this is....more popular than i expected. the server's gonna be having some problems for a while
> "EPA observed that the sign posted on Solvent Tool 8-113 (B(4)) in Apple’s B(4) Area needs to be updated to remove the chemical “B(4)” from the posted sign, which according to Apple is no longer being used in the facility’s semiconductor process."
This looks strange indeed, I thought light industry is like bicycle repair and large bakeries, definitely wouldn’t expect a chemical plant
And while it's not wrong that fluorine is a lethal gas, it is heavily used in many industries and in medicine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorine#Inorganic_fluorides
Her documentation shows a careless attitude on Apple's side. And there are enough independent parties documenting accidents that she can sue and win. But overall, this doesn't look worse to me than how many other industrial companies operate.
She never faced to industrial chemical exposure, let alone 24/7. She didn't work in that building. She worked as a program manager for a software engineering team in an office building in Sunnyvale.
> If your comment is motivated by substantive personal experience, that's great, but then the thing to do is to share some of the information that your view is based on. You know it, but the rest of us don't.
I didn't know Ashley by name but after having watched her video last night from the Mastadon link on this thread, I now remember I had seen her earlier posts. Either way she comes off extremely legitimate, I spent at least an hour reviewing the things she posted yesterday. It is impressive if anything the data she has collected.
Calling her a hypochondriac like one of the GP replies did, trying to convince the reader to brush this whole thing away as someone who is squeeze money out of Apple. Some of the response on this thread is immediately recognizable by people who have gone through it themselves as Apple Global Security damage control.
I don't like Apple secrecy and after what they did during the wage survey, I don't trust anyone on the People team or in Security. But that doesn't make Ashley right or credible. She was a bully to other women in nearly every situation like everyone else in leadership. She baited us into confiding in her about our issues with management and the People team and then she ratted us out to the People team and we were all harassed into deciding whether or not we wanted a coerced investigation into our issues. What's worse is that Ashley convinced us that the People/Security teams were spying on us, when really it was her using us as some kind of leverage trying to squeeze them for money. She uses us still in her evidence in all her litigation against Apple. She never asked us for consent, she doesn't care. Just like when she worked with us, we were just things to be collected and used for her to get ahead.
> No CAD was used in the design
This is amusing -- while I understand they mean "CAD tools" like 3d modeling software, the entire engine was literally "computer-aided design", no?