyes. Desperate for controversy, it goes anywhere and reports anything. It has forgotten its way to providing the "truth and education" to the public.
Thanks to the free press for reporting things like this. While it may be difficult to restrict such practices, at least we will make our decisions while being more aware of what we're doing. This kind of article, then, does much to make people realize they don't need to buy Apple products exclusively, because it's such a great company. It turns out it's just another company.
How many businesses in the U.S. exist in which a company is allowed to have 2/3rds marketshare? At the beginning we had askjeeves, excite, altavista . . . what happened to all those rivals and why? And how can one company have 90% mkt share in Europe? Anyway at least people are putting up a fight over there, instead of saying "gee whiz how cool that Google gives its employees free bus rides," like we do here in the U.S.
Once again we see mega-mergers to soak up the cash companies have accumulated. Before too long we should start seeing more company splits and spinoffs as the merged companies do not deliver what is promised at the mega-mergers. Plus of course layoffs do to the mergers and later due to "inefficiencies" in the consolidated companies. All of course dictated by the need for higher stock prices and quarterly profit reports (whether true reports or not). Did all long-term thinking get ruled out by the rise of the modern-day MBA? We keep repeating these cycles. Or perhaps I am being too cynical and pessimistic.
We have free will not to like a company even if it provides an effective service. Not respecting that may further rub consumers the wrong way, in effect giving us the message that we have to use them. We don't. And if a company is exposed for having tried to increase its success through illegitimate means, that's fair game in terms of factors we take into account in our decisions about where to spend our money.
Carrying The Objective Observer's observations one step further: if Apple employees worked for free, that would substantially increase the company's profits. If, as Objective Observer notes, most Apple employees are also shareholders in the company, then those employees who gave up their eleven dollar an hour salary and began working for free would quickly become millionaires as the ten or twenty shares of Apple that they owned rose in value.
This is right up there with Nancy Pelosi's assertion a year or two ago that every person receiving an unemployment check creates one and half new jobs, ergo the more people who are unemployed, the faster the economy will grow.
The New Economics is indeed mind boggling.
Many private companies like to market their services indicating they do "background checks" of their employees (i.e. babysitting service companies, security guard companies). This is a very misleading claim because as private companies they absolutely do not have legal access to run FBI or State fingerprint criminal history reports of their employees. So the "background checks" these service industries refer to in their marketing are the inaccurate hodgepodge of reports collected by these "big data" companies you refer to. Not only are these "big data" companies on one end of the spectrum sharing inaccurate and irrelevant and inappropriate personal information (i.e. medical or financial information); but on the other side of the spectrum, they are unable in reality to know and to pass along relevant criminal history information (to someone who, for example, is looking to hire from a private child-care company of which there are several large national chains). Although some of what they can and might pass along for a fee is actually available for free to anyone using Google.
These wages compare favorably with similar retail jobs. Macy's, Best Buy, Starbucks? How well do they pay entry-level? For some reason people think of Apple as a company as some sort of free society where the workday is a hippie love-in sort of affair where they read Mao and feast on free tofu and granola. Then they are shocked and dismayed to learn its run like any other company. Shame on Apple! It does seem that the NYT has some sort of grudge against Apple, singling Apple out for crimes against humanity or whatever point the paper is trying to make. Whatever it is, it seems about as balanced as a certain news channel. Your obvious grudge does not reflect well on you.
The owners of this privately-held company felt it morally wrong to fund the medical equivalent of abortions for some of their employees, and the Court agreed that they should not be compelled to do so. That's all this is about. These employees remain free to practice whatever form of birth control they'd like, most of which the company will fund.