US labour watchdog halts Apple cases after group’s lawyer picked for top job

A bit off-topic, but I find it weird that they use "group" to refer to Apple, instead of, say, "Company". Is this an FT thing? I kept thinking that they were talking about some larger group of Silicon Valley companies (i.e. "the Silicon Valley group"), but no, they just meant Apple.

Apple group of companies, rather than a specific legal entity. A common distinction in financial journalism.

Yeah, it's a Briticism. The FT is basically the Wall Street Journal of London, for those not familiar. I've been reading this paper for decades and they often use "group" for "company," "sack" instead of "fire," and many other delightfully English locutions.

It's a British thing -- another example is that Brits would use e.g. "Apple have decided to.." instead of "Apple has decided to.." (for every group of people including "the government", not just businesses).

I like this language quirk a lot. It almost feels subversive, pointing out through grammar that group entities are just people, responsible for their choices like everyone else.

In British English there are specific meanings. “Firing” is a general term for getting rid of staff. “Sacking” is getting rid of staff because they have done something wrong.

“Group” can be used when talking about a large organisation as a whole, rather than a smaller component or subsidiary.

So the FT is explicitly drawing attention to the argument that the people were fired because of something they did (attempting to unionise) and that that decision was made or sanctioned by Apple at the top level (not some regional CEO or middle manager).

One might think that they're using "group" because Apple is a multinational with subsidiaries in various other countries. But the article is in fact about a dispute between the US company and some of its US employees.

Pretty sure the labor disputes in question are with a specific legal entity, the US corporation, and not any of its subsidiaries.