Meta employees are taking aim at Mark Zuckerberg in employee reviews on Blind, the anonymous forum. From a report: Some reviews, posted on Wednesday -- the day Meta laid off 13% of its workforce -- are negative, although others are more positive. One user likened the layoffs to the "hunger games" and another said the Facebook owner had an "uncertain future." Insider surveyed the workplace community app, where staff can air their grievances in posts and reviews, to see what was being said about Meta and its CEO. Some 44 employee reviews of Meta were posted on Blind on Wednesday and Thursday this week.

"The Metaverse will be our slow death," one user, who called themselves a senior software developer, posted on Wednesday. They added: "Mark Zuckerberg will single-handedly kill a company with the meta-verse." Zuckerberg apologized to staff for the need to cut 11,000 jobs, admitting that he "got this wrong". Blind users must provide their work email email address, job title and employer when joining the platform so the company can "gauge the professional status" of posters, according to its website. A user's employment is not officially verified, however. Blind said it occasionally sent prompts to users to "re-verify" their accounts. Rick Chen, head of public relations at Blind, told Insider: "Nearly all of the reviews posted have been written by current employees of the respective companies at the time of writing, as people generally cannot access Blind after they are laid off or resign."

In 2004 NBC's news show "Dateline" began airing "To Catch a Predator" segments, in which a vigilante group posed online as minors to lure sex predators into in-person meetings — where they were then arrested by police.

The New Yorker looks at its cultural impact: Although there were only twenty episodes of the series, in three years, it's "this touchstone that I grew up with and that millions of people grew up with," Paul Renfro, a professor of history at Florida State University and the author of "Stranger Danger: Family Values, Childhood, and the American Carceral State," said. "It shaped how people think about sexual violence in ways that we haven't fully grappled with." The show focussed on the threat from strangers on the Internet, even though most victims of child sexual abuse are harmed by someone known to them. "On the show, it's not the family, it's not priests or rabbis or other authority figures who pose a threat to children, it's this devious stranger," Renfro said. The show's influence helped spur the passage of the Adam Walsh Act, in 2006, which created publicly searchable databases of people convicted of certain sex crimes. (There's little evidence that sex-offender registries have been effective at reducing sexual offenses.)
But today, "amateur predator hunting has come back into style," the article notes, citing the proliferation of online groups. "Recently, the Washington Post found more than a hundred and sixty, which have been responsible for nearly a thousand stings this year."

And then the New Yorker interviewed a woman named Cam, who with her husband and her brother-in-law decided to form "the Permian Basin Predator Patrol" — broadcasting their sting operations and humiliations of potential perpetrators on YouTube: [S]oon after the channel started drawing attention, they were called to a meeting at the Odessa Police Department. According to Cam, officers made it clear that they disapproved of their activities. "We were told we can't be involved with them, and that we can't send them anything directly," she said. "One, we're endangering ourselves, and, two, we're giving them more work — that's what it seemed like they were saying."

"We are very mindful of not trying to entrap a suspect," Lieutenant Brad Cline, who works in the Odessa Police Department's Crimes Against Persons Unit, said. "Taking a predator into custody can be very dangerous as well."
The article points out that "To Catch a Predator" was cancelled when Texas man Bill Conradt decided not to follow-up on his online messages — but "When a SWAT team burst into his house, trailed by a camera crew, Conradt shot himself."

So what did Cam's group do when the Odessa Police Department declined their help? The Permian Basin Predator Patrol continued to make videos. If she couldn't contribute to an arrest, Cam thought, at least she could get the word out to the public. She became an expert at figuring out the identities of the men she was chatting with, even when they used fake names.... Sometimes she'd find a man's family on Facebook and send his mother screenshots of the obscene messages he'd sent, or call his employer. "I believe three of them have been let go from their jobs," she said.

A sting by the Predator Catchers Indianapolis led to a man's conviction for child solicitation.... Although YouTube's predator hunters tend to portray themselves as the unequivocal good guys (Cam is an exception — most are men), their track record is more mixed.... The Ohio-based group Dads Against Predators has reportedly been banned from local grocery stores for causing disturbances. In 2018, a twenty-year-old in Connecticut hanged himself after a confrontation with a predator-hunter group. One video by the Permian Basin Predator Patrol ends with a man weeping, then running into traffic. (Cam said that she asked police to perform a welfare check on him, but she's not sure if it occurred.)

LinkedIn is rolling out new features to combat a surge in AI-generated bot accounts, writes Brian Krebs. "Many LinkedIn profiles now display a creation date, and the company is expanding its domain validation offering, which allows users to publicly confirm that they can reply to emails at the domain of their stated current employer." From the report: LinkedIn's new "About This Profile" section -- which is visible by clicking the "More" button at the top of a profile -- includes the year the account was created, the last time the profile information was updated, and an indication of how and whether an account has been verified.

LinkedIn also said it is adding a warning to some LinkedIn messages that include high-risk content, or that try to entice the user into taking the conversation to another platform (like WeChat). "We may warn you about messages that ask you to take the conversation to another platform because that can be a sign of a scam," the company said in a blog post. "These warnings will also give you the choice to report the content without letting the sender know."

Microsoft President Brad Smith is calling for companies, schools and governments to dramatically increase training workers for new and redesigned roles tackling the climate crisis. From a report: The software giant, which has pledged to remove more carbon than it emits by 2030, says the lack of skills in areas like carbon accounting, green procurement and supply chain management is a threat to the kind of progress needed to arrest global warming. The company, along with the Boston Consulting Group, studied 15 companies they said were leading the pack in sustainability innovation to produce a report on what's needed. Microsoft plans to develop and share more training resources through its LinkedIn business, work with United Nations and International Monetary Fund groups and NGOs, as well as convening a conference of corporate chief sustainability officers to share best practices.

As you see it, what is the challenge?
Brad Smith: Roughly 3,900 companies around the world have signed up for climate pledges. But what we're finding as a leading technology provider to these companies, is that we all now need to figure out how to turn these pledges into progress. That's easier said than done. It takes a real revolution in different business processes and in the use of digital technology as core components. But foundationally, it all relies on building a more skilled workforce.

How do we we know we have a shortfall in these types of skills?
LinkedIn did a study a year ago -- what it showed was that the number of jobs in the economy that require sustainability skills is growing by 8% a year but the number of people in the workforce that have these skills is growing by only 6% a year. So we're seeing a gap, and in fact, we're seeing a widening of this gap. When we entered the digital era, we needed to bring computer science into schools and we needed to bring digital fluency into the workplace. When we've reviewed the data, employers around the world really invested more in employee training between 1980 and 2000. Computers entered the workforce -- people needed to be trained how to use them. But we saw employer investments in employee training really declining after the year 2000 and have been stagnating ever since. We're going to need to reinvest in employee training.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: A former Wall Street Journal reporter is accusing a major U.S. law firm of having used mercenary hackers to oust him from his job and ruin his reputation. In a lawsuit filed late Friday, Jay Solomon, the Journal's former chief foreign correspondent, said Philadelphia-based Dechert LLP worked with hackers from India to steal emails between him and one of his key sources, Iranian American aviation executive Farhad Azima. Solomon said the messages, which showed Azima floating the idea of the two of them going into business together, were put into a dossier and circulated in a successful effort to get him fired.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, said Dechert "wrongfully disclosed this dossier first to Mr. Solomon's employer, the Wall Street Journal, at its Washington DC bureau, and then to other media outlets in an attempt to malign and discredit him." It said the campaign "effectively caused Mr. Solomon to be blackballed by the journalistic and publishing community." Dechert said in an email that it disputed the claim and would fight it in court. The lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal actions related to hired hackers operating out of India, notes Reuters. "In June, Reuters reported on the activities of several hack-for-hire shops, including Delhi area-companies BellTroX and CyberRoot, that were involved in a decade-long series of espionage campaigns targeting thousands of people, including more than 1,000 lawyers at 108 different law firms."

Solomon said in a statement Saturday that the hack-and-leak he suffered was an example of "a trend that's becoming a great threat to journalism and media, as digital surveillance and hacking technologies become more sophisticated and pervasive. This is a major threat to the freedom of the press."

In 2017 Google committed $1 billion to a program called "Grow with Google," and in 2018 launched "Google Career Certificates."

Fortune looks at the success of those programs — and their newest evolution: These online educational programs are focused on helping learners land jobs that are in high demand, including in digital marketing, IT support , data analytics, project management, and UX design. More than 300,000 people have graduated from Google's Career Certificates program, and 75% of these grads report they've found a new job, higher pay, or a promotion within six months of completing of the program.

Today, Grow with Google takes this program a step further by developing university-industry partnerships. Grow with Google tells Fortune exclusively of the launch of its partnerships with top universities to offer specialized career certificates. These specialized programs build on Grow with Google's existing programs, but offer more industry-specific take on the material....

The specializations include:

- Fundamentals of Data Analytics in the Public Sector with R by the University of Michigan
- Construction Management by Columbia Engineering
- Financial Analysis — Skills for Success by the University of Illinois' Gies School of Business
- Sustainability Analyst Fundamentals by Arizona State University.

"This is really a tipping point for higher ed," says Lisa Gevelber, founder of Grow with Google. "Educational institutions have always been the place that people went from the world of classroom learning to the world of work. But what we're seeing here is higher ed really adopting more innovative, flexible models to make sure that students of all sorts have access to the knowledge to be successful in the workforce...."

The courses were developed by industry experts at Google, along with faculty at the hosting universities. Industry employers were also asked for input on important course content.
After finishing courses, students gain access to an online list of the jobs that the program qualifies them for. This includes listings from Google's 150-employer consortium that specifically hire graduates of Google Career Certificate programs — including Google itself.

Gevelber explains to Fortune that "At the end of the day, no one is taking a class to take a class. They're all taking this class to get a real economic outcome for their family. We want to ensure they have the skills they need and employers are laying and waiting to hire them."

Security researcher Brian Krebs writes: Someone has recently created a large number of fake LinkedIn profiles for Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) roles at some of the world's largest corporations. It's not clear who's behind this network of fake CISOs or what their intentions may be. But the fabricated LinkedIn identities are confusing search engine results for CISO roles at major companies, and they are being indexed as gospel by various downstream data-scraping sources. [...] Rich Mason, the former CISO at Fortune 500 firm Honeywell, began warning his colleagues on LinkedIn about the phony profiles earlier this week. "It's interesting the downstream sources that repeat LinkedIn bogus content as truth," Mason said. "This is dangerous, Apollo.io, Signalhire, and Cybersecurity Ventures." [...]

Again, we don't know much about who or what is behind these profiles, but in August the security firm Mandiant (recently acquired by Google) told Bloomberg that hackers working for the North Korean government have been copying resumes and profiles from leading job listing platforms LinkedIn and Indeed, as part of an elaborate scheme to land jobs at cryptocurrency firms. None of the profiles listed here responded to requests for comment (or to become a connection).

LinkedIn could take one simple step that would make it far easier for people to make informed decisions about whether to trust a given profile: Add a "created on" date for every profile. Twitter does this, and it's enormously helpful for filtering out a great deal of noise and unwanted communications. The former CISO Mason said LinkedIn also could experiment with offering something akin to Twitter's verified mark to users who chose to validate that they can respond to email at the domain associated with their stated current employer. Mason said LinkedIn also needs a more streamlined process for allowing employers to remove phony employee accounts. He recently tried to get a phony profile removed from LinkedIn for someone who falsely claimed to have worked for his company. In a statement provided to KrebsOnSecurity, LinkedIn said its teams were actively working to take these fake accounts down. "We do have strong human and automated systems in place, and we're continually improving, as fake account activity becomes more sophisticated," the statement reads. "In our transparency report we share how our teams plus automated systems are stopping the vast majority of fraudulent activity we detect in our community -- around 96% of fake accounts and around 99.1% of spam and scam."

Goldman's credit card business, anchored by the Apple Card since 2019, has arguably been the company's biggest success yet in terms of gaining retail lending scale. It's the largest contributor to the division's 14 million customers and $16 billion in loan balances, a figure that Goldman said would nearly double to $30 billion by 2024. But rising losses threaten to mar that picture. CNBC: Lenders deem bad loans "charge-offs" after a customer misses payments for six months; Goldman's 2.93% net charge-off rate is double the 1.47% rate at JPMorgan's card business and higher than Bank of America's 1.60%, despite being a fraction of those issuers' size. Goldman's losses are also higher than that of Capital One, the largest subprime player among big banks, which had a 2.26% charge-off rate. "If there's one thing Goldman is supposed to be good at, its risk management," said Jason Mikula, a former Goldman employee who now consults for the industry. "So how do they have charge-off rates comparable to a subprime portfolio?" The biggest reason is because Goldman's customers have been with the bank for less than two years on average, according to people with knowledge of the business who weren't authorized to speak to the press.

Charge-off rates tend to be highest during the first few years a user has a card; as Goldman's pool of customers ages and struggling users drop out, those losses should calm down, the people said. The bank leans on third-party data providers to compare metrics with similar cards of the same vintage and is comfortable with its performance, the people said. Other banks also tend to be more aggressive in seeking to recover debt, which improves competitors' net charge-off figures, the people said. But another factor is that Goldman's biggest credit product, the Apple Card, is aimed at a broad swath of the country, including those with lower credit scores. Early in its rollout, some users were stunned to learn they had been approved for the card despite checkered credit histories. "Goldman has to play in a broader credit spectrum than other banks, that's part of the issue," said a person who once worked at the New York-based bank, who asked for anonymity to speak candidly about his former employer. "They have no direct-to-consumer offering yet, and when you have the Apple Card and the GM card, you are looking at Americana."

"Quiet quitting" as a catchphrase "took off on TikTok among millennials and Gen Zers," according to Business Insider. They describe it as "employees doing what their job expects of them, and not offering to do more than what they get paid to do."

The Washington Post digs deeper: Quiet quitting looks to many like a reasonable retreat from the round-the-clock hustle culture. But to others, quiet quitting represents disengaged employees sandbagging and shirking all but the minimum effort, not expecting — or not caring — that their employers might fire them for it.

But if we're going to accuse workers of quiet quitting, we should also acknowledge the phenomenon of "quiet firing," in which employers avoid providing all but the bare legal minimum, possibly with the aim of getting unwanted employees to quit. They may deny raises for years, fail to supply resources while piling on demands, give feedback designed to frustrate and confuse, or grant privileges to select workers based on vague, inconsistent performance standards. Those who don't like it are welcome to leave.
Their article even provides an example. One reader (near retirement age) says their employer required them to return to the office for at least three days a week — "but those who left the area are allowed to continue to work fully remotely."

Brian Krebs, reporting at Krebs on Security: In mid-June 2022, a flood of SMS phishing messages began targeting employees at commercial staffing firms that provide customer support and outsourcing to thousands of companies. The missives asked users to click a link and log in at a phishing page that mimicked their employer's Okta authentication page. Those who submitted credentials were then prompted to provide the one-time password needed for multi-factor authentication. The phishers behind this scheme used newly-registered domains that often included the name of the target company, and sent text messages urging employees to click on links to these domains to view information about a pending change in their work schedule.

The phishing sites leveraged a Telegram instant message bot to forward any submitted credentials in real-time, allowing the attackers to use the phished username, password and one-time code to log in as that employee at the real employer website. But because of the way the bot was configured, it was possible for security researchers to capture the information being sent by victims to the public Telegram server. This data trove was first reported by security researchers at Singapore-based Group-IB, which dubbed the campaign "0ktapus" for the attackers targeting organizations using identity management tools from Okta.com. "This case is of interest because despite using low-skill methods it was able to compromise a large number of well-known organizations," Group-IB wrote. "Furthermore, once the attackers compromised an organization they were quickly able to pivot and launch subsequent supply chain attacks, indicating that the attack was planned carefully in advance." It's not clear how many of these phishing text messages were sent out, but the Telegram bot data reviewed by KrebsOnSecurity shows they generated nearly 10,000 replies over approximately two months of sporadic SMS phishing attacks targeting more than a hundred companies.

"Google employees are receiving regular notifications from management of Covid-19 infections," CNBC report Friday — "causing some to question the company's return-to-office mandates." The employees, who spoke with CNBC on the condition of anonymity, said since they have been asked to return to offices, infections notifications pop up in their email inboxes regularly....

The company began requiring most employees to return to physical offices at least three days a week in April. Since then, staffers have pushed back on the mandate after they worked efficiently for so long at home while the company enjoyed some of its fastest revenue growth in 15 years. Google has offered full-time employees the option to request permanent remote work, but it's unclear how many workers have been approved.

Google's Covid-19 outbreak in Los Angeles is currently the largest of any employer in LA., according to the city's public health dashboard. Deadline.com first reported that the tech giant's trendy Silicon Beach campus in Venice, Calif., recorded 145 infections while 135 cases were recorded at the company's large Playa Vista campus.

Staffers have been filling Memegen, an internal company image-sharing site, with memes about the increased number of exposure notifications they're receiving. One meme, which was upvoted 2,840 times, showed a photo of an inbox with the email subject from a San Francisco-based facilities manager stating "We're so excited to see you back in the office!" and a subsequent email subject line stating "Notification of Confirmed COVID-19 Case...."

Some employees said they received a spike in notifications from the Mountain View, Calif. headquarters and in San Francisco offices after the company held a return-to-office celebration, where Grammy award-winning artist Lizzo performed for thousands of employees at the Shoreline Amphitheater, near Google's main campus.
Defending the safety of working on-site, a Google spokesperson told CNBC they hadn't been experiencing a sudden recent spike in their Covid cases, arguing that instead the hundreds of Covid cases had been occurring over "the last few months."

A California court has ordered employer-rating site Glassdoor to hand over the identities of users who claimed they had negative experiences working for New Zealand toy giant Zuru. The Guardian reports: In a decision that could prompt unease for online platforms that rely on anonymity to attract candid reviews, Glassdoor was ordered to provide the information so Zuru could undertake defamation proceedings against the reviewers in New Zealand. Glassdoor is an international website where people post anonymous reviews of their current or former employers. Zuru is an international toy manufacturer that was founded in New Zealand and now has a billion-dollar turnover. After an anonymous person or people wrote reviews alleging that Zuru was a "toxic" workplace, the company began pursuing a defamation suit against them -- but first had to find out their identities.

California district court judge Alex Tse wrote in his decision that the reviews refer to Zuru as a "[b]urn out factory" with a "toxic culture," where an "incompetent" management team "consistently talk[s] down" to employees and treats them like "dirt." The judge wrote that the reviews make Zuru "sound like a horrible place to work." Zuru says these and similar statements in the reviews are false and have cost them financially. The company argued that it "has had to expend money, time, and resources in combatting the negative publicity, negative perception, and harm to [Zuru's] reputation that the [r]eviews have caused."

It wants to sue the reviewers for defamation in New Zealand, the country where the company was founded and where the reviewer or reviewers allegedly worked. Tse ruled that New Zealand's defamation laws are the relevant ones in this case, and ordered that Glassdoor hand over identifying information. New Zealand has stricter defamation laws than the US, where there are far greater free speech protections. Tse wrote: "There's good reason to tread lightly in applying US free-speech principles abroad. Our country's commitment to free speech isn't universally shared; and even in other countries that protect free speech, a different balance is often struck between the right to free speech and the right to protect one's reputation. Glassdoor wants to safeguard anonymous speech on its website. Zuru wants to protect its reputation. Both interests can't simultaneously be accommodated." In a statement, Glassdoor said it was "deeply disappointed in the court's decision, which was effectively decided under New Zealand law." They added: "In this and many other cases worldwide, Glassdoor fights vigorously to protect and defend the rights of our users to share their opinions and speak freely and authentically about their workplace experiences."

Glassdoor said it had fought a number of defamation-type cases, and they "prevail in the vast majority of these types of cases. To date, we have succeeded in protecting the anonymity of our users in more than 100 cases filed against our users."

Howard Altman writes via The Drive: In an effort to protect those with information about unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) and increase the influx of reports about them, Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wisc) has introduced (PDF) an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2023 National Defense Authorization Act. "The amendment would establish a process within the government for reporting UAPs and provide whistleblower-like protections," Gallagher's spokesman Jordan Dunn told The War Zone Thursday morning. For a multitude of reasons, U.S. troops and government contractors have traditionally been reluctant to come forward with information about these incidents, regardless of their validity. Beyond that, there have also been long-standing allegations that the government and defense contractors could be hiding previous UFO-related programs and evidence. This would allow those with information to come forward without retribution. Some have even posited that language like that in Gallagher's amendment could lead to "UFO disclosure."

In essence, it says that regardless of any previous written or oral non-disclosure agreements "that could be interpreted as a legal constraint on reporting by a witness of an unidentified aerial phenomena," those with information about UAPs, more commonly known as UFOs, would not be violating federal classified information laws if they come forward. The amendment also calls for the head of the new Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG), tasked with investigating UAPs on behalf of the Defense Secretary and Director of National Intelligence, to establish "a secure system" for receiving reports of "any events relating to" UAPs and any government or government contractor activity or program related to UAPs. The reporting system shall be administered by "designated and widely known, easily accessible, and appropriately cleared Department of Defense and intelligence community employees or contractors" as part of AOIMSG, which is a much enhanced and more deeply mandated effort that replaced the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force.

Any information would first be screened "to prevent unauthorized public reporting or compromise of properly classified military and intelligence systems, programs, and related activity, including all categories and levels of special access and compartmented access programs, current, historical, and future." However, federal agencies and contractors working with the government would be precluded from taking actions, including suspending security clearances, for those who report UAP incidents and information. And those who are retaliated against "may bring a private civil action for all appropriate remedies, including injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages, against the Government or other employer who took the personnel action, in the United States Court of Federal Claims," the amendment states.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Register: Amazon's attempt to dismiss a lawsuit, brought by one of its senior software engineers, asking it to reimburse workers for internet and electricity costs racked up while working from home in the pandemic, has been rejected by a California judge. David George Williams sued his employer for refusing to foot his monthly home office expenses, claiming Amazon is violating California's labor laws. The state's Labor Code section 2802 states: "An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer."

Williams reckons Amazon should not only be paying for its techies' home internet and electricity, but also for any other expenses related to their ad-hoc home office space during the pandemic. Williams sued the cloud giant on behalf of himself and over 4,000 workers employed in California across 12 locations, arguing these costs will range from $50 to $100 per month during the time they were told to stay away from corporate campuses as the coronavirus spread. [...] Amazon's lawyers, however, believe the broadband and utility bills, and similar expenses, aren't the company's problem since it was following shelter-at-home orders, which require employees to stay away from the office.

But Vince Chhabaria, a US federal district judge in northern California, slapped down Amazon's attempt to kill off the lawsuit, and said the local government's orders don't necessarily absolve the company from liability. "What matters is whether Williams incurred those expenses 'in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer'," Judge Chhabaria ruled [PDF] this week. "According to the complaint, Amazon expected Williams to continue to work from home after the stay-at-home orders were imposed. That is sufficient to plausibly allege liability, even if Amazon itself was not the but-for cause of the shift to remote work. Williams also plausibly alleges that his expenditures were necessary to do his job." Chhabaria did grant Amazon's request to dismiss the engineer's claims that it violated California's laws alleging "unfair business practices," but gave Williams's legal team 14 days to file an amended complaint.

Han Bing, a former database administrator for Lianjia, a Chinese real-estate brokerage giant, has been sentenced to 7 years in prison for logging into corporate systems and deleting the company's data. BleepingComputer reports: Bing allegedly performed the act in June 2018, when he used his administrative privileges and "root" account to access the company's financial system and delete all stored data from two database servers and two application servers. This has resulted in the immediate crippling of large portions of Lianjia's operations, leaving tens of thousands of its employees without salaries for an extended period and forcing a data restoration effort that cost roughly $30,000. The indirect damages from the disruption of the firm's business, though, were far more damaging, as Lianjia operates thousands of offices, employs over 120,000 brokers, owns 51 subsidiaries, and its market value is estimated to be $6 billion.

Apple's director of machine learning, Ian Goodfellow, "is leaving the company due to its return to work policy," reports a tech reporter for the Verge. "In a note to staff, he said 'I believe strongly that more flexibility would have been the best policy for my team.'"

9to5Mac notes that Apple "poached Goodfellow from Google back in 2019 to join its 'Special Projects Group' as the director of machine learning." Apple employees started returning to in-person work on April 11 following a two-year stint of remote work brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic... At first, the company required employees to work in person at least one day per week. On May 4, the company ramped that up to two days per week in the office.

Starting on May 23, employees will need to be in the office three days per week. This is the start of Apple's so-called "hybrid" work plan, which will require employees to work from the office on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday every week....

Goodfellow's former employer Google mandated that some teams return to in-person work starting last month, but many employees are able to permanently work from home.
Discontent with that policy is widespread, reports Fortune: Seventy-six percent of Apple workers surveyed said they were dissatisfied with Apple's return-to-office policy that was implemented after the COVID pandemic started waning. The survey, conducted by anonymous social network Blind, collected answers from 652 Apple employees from April 13 to April 19....

Accustomed to no commute, they're now balking at having to return to the office and say they will seek jobs at other tech companies that offer more flexible work arrangements. A sizable number of workers — 56% — claimed they are looking to leave Apple expressly because of its office requirement. It's unclear how many actually will carry through.... Blind's users are "overwhelmingly corporate workers in engineering or product roles," according to Rick Chen, director of public relations at Blind.

More action might be expected after May 23 when the pilot plan for hybrid work comes into full effect. Another worker stated: "Apple is going to see attrition like no other come June. 60% of my team doesn't even live near the office. They are not returning. "

"The Biden administration has a plan to rob Vladimir Putin of some of his best innovators," reports Bloomberg, "by waiving some visa requirements for highly educated Russians who want to come to the U.S., according to people familiar with the strategy." One proposal, which the White House included in its latest supplemental request to Congress, is to drop the rule that Russian professionals applying for an employment-based visa must have a current employer. It would apply to Russian citizens who have earned master's or doctoral degrees in science, technology, engineering or mathematics in the U.S. or abroad, the proposal states.

A spokesman for the National Security Council confirmed that the effort is meant to weaken Putin's high-tech resources in the near term and undercut Russia's innovation base over the long run — as well as benefit the U.S. economy and national security. Specifically, the Biden administration wants to make it easier for top-tier Russians with experience with semiconductors, space technology, cybersecurity, advanced manufacturing, advanced computing, nuclear engineering, artificial intelligence, missile propulsion technologies and other specialized scientific areas to move to the U.S.

Biden administration officials have said they've seen significant numbers of high-skilled technology workers flee Russia because of limited financial opportunities from the sanctions the U.S. and allies have imposed after Putin's invasion on Ukraine.

The provision would expire in four years.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: In the latest effort to challenge Amazon's grueling labor practices, a new bill, that was introduced on Friday, would require New York employers to disclose and place limits on productivity quotas for warehouse workers. The New York bill, known as the Warehouse Worker Protection Act, is an expanded version of a similar first-of-its-kind law that passed in California last year aimed at Amazon that regulates warehouse worker productivity quotas. The legislation is in part a response to skyrocketing injury rates in Amazon warehouses linked to productivity expectations. Recent data shows that workers in the e-commerce warehousing industry in New York experience serious work-related injuries at three times the average rate for private industry in the state, according to OSHA data.

The New York bill would require employers with at least 50 employees in a single warehouse or 500 workers statewide to share a written description of productivity quotas, how the quotas are developed, and how they can be used for disciplinary purposes with each worker. It would also ensure that production quotas do not interfere with workers' basic rights such as bathroom breaks and rest periods or health and safety laws. [...] Amazon has provided little transparency into how productivity "rates" that are designed by algorithms are formulated, but said that it creates productivity targets for workers that are based on their experience and take into consideration health and safety. [...] The bill takes California's law a few steps further by requiring employers to develop and implement an injury reduction program with worker input that identifies and addresses job hazards, such as rapid pace and heavy lifting, that can cause musculoskeletal injuries. This includes a worksite evaluation by an ergonomics consultant and worker training on how to avoid injuries. "The Warehouse Worker Protection Act will give workers in this industry -- union or not -- the ability to demand that their health and bodily integrity is accounted for, and not sacrificed for profits they do not get to share in," said Jessica Ramos, the bill's author and a New York state senator from Queens. "As the senate labor chair, I see it as my responsibility to clear the path for any worker who needs to stand up to an abusive employer."

Thoughtworks is a technology consultancy/distributed agile software design company. The principle technologist in its CTO's office warns that managers of IT assets "need to keep up" with the changing economics of open source: Early 2022 has brought with it an unusually high level of commotion in the open-source community, largely focused on the economics of who — and how we — should pay for "free" software. But this isn't just some geeky flame war. What's at stake is critical for vast swaths of the business world....

We know of many open-source enthusiasts who maintain their software personally while leading busy professional lives — the last thing they want is the responsibility of a service-level agreement because someone paid them for their creation. So, is this the end of the road for the open-source dream? Certainly, many of the open-source naysayers will view the recent upheavals as proof of a failed approach. They couldn't be more wrong. What we're seeing today is a direct result of the success of open-source software. That success means there isn't a one-size-fits-all description to define open-source software, nor one economic model for how it can succeed.

For internet giants like Facebook or Netflix, the popularity, or otherwise, of their respective JavaScript library and software tool — React and Chaos Monkey — is beside the point. For such companies, open-source releases are almost a matter of employer branding — a way to show off their engineering chops to potential employees. The likelihood of them altering licensing models to create new revenue streams is small enough that most enterprises need not lose sleep over it. Nonetheless, if these open-source tools form a critical part of your software stack or development process, you might want some form of contingency plan — you're likely to have very little sway over future developments, so understanding your risks helps.

For companies that have built platforms containing open-source software, the risks are more uncertain. This is in line with Thoughtworks' view that all businesses can benefit from a greater awareness of what software is running in their various systems. In such cases, we advise companies to consider the extent to which they're reliant on that piece of software: are there viable alternatives? In extreme circumstances, could you fork the code and maintain it internally?

Once you start looking at crucial parts of your software stack where you're reliant on hobbyists, your choices begin to dwindle. But if Log4J's case has taught us anything, it's this: auditing what goes into the software that runs your business puts you in a better place than being completely caught by surprise.

"Russian software developers are reporting that their GitHub accounts are being suspended without warning if they work for or previously worked for companies under U.S. sanctions, writes Bleeping Computer: According to Russian media outlets, the ban wave began on April 13 and didn't discriminate between companies and individuals. For example, the GitHub accounts of Sberbank Technology, Sberbank AI Lab, and the Alfa Bank Laboratory had their code repositories initially disabled and are now removed from the platform.... Personal accounts suspended on GitHub have their content wiped while all repositories become immediately out of reach, and the same applies to issues and pull requests.

Habr.com [a Russian collaborative blog about IT] reports that some Russian developers contacted GitHub about the suspension and received an email titled 'GitHub and Trade Controls' that explained their account was disabled due to US sanctions. This email contains a link to a GitHub page explaining the company's policies regarding sanctions and trade controls, which explains how a user can appeal their suspension. This appeal form requires the individual to certify that they do not use their GitHub account on behalf of a sanctioned entity. A developer posted to Twitter saying that he could remove the suspension after filling out the form and that it was due to his previous employer being sanctioned.
A GitHub blog post in March had promised to ensure the availability of open source services "to all, including developers in Russia." So Bleeping Computer contacted a GitHub spokesperson, who explained this weekend that while GitHub may be required to restrict some users to comply with U.S. laws, "We examine government sanctions thoroughly to be certain that users and customers are not impacted beyond what is required by law." According to this, the suspended private accounts are either affiliated, collaborating, or working with/for sanctioned entities. However, even those who previously worked for a sanctioned company appear to be suspended by mistake.

This means that Russian users, in general, can suddenly find their projects wiped and accounts suspended, even if those projects have nothing to do with the sanctioned entities.