←back to thread

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

(www.ft.com)
275 points belter | 2 comments | 02 Apr 25 11:50 UTC | HN request time: 0.428s | source
Show context
jp57 ◴[04 Apr 25 14:57 UTC] No.43583387[source]▶
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.
replies(3): >>43583735 #>>43586064 #>>43586416 #
fulladder ◴[04 Apr 25 18:24 UTC] No.43586064[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>43586563 #
1. teamonkey ◴[04 Apr 25 19:14 UTC] No.43586563[source]▶
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).

replies(1): >>43586738 #
2. jp57 ◴[04 Apr 25 19:30 UTC] No.43586738[source]▶
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.