Business
Labor board accuses Apple of suppressing employee discussions
Apple has been accused by the National Labor Relations Board of trying to prevent employees from discussing pay equity and pressuring an engineer who attempted to circulate an online survey about wages to quit.
In a complaint issued last week by the NLRB’s regional office in Oakland, federal labor regulators alleged Apple has unlawfully blocked discussion among workers in corporate offices by enforcing overly broad confidentiality rules and restricting their activity on the Slack messaging app and social media, as well as hampering their conversations with journalists.
The complaint alleges the company in 2021 barred employees from creating a Slack channel called #community-pay-equity and prohibited workers from discussing the financial incentives Apple uses to reach sales goals by claiming the topic included “confidential and proprietary information.”
Apple has publicly denied the allegations. “We strongly disagree with these claims,” a company spokesperson told Reuters. Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Times.
According to the complaint, Cher Scarlett, an engineer at Apple, faced reprisals after she participated in Slack discussions about workplace discrimination, helped found a campaign called “Apple Too” modeled after the #MeToo movement that was meant to encourage employees to share their experiences with racism and sexism, and created an online employee survey about pay equity.
Instead of addressing her requests that the company clarify its rules regarding pay discussions, NLRB investigators found Apple told an attorney representing Scarlett at the time that she needed to stop making social media posts, while also pressing her to go on medical leave and offering her a severance agreement. These actions by the company, the complaint said, unlawfully forced Scarlett to quit.
Apple managers allegedly threatened other employees who posted on social media and in Slack and spoke to the press about workplace concerns, according to the complaint. Some were interrogated about their involvement with Scarlett’s pay equity survey and were told their activities were being monitored, and that they could be demoted, according to the complaint.
Issuing the complaint represents the NLRB’s first step in litigating the case after investigating an unfair labor practice claim submitted by employees and finding merit to the allegations. If a settlement with Apple is not reached, the case will be reviewed by an administrative law judge at a hearing scheduled for next June. The judge’s decision on what, if anything, Apple must do to address the issues raised in the complaint could then be appealed to the labor board in Washington and from there it could be appealed to federal court.
The NLRB’s general counsel is asking for a court order that would require Apple to post notices in offices and electronically in Slack and email explaining the rights of employees, as well as to conduct training for managers, supervisors and employees. The NLRB is also looking to force Apple to reinstate Scarlett, compensate her for lost pay and issue an apology letter.
The complaint is the third in recent weeks to hit Apple.
On Sep. 27, the board’s regional office in Los Angeles issued a complaint accusing Apple of requiring employees across the U.S. to sign overly broad confidentiality and non-compete agreements and adhere to sweeping policies on misconduct and social media that violated employees’ ability to exercise their rights under federal labor law. The complaint stems from charges filed in 2021 by Ashley Gjovik, a former senior engineering program manager at the company, who claimed that an email sent by Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook, in which he pledged to punish employees who leaked company information, had a chilling effect on workers’ discussions of pay equity and discrimination.
And on Oct. 9, the NLRB’s office in Oakland issued another complaint alleging the company had maintained unlawful work rules and created an impression of surveillance, unfairly enforced policies and wrongly terminated an employee for their involvement in an open letter criticizing a technology entrepreneur Apple had hired. The complaint arose from claims made by Janneke Parrish, a former Texas-based product manager on Apple Maps and a leader of a #MeToo activist movement within Apple, who was fired in 2021.
The complaints by federal regulators highlight ongoing turmoil around organizing efforts by Apple employees both at the iPhone maker’s corporate headquarters and at retail stores. In recent years the board has also lodged complaints that Apple interrogated its retail workers in New York about their union support and confiscated pro-labor fliers in a store break room, and similarly interrogated employees in an Atlanta store and told staff that they would be in a less advantageous position if they voted for a union.
The company has denied wrongdoing.
Business
Nike to Cut 1,400 Jobs as Part of Its Turnaround Plan
Nike is cutting about 1,400 jobs in its operations division, mostly from its technology department, the company said Thursday.
In a note to employees, Venkatesh Alagirisamy, the chief operating officer of Nike, said that management was nearly done reorganizing the business for its turnaround plan, and that the goal was to operate with “more speed, simplicity and precision.”
“This is not a new direction,” Mr. Alagirisamy told employees. “It is the next phase of the work already underway.”
Nike, the world’s largest sportswear company, is trying to recover after missteps led to a prolonged sales slump, in which the brand leaned into lifestyle products and away from performance shoes and apparel. Elliott Hill, the chief executive, has worked to realign the company around sports and speed up product development to create more breakthrough innovations.
In March, Nike told investors that it expected sales to fall this year, with growth in North America offset by poor performance in Asia, where the brand is struggling to rejuvenate sales in China. Executives said at the time that more volatility brought on by the war in the Middle East and rising oil prices might continue to affect its business.
The reorganization has involved cuts across many parts of the organization, including at its headquarters in Beaverton, Ore. Nike slashed some corporate staff last year and eliminated nearly 800 jobs at distribution centers in January.
“You never want to have to go through any sort of layoffs, but to re-center the company, we’re doing some of that,” Mr. Hill said in an interview earlier this year.
Mr. Alagirisamy told employees that Nike was reshaping its technology team and centering employees at its headquarters and a tech center in Bengaluru, India. The layoffs will affect workers across North America, Europe and Asia.
The cuts will also affect staffing in Nike’s factories for Air, the company’s proprietary cushioning system. Employees who work on the supply chain for raw materials will also experience changes as staff is integrated into footwear and apparel teams.
Nike’s Converse brand, which has struggled for years to revive sales, will move some of its engineering resources closer to the factories they support, the company said.
Mr. Alagirisamy said the moves were necessary to optimize Nike’s supply chain, deploy technology faster and bolster relationships with suppliers.
Business
Senate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes
A bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to homeowners who take steps to reduce wildfire risk on their property died in the Legislature.
The Senate Insurance Committee on Monday voted down the measure, SB 1076, one of the most ambitious bills spurred by the devastating January 2025 wildfires.
The vote came despite fire victims and others rallying at the state Capitol in support of the measure, authored by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena), whose district includes the Eaton fire zone.
The Insurance Coverage for Fire-Safe Homes Act originally would have required insurers to offer and renew coverage for any home that meets wildfire-safety standards adopted by the insurance commissioner starting Jan. 1, 2028.
It also threatened insurers with a five-year ban from the sale of home or auto insurance if they did not comply, though it allowed for exceptions.
However, faced with strong opposition from the insurance industry, Pérez had agreed to amend the bill so it would have established community-wide pilot projects across the state to better understand the most effective way to limit property and insurance losses from wildfires.
Insurers would have had to offer four years of coverage to homeowners in successful pilot projects.
Denni Ritter, a vice president of the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., told the committee that her trade group opposed the bill.
“While we appreciate the intent behind those conversations, those concepts do not remove our opposition, because they retain the same core flaw — substituting underwriting judgment and solvency safeguards with a statutory mandate to accept risk,” she said.
In voting against the bill Sen. Laura Richardson, (D-San Pedro), said: “Last I heard, in the United States, we don’t require any company to do anything. That’s the difference between capitalism and communism, frankly.”
The remarks against the measure prompted committee Chair Sen. Steve Padilla, (D-Chula Vista), to chastise committee members in opposition.
“I’m a little perturbed, and I’m a little disappointed, because you have someone who is trying to work with industry, who is trying to get facts and data,” he said.
Monday’s vote was the fourth time a bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to so-called “fire hardened” homes failed in the Legislature since 2020, according to an analysis by insurance committee staff.
Fire hardening includes measures such as cutting back brush, installing fire resistant roofs and closing eaves to resist fire embers.
Pérez’s legislation was thought to have a better chance of passage because it followed the most catastrophic wildfires in U.S. history, which damaged or destroyed more than 18,000 structures and killed 31 people.
The bill was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles advocacy group Consumer Watchdog and Every Fire Survivor’s Network, a community group founded in Altadena after the fires formerly called the Eaton Fire Survivors Network.
But it also had broad support from groups such as the California Apartment Association, the California Nurses Association and California Environmental Voters.
Leading up to the fires, many insurers, citing heightened fire risk, had dropped policyholders in fire-prone neighorhoods. That forced them onto the California FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, which offers limited but costly policies.
A Times analysis found that that in the Palisades and Eaton fire zones, the FAIR Plan’s rolls from 2020 to 2024 nearly doubled from 14,272 to 28,440. Mandating coverage has been seen as a way of reducing FAIR Plan enrollment.
“I’m disappointed this bill died in committee. Fire survivors deserved better,” Pérez said in a statement .
Also failing Monday in the committee was SB 982, a bill authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, (D-San Francisco). It would have authorized California’s attorney general to sue fossil fuel companies to recover losses from climate-induced disasters. It was opposed by the oil and gas industry.
Passing the committee were two other Pérez bills. SB 877 requires insurers to provide more transparency in the claims process. SB 878 imposes a penalty on insurers who don’t make claims payments on time.
Another bill, SB 1301, authored by insurance commissioner candidate Sen. Ben Allen, (D-Pacific Palisades), also passed. It protects policyholders from unexplained and abrupt policy non-renewals.
Business
How We Cover the White House Correspondents’ Dinner
Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.
Politicians in Washington and the reporters who cover them have an often adversarial relationship.
But on the last Saturday in April, they gather for an irreverent celebration of press freedom and the First Amendment at the Washington Hilton Hotel: The White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.
Hosted by the association, an organization that helps ensure access for media outlets covering the presidency, the dinner attracts Hollywood stars; politicians from both parties; and representatives of more than 100 networks, newspapers, magazines and wire services.
While The Times will have two reporters in the ballroom covering the event, the company no longer buys seats at the party, said Richard W. Stevenson, the Washington bureau chief. The decision goes back almost two decades; the last dinner The Times attended as an organization was in 2007.
“We made a judgment back then that the event had become too celebrity-focused and was undercutting our need to demonstrate to readers that we always seek to maintain a proper distance from the people we cover, many of whom attend as guests,” he said.
It’s a decision, he added, that “we have stuck by through both Republican and Democratic administrations, although we support the work of the White House Correspondents’ Association.”
Susan Wessling, The Times’s Standards editor, said the policy is a product of the organization’s desire to maintain editorial independence.
“We don’t want to leave readers with any questions about our independence and credibility by seeming to be overly friendly with people whose words and actions we need to report on,” she said.
The celebrity mentalist Oz Pearlman is headlining the evening, in lieu of the usual comedy set by the likes of Stephen Colbert and Hasan Minhaj, but all eyes will be on President Trump, who will make his first appearance at the dinner as president.
Mr. Trump has boycotted the event since 2011, when he was the butt of punchlines delivered by President Barack Obama and the talk show host Seth Meyers mocking his hair, his reality TV show and his preoccupation with the “birther” movement.
Last month, though, Mr. Trump, who has a contentious relationship with the media, announced his intention to attend this year’s dinner, where he will speak to a room full of the same reporters he often derides as “enemies of the people.”
Times reporters will be there to document the highs, the lows and the reactions in the room. A reporter for the Styles desk has also been assigned to cover the robust roster of after-parties around Washington.
Some off-duty reporters from The Times will also be present at this late-night circuit, though everyone remains cognizant of their roles, said Patrick Healy, The Times’s assistant managing editor for Standards and Trust.
“If they’re reporting, there’s a notebook or recorder out as usual,” he said. “If they’re not, they’re pros who know they’re always identifiable as Times journalists.”
For most of The Times’s reporters and editors, though, the evening will be experienced from home.
“The rest of us will be able to follow the coverage,” Mr. Stevenson said, “without having to don our tuxes or gowns.”
-
New York43 minutes agoShould a Straight Person Represent Stonewall’s City Council District?
-
Detroit, MI1 hour agoBlake Miller has high floor, big upside, says Lions GM Brad Holmes
-
San Francisco, CA1 hour agoHighway 1 closure in San Francisco expected to snarl Sunset traffic all weekend
-
Dallas, TX2 hours agoHow UCF EDGE Malachi Lawrence Fits With The Dallas Cowboys
-
Miami, FL2 hours ago
Dolphins Select Two Players in The First Round of The 2026 NFL Draft
-
Boston, MA2 hours agoIn-Store Only
-
Denver, CO2 hours agoWolves Back Up the Big Talk With Blowout Win Over Denver in Game 3
-
Seattle, WA2 hours ago‘Rare’ Tiny-Home Compound Featuring 3 Adorable Abodes Hits the Market in Seattle for Just $900K