[samhwr]

I think it’s a harder question than either side is willing to accept. You have someone who isn’t of much use as an employee, but by no fault of their own. It’s a horrible situation for them to be in, and it’s one we have to think about as a society, but it’s unclear why Apple specifically is obliged to provide them welfare at its own expense.

[luffapi]

It’s not a hard question at all. Apple has the money to easily accommodate all of their workers. It would even be a PR win. Tim Cook and the other execs are just anti-labor to their core and (don’t realize?) how clear their actions are being read by future potential employees.

[samhwr]

I’m not sure why having the money is relevant. Plenty of companies, people, and governments ‘have the money’. The question is why it is specifically Apple who are obliged to provide welfare for this person at their own expense.

I have huge sympathy for human beings who are unable to work, and a humane society should provide for them, but I don’t see why it falls to Apple. This kind of populism (“person X or company Y should be arbitrarily forced to pay for thing Z, ultra vires, because they can”) feels like a lazy way to avoid solving a deeper societal problem which goes well beyond this one person.