596 other People opt in Class Action Suite against Apple.

[The Reverend]

To all old and new employees at Apple Computers.

Soon the appeals court will be reviewing the Class Action against Apple Computers. The Case is called "Miles Maria VS Apple Computers" and it claims that Apple owes 597 people overtime for having the support agents power on computers and do other activities before they logged into the phone system that logged there time on the job. The suit also claims that this practice gave them an unfair business advantage which is against the law in CA.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12282453/Miles-Maria-VS-Apple-Class-Motion-for-Certification

I do not know if anyone in any other state has filed a suite like this one. But I bet that all the things that are against the law they did here in CA are also against the law in other states as well.

Here is some data I found online with google search using " Miles Maria VS Apple"

07AS02124 MILES MARIA VS. APPLE, INC., ET AL.
This matter is transferred to Department 53 for hearing on 8/13/2007

07AS02124 MILES MARIA VS. APPLE, INC., ET AL.

Defendant Apple, Inc.’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is sustained with leave to amend. Defendant Apple, Inc.’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED, with leave to amend. As plaintiff has included facts in opposition to the motion, that are not included in the complaint, and has offered to amend, the Court grants leave to file a First Amended

Complaint addressing the issues raised in the demurrer and motion to strike.
The amended pleading shall be filed and served not later than Thursday, August 23, 2007. The responsive pleading shall be due filed and served 10 calendar days thereafter (15 days if service is by mail). Although not required by California Rules of Court, or Local Rule, should the responsive pleading be a demurrer, moving party is requested to attach a courtesy copy of the amended complaint. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order nor further notice is required, the tentative ruling providing sufficient notice.

7AS02124 MILES MARIA VS. APPLE, INC., ET AL.
Nature of Proceeding: Case Management Conference

No appearance is required under the following conditions:
The Case Management Conference is continued to 2/14/2008 at 8:30 a.m. in this department. New Case Management Statements shall be filed by all parties no later than 15 days prior to the hearing.
Plaintiff's motion described in the Case Management Statement for Class Certification to be filed.

07AS02124
MILES MARIA VS. APPLE. INC.. ET AL.
Nature of Proceeding:
Motion for Class Certification
This matter is continued to 5/20/2008 at 02:00PM in this department.

07AS02124
MILES MARIA VS. APPLE. INC.. ET AL.
Nature of Proceeding:
Motion for Class Certification

Continued on the court’s own motion to Thursday, Sept. 4, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. in Dept. 53. If that date is inconvenient for counsel, counsel are instructed to stipulate to an alternative date and contact the Clerk in Dept. 53 regarding a further continuance.

[KingYaba]

So you join the forum to post this? Apple frowns on employees who participate in sites like this.

[The Reverend]

Well of course they do.

But this is America and we all have the right to free speech.

If Apple thinks they can threaten people and deny them the right to speak their thoughts and beliefs. Then Apple should go to some other country that doesn't give the right to say your mind.

I would suggest that current employees post without using their real names Since Apple is known to be an jerk and hold people back that do not conform to the Apple secret society wish's.

Here a tiny bit for you all.

When the Class Action Suit started, Apple had to change it's internal policies to have all computers power on and other login features before each agent was allowed to login to the system and start their time on the clock. This only happened AFTER the suit began. It wasn't like they could not have done that years before, but they didn't. This is true for all the Apple call centers across the world I would guess.

[Melrose]

So you join the forum to post this?

Good call.. I think there should be a beginner's moratorium on starting negative posts, really. I'm not saying Apple as a company is clean as the driven snow, but...

wasteland, tick tock..

[Dagless]

But this is America and we all have the right to free speech.

You do, but that free speech will land you in trouble with a certain employer.

[The Reverend]

Yeah, I here you man. This was my first post and it seems negative.

But for the employees that it's may help and protect from abusive employers. Well, it's a good thing for them.

This is not trash talk..

This is fact.

Somehow someone needs to stand up and watch out for the little people. If standing up for your rights and the rights of others is negative, well then so be it.

I don't want people to rant here. But i do wish people to share their thoughts on this subject. Apple has made a lot of cash of using it's employees above and beyond the call to duty. Yeah sure it's done by a lot of companies, but that doesn't make it right.

[PlaceofDis]

But this is America and we all have the right to free speech.


not when part of your agreement to working for them is that you agree to not post on these sites. you know being a contract and all...

that said... this Class Action Suit (not Suite) seems a bit frivolous to me.

[nick9191]

To all old and new employees at Apple Computers.

Soon the appeals court will be reviewing the Class Action against Apple Computers. The Case is called "Miles Maria VS Apple Computers"
Probably best to get the name right, Apple changed their name in 2007 to Apple Inc. And even before that they were called Apple Computer Inc. Not Apple Computers.

Oh and good luck on the case.

[decksnap]

They're actually running with this same case at a lot of companies. I think it's a little nit-picky if you ask me, but have fun. Maybe some day you'll get your check for $3.47 in the mail

[Sun Baked]

One thing I cannot understand is how you can expect to log into the timeclock before the computer is booted, log into the machine, and go to the time clock section to present yourself for work.

Most people can say the same thing, damn McDonald's for requiring me to shower/shave, drive to work, and be in uniform before you can officially clock in.

Sure a timeclock is nice, but when they make it available at each workstation it saves the walking time.

[The Reverend]

So frivolous would be 1 or 2 people, maybe even 5-10 people. BUT come on now, 597 people are in this case.


And lets say that each of them should get.... ooohh 1000$ in back pay.

Thats $597,000 that it owes it's people.

That is not to mention that the case claims that Apple broke CA state laws.

So, they owe their people money, they used their people to get an business advantage on the competition and on top of that they were able to do it for years and years. The case is rumor to go back 4 years starting in 2006. Thats a far as the law allows, but you know it had to go on so much longer and that every single call center they had is the USA and overseas.

[Cabbit]

This is the type of case that makes me laugh, i know of no person close to me that would lower them selfs to this level.
If you don't like your employer the simple solution is to leave. I did not sue my last employer for a 5 minute break on a 8 hour shift, i left the job and moved on.

[cantthinkofone]

Man i hope for your sake you aren't posting this at work lol.

You'll be in trouble if they find out your talking about a on ago court case. Usually not a good idea. Less people that know the better.

[dejo]

MILES MARIA? Who's that? Doesn't this lawsuit name ANGELY MARIA and TODD NARSON (http://www.scribd.com/doc/2734546/Maria-et-al-v-Apple-Computer-Inc-Document-No-6) as plaintiffs? I'd get your facts straight before asking for support on these forums.

[Sun Baked]

This is the type of case that makes me laugh, i know of no person close to me that would lower them selfs to this level.
If you don't like your employer the simple solution is to leave. I did not sue my last employer for a 5 minute break on a 8 hour shift, i left the job and moved on.

In CA, they must pay overtime after 8 hours, so they are making that 5-10 minutes a 7.5-15 minutes of pay issue -- especially if the computer automatically logs you out and tells you your shift is over at 8 hours on the dot.

[The Reverend]

This thought that it's OK to give ANY employer free time or quit your job is just wrong.

Yeah well thats what al these types of companies want you do. Either give in to there demand that are against the law or leave. Thats just messed up.

Apple agents are held accountable to every calls length to the second. Each employee is rated by how long each call is. So your saying that Apple can using every seconds of time on the job against it's employees , but the employees have no right to ask for fair treatment and fair pay for every second they are required to work.

Work for NO pay....... is slavery at the worst and against the law at the least.

Apple honestly has no reason why they had any employee ever have to power on a computer. Since all Mac's can be scheduled to power on and whatever time you tell them to.

Anyone that believe that you should have to givetheir employer any free time at all, should go talk to their state Fair Housing and Labor Board and get them t repeat the laws, so they truely understand the nature of them.

[The Reverend]

MILES MARIA? Who's that? Doesn't this lawsuit name ANGELY MARIA and TODD NARSON (http://www.scribd.com/doc/2734546/Maria-et-al-v-Apple-Computer-Inc-Document-No-6) as plaintiffs? I'd get your facts straight before asking for support on these forums.



keep looking, you found the wrong case,

[Shaun.P]

I agree that this lawsuit is frivolous.

I have to be in work, on the shop floor 10 minutes before I start to get a sales brief every morning, and it's not something I, or anyone else gets paid for. This is in the UK, however.

Well of course they do.

But this is America and we all have the right to free speech.

If Apple thinks they can threaten people and deny them the right to speak their thoughts and beliefs. Then Apple should go to some other country that doesn't give the right to say your mind.

I would suggest that current employees post without using their real names Since Apple is known to be an jerk and hold people back that do not conform to the Apple secret society wish's.

Here a tiny bit for you all.

When the Class Action Suit started, Apple had to change it's internal policies to have all computers power on and other login features before each agent was allowed to login to the system and start their time on the clock. This only happened AFTER the suit began. It wasn't like they could not have done that years before, but they didn't. This is true for all the Apple call centers across the world I would guess.


You have a right to free speech, yes. But if you work for Apple you will have signed a non-disclosure agreement prohibiting you visiting websites like this.

I find the term, "slavery" a bit exaggerated. You almost make it sound like they lashed you with whips!

[The Reverend]

I agree that this lawsuit is frivolous.

I have to be in work, on the shop floor 10 minutes before I start to get a sales brief every morning, and it's not something I, or anyone else gets paid for. This is in the UK, however.


Well.. if you are on commission or have an agreement or your on salary, all that you said about giving a free 10 minutes could be correct for the UK. I would still check my labor laws there.

And frivolous, no... not when it's for 597 people. Come on now you all.

It's 597 people that were affected and should be compensated for the work they did.

I wish you all would read all that i posted and not just some.

[iPhil]

So frivolous would be 1 or 2 people, maybe even 5-10 people. BUT come on now, 597 people are in this case.


And lets say that each of them should get.... ooohh 1000$ in back pay.

Thats $597,000 that it owes it's people.

That is not to mention that the case claims that Apple broke CA state laws.

So, they owe their people money, they used their people to get an business advantage on the competition and on top of that they were able to do it for years and years. The case is rumor to go back 4 years starting in 2006. Thats a far as the law allows, but you know it had to go on so much longer and that every single call center they had is the USA and overseas.



Non of 597 people in the Class-Action suit will not ever see that $1K in backpay.. Lawyers/Courts will get their money first then the 597 people will get the scraps of left of the money if Apple loses... Then it's likely $25.00 max amount.. :p



I was part of a class action lawsuit last year and the Judgement was 8x times bigger roughly .. and projected settlement amount for each plattiff was $25.00... So I decided it wasn't worth my time...

[The Reverend]

Ha... a non-disclosure agreement.

I know that, but that is not what we are talking about.

Apple goes through a lot of trouble to keep their people held down.

I do understand that they have the right to protect their products and that non-disclosure agreement is that that reason.

At what point does this non-disclosure agreement become a breach of the law for free speech tho?

Those non-disclosure agreements are only for Apples benefit, and do nothing for the employees rights.

I say..BAAAA.. to non-disclosure agreements.. as long as you have to cover up a breach of the Law. No one should have to sign something that could cause them to become a not report an employer that is breaking the law.:eek:

[Melrose]

I say..BAAAA.. to non-disclosure agreements.. as long as you have to cover up a breach of the Law. No one should have to sign something that could cause them to become a not report an employer that is breaking the law.:eek:
If you sign a NDA upon becoming employed to a company, then you have a legal obligation to uphold the terms of that agreement - regardless of whether you don't like it or not. If you violate those terms, then you are rightfully subject to a backlash for your actions.

If you don't like NDAs, don't sign them and don't work for the company. Simple. NDAs exist for the protection of intellectual property of the employer.

Apple goes through a lot of trouble to keep their people held down.It's a technology company. This is quite understandable when you have much to lose from your R&D.

At what point does this non-disclosure agreement become a breach of the law for free speech tho?To the extent the signee agreed to the terms in the first place.

[The Reverend]

Non of 597 people in the Class-Action suit will not ever see that $1K in backpay.. Lawyers/Courts will get their money first then the 597 people will get the scraps of left of the money if Apple loses... Then it's likely $25.00 max amount.. :p



I was part of a class action lawsuit last year and the Judgement was 8x times bigger roughly .. and projected settlement amount for each plattiff was $25.00... So I decided it wasn't worth my time...


You are so wrong.. you don't know how it works i see.

There are fines that Apple will have to pay. The IRS have get involved and so may the Fed's

And the lawyers that are doing they case .. they get paid by the courts because it was a breach of the law.

[Shaun.P]

Ha... a non-disclosure agreement.

I know that, but that is not what we are talking about.

Apple goes through a lot of trouble to keep their people held down.

I do understand that they have the right to protect their products and that non-disclosure agreement is that that reason.

At what point does this non-disclosure agreement become a breach of the law for free speech tho?

Those non-disclosure agreements are only for Apples benefit, and do nothing for the employees rights.

I say..BAAAA.. to non-disclosure agreements.. as long as you have to cover up a breach of the Law. No one should have to sign something that could cause them to become a not report an employer that is breaking the law.:eek:


You signed the non-disclosure which means you agreed to its terms and conditions. Don't you think Apple might use this against you some how? (And believe me - they do monitor Rumor websites).

It is not a breach of law for free speech. You signed an agreement waiving the right to visit / post on Mac rumor forums. You are able to report a problem with your experience working for Apple without posting about it on a Mac rumor website.

Edit: Not to act negative against you. I do see where you're coming from. However when you are dealing with so short periods of times (and we're talking minutes here) it just seems a bit pointless. Why did you continue working for the company if you knew it was like this after day one?

[The Reverend]

You signed the non-disclosure which means you agreed to its terms and conditions. Don't you think Apple might use this against you some how?

It is not a breach of law for free speech. You signed an agreement waiving the right to visit / post on Mac rumor forums. You are able to report a problem with your experience working for Apple without posting about it on a Mac rumor website.

You are confused to what i was referring to.

The breach of the law was for unfair business practice,and failure to pay over time. These are CA state Laws.

Please read the beginning of the post.

[brand]

Man i hope for your sake you aren't posting this at work lol.

Hopefully he is posting this at work.

[dejo]

keep looking, you found the wrong case,
Since you seem to have found the correct one, care to provide a link?

[sushi]

I'm sorry, but I don't get it.

If you are working an 8 hour day, don't you need to be in position before your shift starts and ready to go?

[edever]

I'm sorry, but I don't get it.

If you are working an 8 hour day, don't you need to be in position before your shift starts and ready to go?

Indeed.

I have to wonder how many of the 597 people involved in this will ever have a vertical career path.

[wizzracer]

I worked in a call center years ago. You would be lucky to get 50% of them to do 4hrs work everyday.:rolleyes:

Lets see, login to Computer-coffee break-seat down read mail-check Ebay for 30mins-login to phone-take a call-logout for break. You see a pattern here.:D

Now they worked 3hrs over in a week. They didn't get paid for it. Well hell no you didn't you owe me 25hrs of work.:o

[tiptopp]

I worked in a call center years ago. You would be lucky to get 50% of them to do 4hrs work everyday.:rolleyes:

Lets see, login to Computer-coffee break-seat down read mail-check Ebay for 30mins-login to phone-take a call-logout for break. You see a pattern here.:D

Now they worked 3hrs over in a week. They didn't get paid for it. Well hell no you didn't you owe me 25hrs of work.:o

I was going to make the same point. Do the people there have to log out whenever they talk about football, or their wife/husband/partner/children/dog, or anything non work-related to a colleague during their shift? Or to go to the toilet? Or to get a coffee? Or to pick their nose? Or between the calls that they're supposed to be taking?

I ran a call centre, and we didn't expect more than around 70-75% useful time out of anyone - but that's the same in any work environment.

And it sounds as if the OP is wanting Apple punished, rather than fair pay for the individuals - keeping on quoting that it's 597 people, and that they'll be fined. The case SHOULD be about the individual who claims that they've been paid a few dollars a year less because they've had to log on to their machine a few seconds before their shift starts. And when you calculate how much it could possibly benefit them by, it's ridiculous. Say it's 5 minutes per day. Say it's $15 an hour (I've no idea...). That must be all of a dollar a day after tax and stuff. That's $250 a year, based on a salary of $30,000. That's equivalent to a pay rise of 0.8%. Worth the years of hassle? And the likelihood that no-one's ever going to employ you again?

Free speech is fine, as is the ability to use whatever stupid laws the government makes for your own gain, but I'm SO glad that I'm in the UK where we don't have lawyers on every street corner taking on the most far-fetched cases in the hope of some free publicity because they're going up against a big, successful, popular company.

What a waste of time, effort, money (and that's just the 15 minutes that I've spent wondering why on earth I feel strongly enough about this petty little case to post!).

Maybe I should take on the English government for failing to ensure that all men practice archery for 2 hours a day... Anyone want to join me in a class action, claiming that it's endangering our national security?

Tiptopp

[The Reverend]

And it sounds as if the OP is wanting Apple punished, rather than fair pay for the individuals - keeping on quoting that it's 597 people, and that they'll be fined. The case SHOULD be about the individual who claims that they've been paid a few dollars a year less because they've had to log on to their machine a few seconds before their shift starts. And when you calculate how much it could possibly benefit them by, it's ridiculous. Say it's 5 minutes per day. Say it's $15 an hour (I've no idea...). That must be all of a dollar a day after tax and stuff. That's $250 a year, based on a salary of $30,000. That's equivalent to a pay rise of 0.8%. Worth the years of hassle? And the likelihood that no-one's ever going to employ you again?

Tiptopp[/QUOTE]

Even $250 X 597 people X for a 1 year is against the law, even for 1 day for 1 person. But this is over a 4 year period, and perhaps longer.

And that Apple should not be fined for breaking California law if they are guilty? Why should Apple get away with it. The Law is the Law.

I think Apple knew they had this behavior. I think they did nothing about it until the this Case. I think they may have even fostered by pushing their employees into every corner.

Apple Should have had this figured out back in the 90's. When they took over all the call centers that were done by 3rd party contractors. They knew how to mange time then.

Here are some of the links found by searching google, you have to use Quote marks like this is the search " Miles Maria VS Apple"

http://www.saccourt.com/courtrooms/trulings/d54archives/D54-2007-0813-0900.pdf

http://www.saccourt.ca.gov/courtrooms/trulings/d53archives/D53-20080827-0200-CCMS.pdf

[tiptopp]

The Law is the Law.


The law in the UK is that lorries drive at no more than 40mph on single-carriageway A roads. But it's a silly law, and the police choose to ignore it because, if they enforced it, there'd be more accidents (with car-drivers constantly trying to overtake them) and uproar. One company (Tescos) ensures that their drivers stick to the limit and, because I drive for 3.5 hours a day on single carriageway A roads and get stuck behind their damn lorries, I don't shop there unless I have to, because I think they're being silly.

And why can't you address the questions about what people are being paid to do at their desks? Coffee? Chat? Toilet breaks? Are you happy that employees should do all of this in their own time? They'd be at their desks a good hour longer each day if they clocked off for it... And have any employees ever used company property for personal use? Like writing a note on company paper with a company pen to buy milk on their way home? Or Googling something non work-related? Do they pay Apple back for that? Surely there's some give and take here? Just because Apple make a profit, it doesn't mean that they should do all the giving, with the employee doing all the taking, does it?

You're p****d off at Apple for some reason and want to punish them. Leave, move on, get a life, and other mildly insulting phrases that suggest that this is silly...

Tiptopp

p.s. Isn't 'silly' a great word?

[Melrose]

I say..BAAAA.. to non-disclosure agreements..
The Law is the Law.

An NDA is a legal document. Just had to point it out..

Anyhoo.. I'm done with this thread. It's obvious the OP joined an otherwise friendly and generally helpful forum just to showboat a personal indignation. To him I'd recommend spending some time being helpful before trying to rally his cause. Get to know the forum - you'll like once you do.

peace out.

[ZMacintosh]

Not to be the grammar police, but the use of the work "here" was very annoying. I had to read the sentence three times before I fully got the point. You might want to use the word "heard."

word* not work...not to be the grammar police ;)


---


OP: so are you an ex-employee or a current employee?
Apple has been known to do some pretty 'unethical' things to employees, both in the USA and overseas; in particular China.

[The Reverend]

Thank you everyone for posting.

I would like to focus this thread.

This may seem like an attack on Apple directly, but it is not.

This case is an example of what big corporations can get away with at the expenses of the employees.

This case is not so much about money. Or even how much money!

It's about the laws in Labor and Business Laws in California, USA.

I would state that this case seems more a matter of "corporate giants walking on the backs of the little people" for profit.

Apple could have had the ability to mange it's employees time since 1990's , when they took over all the call centers nation wide.

They had team mangers then, that could use the log-in phone system to rate support agents call times down to the second.

If an agent went beyond the target goal of lets say, perhaps 15 minutes and 30 seconds.. that agent would have a price to pay.

At first, Apple would try and train the agent more. Then they would write the agent up and threaten them that they may lose their job. Then they'll bring up the agents lack of ability at meetings by comparing the agent to other agent in public.

This is not to mention that those agents with the lowest call times got rewarded with the best work shift chooses. The pressure was over the top to get short calls and the give as much as possible to get ready to take calls. The pressure was so

It is possible that Apple created an atmosphere of pressure to perform or loss your job, even if an agent had to prepare the computer , headset, and whatever off the clock to take calls at the moment you were scheduled to start.

It was possible for Apple in the 1990s to create a login script that insured that all computers powered on before the employees had to login to the phone to start taking calls. But they didn't.

Apple rated every agents called to the second. If you took a short break, to bad you take more calls. If you login late, your report is flagged for review.

The only way I can see to ever login on time it would seem and take a call when an agent was scheduled to start.

Was to have the computer on, head set on, logged into the computer; logged into the data base,and launch all required applications. Then an agent could go to the phone and login so they could take calls.

Apple mangers knew all of this was happening I believe. They trained agents on how to get ready to take calls.

Yes sure, Volt used to do all the training back in the late 90's and early 2000's. But it was only last year that Apple changed there internal policies for agents logins and computer setups.

Apple may even have done this by accident. it could have been a select group of early managers that created an aura that just carried untill last year.

The real point is that Apple should have had the ability to NOT let this happen. It's not like they didn't have system in place that could handle it.

It just appears that they looked the other way and took advantage of the agents.

It was wrong I say. Apple should have known. Or they did know and got caught.

Either way, 596 Apple employees beside Miles Maria, believes that they may have been taken advantage of.

So my point is. Apple should not be allowed to bypass the laws of California.

These were the complaints for damages and injunctive relief as stated in the Class Action documents.

(1) FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES;
(2) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 203;
(3) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 226;
(4) UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (Violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200 et seq.).


If anyone is looking for more legal help with understand this case please contact.

PETER M. HART, Esq. (California Bar No. 198691)
LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART
Telephone: (310) 478-5789

He is the lawyer on the Class Action document.

If you just want to talk about why Corporations think they can get away with breaking the law. Then post more here.

Apple is just the possible example of the corporate giant and the 597 people in that case, are just the little people.

I say, That if Apple can hold it's employes to the second for their labors, then the State of California Labor laws can hold them responsible for what they do with it.

Please read the first threat if you have not yet.

[Sun Baked]

Yawn, old news from nearly 18 months ago ... almost sounds like desperation to drum up support for their class action now.

[edever]

This case is not so much about money. Or even how much money!


ok


It's about the laws in Labor and Business Laws in California, USA.

I would state that this case seems more a matter of "corporate giants walking on the backs of the little people" for profit.


Viva La Revolución!


It is possible that Apple created an atmosphere of pressure to perform or loss your job...


What?! You mean to tell me that Apple expected it's call center employees to actually work?


...even if an agent had to prepare the computer , headset, and whatever off the clock to take calls at the moment you were scheduled to start.


I want to make sure I'm understanding this. Are you saying that Apple expected it's call center employees to actually begin working when they were scheduled to begin working?


It was possible for Apple in the 1990s to create a login script that insured that all computers powered on before the employees had to login to the phone to start taking calls. But they didn't.


AHA! So that's when the chains of slavery began coiling themselves around the downtrodden!


If you login late, your report is flagged for review.


I really have a difficult time believing that being late would cause an issue. Don't most people just stroll into work whenever they feel like it?


The only way I can see to ever login on time it would seem and take a call when an agent was scheduled to start.

Was to have the computer on, head set on, logged into the computer; logged into the data base,and launch all required applications. Then an agent could go to the phone and login so they could take calls.


I'll buy that.


Apple mangers knew all of this was happening I believe. They trained agents on how to get ready to take calls.


How utterly unconscionable! Those managers had nerve!


The real point is that Apple should have had the ability to NOT let this happen.


Oh good, the real point is finally revealed.


Either way, 596 Apple employees beside Miles Maria, believes that they may have been taken advantage of.


That's a lot of people! If it had only been 179, I'd be skeptical of the validity of the claim. But 597? Hoo-boy, they must be right!


So my point is. Apple should not be allowed to bypass the laws of California.


Wait...is that the really real point, or does the real point you mentioned earlier trump this recent point? I'm sorry, I'm slow.


I say, That if Apple can hold it's employes to the second for their labors, then the State of California Labor laws can hold them responsible for what they do with it.


You're reasoning is rock-solid!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In all seriousness, thanks for giving me an excuse to jack around for five minutes typing this up. I agree Apple should not be allowed to break laws, but I'm not sure law-breaking occurred by your description. I guess a judge will eventually call that tune. And finally, the manner in which you have presented the lawsuit makes it sound petty and mean-spirited, attaching labels such as, "slavery," and, "little people," to it is an insult to people in this world who live in those circumstances for real.

[jzuena]

You are confused to what i was referring to.

The breach of the law was for unfair business practice,and failure to pay over time. These are CA state Laws.

Please read the beginning of the post.

You began the thread talking about a class action suit. This is a civil matter and plaintiffs must pay their own legal fees which are taken out of the class action settlement. The members of the class action would have no involvement in a labor law case even if it involves the same offense and would receive no money from any fines levied. In addition, they would have to sign a contract (you know, that thing you think you can ignore the terms of) stating that they forfeit all other possible claims against the defendant as a term of getting the class action settled.

[gnasher729]

One thing I cannot understand is how you can expect to log into the timeclock before the computer is booted, log into the machine, and go to the time clock section to present yourself for work.

You can expect to be paid for the time you are at work. If an employer only wants to pay for the time after the computer has booted, then they need to hire someone who comes early in the morning, and boots all the computers in time before the other employees arrive.

[dejo]

Here are some of the links found by searching google, you have to use Quote marks like this is the search " Miles Maria VS Apple"

http://www.saccourt.com/courtrooms/trulings/d54archives/D54-2007-0813-0900.pdf

http://www.saccourt.ca.gov/courtrooms/trulings/d53archives/D53-20080827-0200-CCMS.pdf
Okay, those links cover these parts:

Item 8 07AS02124
MILES MARIA VS. APPLE. INC.. ET AL.
Nature of Proceeding:
Filed By:
Motion for Class Certification
Lee, Larry W.
Continued on the court’s own motion to Thursday, Sept. 4, 2003 at 2:00 p.m. in Dept.
53. If that date is inconvenient for counsel, counsel are instructed to stipulate to an
alternative date and contact the Clerk in Dept. 53 regarding a further continuance.
Item 11 07AS02124 MILES MARIA VS. APPLE, INC., ET AL.
Nature of Proceeding:
Filed By:
Demurrer
This matter is transferred to Department 53 for hearing on 8/13/2007 at 02:00PM
Item 12 07AS02124 MILES MARIA VS. APPLE, INC., ET AL.
Nature of Proceeding:
Filed By:
Motion To Strike
This matter is transferred to Department 53 for hearing on 8/13/2007 at 02:00PM

Where did you get the rest of the information from your original post? Where is the original filing of this lawsuit?

[wizzracer]

All they have to do is log out at the end of the day. You don't have to shut down any running applications. then just log back in when your **** starts.

Now if your running windows at a Apple call center:rolleyes:, I would reboot, open my needed applications and then log off. Takes a whole 2 mins to be up and running.

Reporting for duty as Ordered Sir!!!

[The Reverend]

You began the thread talking about a class action suit. This is a civil matter and plaintiffs must pay their own legal fees which are taken out of the class action settlement. The members of the class action would have no involvement in a labor law case even if it involves the same offense and would receive no money from any fines levied. In addition, they would have to sign a contract (you know, that thing you think you can ignore the terms of) stating that they forfeit all other possible claims against the defendant as a term of getting the class action settled.

You are not a lawyer for sure.

You are incorrect that "plaintiffs must pay their own legal fees which are taken out of the class action settlement".

If anyone really wants to know the law.. please contact a lawyer.

I would suggest contacting the lawyers that is handling the case.;)

[ski2moro]

I haven't always had good luck with people at the call centers. Some of them are not the most intelligent folks around. Once my issue gets escalated to the next level, I usually get someone who can solve my problem.

It's especially true for the companies that outsource to Asia. It's often hard to understand the customer service people and it's frustrating for me to try to explain my problem to people who do not have English as their primary language.

Rev, your spelling and grammar mistakes are appalling. Are you one of the people I complain about?

And to everyone else, if and when Apple outsources their call centers to Asia, you can thank people like the Rev for it.

[flopticalcube]

597 people lucky to be working.

[jzuena]

You are not a lawyer for sure.

You are incorrect that "plaintiffs must pay their own legal fees which are taken out of the class action settlement".

If anyone really wants to know the law.. please contact a lawyer.

I would suggest contacting the lawyers that is handling the case.;)

I'm not and based on your expectations of who pays what, neither are you. I have, however, participated in a few class action lawsuits in the past. I recommend you take your own advice and ask the lawyers you reference where their compensation comes from. Since the case you are talking about is not "State of California v. Apple Inc" it is a civil (i.e. private party) lawsuit. I'm not saying the state isn't also seeking action, but the compensation for the attorneys in the class action suit you referenced in post #1 is most definitely coming out of any settlement. Apple could agree to settle before going to court and paying attorney fees could be part of the settlement, but if it goes to court and a settlement is imposed, don't be shocked when the lawyers pull their fee out of that pool, not send their bill to Apple. Did you read the documentation that came with the papers you sign to join the class action? I have read the entire package for several of the class action I was invited to join. You should have seen a breakdown of the requested payment and where it will go... attorney's fees will be right in there... and it will be a significant chunk of the total (they don't get paid if they lose, so they charge a lot if they win). If you think that just because the class action contends that laws were broken that the attorney's fees will be paid by the defendant, you are in for a rude shock at the end of the process.

Who pays the lawyers in a class action suit? (http://www.classactionlitigation.com/faq.html#q7)

If you are holding out hope that the declaratory judgment (http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/ED8E9D0B-38C9-4D40-ADC1E5392D91A929/alpha/D/) exception will cause Apple to pay attorney fees ... declaratory judgments provide no award of damages.

[jzuena]

And to everyone else, if and when Apple outsources their call centers to Asia, you can thank people like the Rev for it.

I hear that. When ATI leaked info about which of their GPUs Apple would be using on their next line of notebooks, Apple immediately switched to NVIDIA. And that was an innocent slip by a business partner. If these folks win, Apple will completely shut down call centers in those states for sure. If they can't find other states that don't equate watching a computer boot up with working, they will look offshore.

[wizzracer]

I hear that. When ATI leaked info about which of their GPUs Apple would be using on their next line of notebooks, Apple immediately switched to NVIDIA. And that was an innocent slip by a business partner. If these folks win, Apple will completely shut down call centers in those states for sure. If they can't find other states that don't equate watching a computer boot up with working, they will look offshore.



Umm.. They do that now. Along with 99% of all there hardware to.:D

[Arcadie]

If turning your computers on in the morning is such a tough task for you, how the hell did you get a job at apple?

[The Reverend]

Miles Maria and the other Plaintiffs are not being charged any legal fees and that the lawyers PETER M. HART and KENNETH H. YOON have petitioned the courts for there fees.

Go to Sacramento County Records office and superior court house and get a copy of the records yourself.


Here is the case number 07AS02124

Superior Court of California
800 Ninth Street,
3rd Floor Department 54
Sacramento , CA

or

call them and request your copy at the Court at (916) 874-7848
(Department 54)

or Contact the lawyers and just ask them.

PETER M. HART, Esq. (California Bar No. 198691)
LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART
13952 Bora Bora Way, F-320
Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
Telephone: (310) 478-5789
Facsimile: (509) 561-6441

KENNETH H. YOON (California Bar No. 198443)
LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH H. YOON
One Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213) 612-0988
(213) 947-1211 facsimile

[SFStateStudent]

Let me see, I was involved in the following class action suits:

Viacom Cable TV my award = $2.55, well worth the wait of four years

Lenscrafters my award = $150 in the form of two $75 vouchers (not the same as cash) and that was after a five year wait. Let's see I've used Lenscrafters five times in the last seven years; spending at least $750 each of those visits for an average total of $3750-$150=$3600, I think I'm still getting the raw end of the payout.

Sprint my award = $15, gosh, another winner for the little guy? (I received the $15 four years after I joined AT&T). Let's see I was with them for ten years for cable TV, cellular and local/long distance at about $2500 per year times ten years equals $25,000; am I missing something? $25,000-$15=$24,985!

Needless to say, I don't believe that Class Action Suits on my behalf are beneficial to anyone but the attorneys/lawyers...

[Sun Baked]

If turning your computers on in the morning is such a tough task for you, how the hell did you get a job at apple?

The Americans with Disability Act ... ;)

[dejo]

Go to Sacramento County Records office and superior court house and get a copy of the records yourself.
So, there's no link? The records aren't online? I'm not wasting my time calling anybody or driving all the way from Colorado to Sacramento. I give up.

[The Reverend]

So, there's no link? The records aren't online? I'm not wasting my time calling anybody or driving all the way from Colorado to Sacramento. I give up.

You can also write to the court house to get the documents.

I'll see what i can do to get them all online.

I can't attach or load any of them here.

[The Reverend]

here is a copy of the Complaint as it was filed. I tried to copy it as good as i could, but there could be small typos'.

For a real copy, contact Sacramento Superior Court

------------------------------------------

PETER M. HART, Esq. (California Bar No. 198691)
LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART
13952 Bora Bora Way, F-320
Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
Telephone: (310) 478-5789
Facsimile: (509) 561-6441

KENNETH H. YOON (California Bar No. 198443)
LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH H. YOON
One Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213) 612-0988
(213) 947-1211 facsimile

Attorneys for Plaintiff Miles Maria


SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

MILES MARIA, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,
vs.

APPLE COMPUTER, a California corporation; APPLE, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

Defendants. Case No.:

CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR:
(1) FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES;
(2) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 203;
(3) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 226;
(4) UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (Violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200 et seq.).

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Miles Maria (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), hereby submit his Class Action Complaint against Defendants APPLE COMPUTER, INC. and APPLE, INC. and Does 1-20 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “DEFENDANTS”) on behalf of themselves and the class of others similarly situated current and former employees of DEFENDANTS for overtime wages owed, waiting time penalties, and penalties or damages for failure to keep accurate records, as follows:


INTRODUCTION
1. This class action is within the Court’s jurisdiction under California Labor Code §§ 201-204, 226, 1194, and California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., (Unfair Practices Act).

2. This complaint challenges systemic illegal employment practices resulting in violations of the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code against employees of DEFENDANTS.

3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges DEFENDANTS, joint and severally have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all employees in receiving all overtime wages due at the proper rate of overtime pay, all final wages due upon termination of employment, and in connection with DEFENDANTS’ failure to keep all proper pay roll records of Plaintiff and Class Members.

4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges DEFENDANTS have engaged in, among other things a system of willful violations of the California Labor Code, Business and Professions Code and applicable IWC wage orders by creating and maintaining policies, practices and customs that knowingly deny employees the above stated rights and benefits.

5. The policies, practices and customs of defendants described above and below have resulted in unjust enrichment of DEFENDANTS and an unfair business advantage over businesses that routinely adhere to the strictures of the California Labor Code, Business and Professions Code.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. The Court has jurisdiction over the violations of the California Labor Code §§ 201-204, 226, 1194 and California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., (Unfair Practices Act).

7. Venue is proper because the DEFENDANTS do business in Los Angeles County and the acts alleged herein took place in Sacramento County.
PARTIES

8. Plaintiff MILES MARIA was employed by DEFENDANTS until on or about May 2006 and has resided within the jurisdiction of this Court at all relevant times. Plaintiff was and is the victim of the policies, practices and customs of DEFENDANTS complained of in this action in ways that have deprived him of the rights guaranteed to him by California Labor Code §§ 201-204, 226, 1194, and California Business and Professions Code §17200, et seq., (Unfair Practices Act).

9. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges Defendants APPLE COMPUTER, INC. and APPLE, INC. (hereafter “DEFENDANTS”) was and are corporations doing business in the State of California with its principal place of business located in California that operate a retail stores and call centers in California and sell electronic and consumer products to the public.

10. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned DEFENDANTS and DOES 1 through 20, are and were corporations, business entities, individuals, and partnerships, licensed to do business and actually doing business in the State of California.

11. As such, and based upon all the facts and circumstances incident to DEFENDANTS’ business in California, DEFENDANTS are subject to California Labor Code §§ 201-204, 226, 1194 and California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., (Unfair Practices Act).

12. Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities, whether individual, partner or corporate, of the DEFENDANTS sued herein as DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and for that reason, said DEFENDANTS are sued under such fictitious names, and Plaintiff prays for leave to amend this complaint when the true names and capacities are known. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of said fictitious DEFENDANTS was responsible in some way for the matters alleged herein and proximately caused Plaintiff and members of the general public and class to be subject to the illegal employment practices, wrongs and injuries complained of herein.

13. At all times herein mentioned, each of said DEFENDANTS participated in the doing of the acts hereinafter alleged to have been done by the named DEFENDANTS; and furthermore, the DEFENDANTS, and each of them, were the agents, servants and employees of each of the other DEFENDANTS, as well as the agents of all DEFENDANTS, and at all times herein mentioned, were acting within the course and scope of said agency and employment.

14. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that at all times material hereto, each of the DEFENDANTS named herein was the agent, employee, alter ego and/or joint venturer of, or working in concert with each of the other co-DEFENDANTS and was acting within the course and scope of such agency, employment, joint venture, or concerted activity. To the extent said acts, conduct, and omissions were perpetrated by certain DEFENDANTS, each of the remaining DEFENDANTS confirmed and ratified said acts, conduct, and omissions of the acting DEFENDANTS.

15. At all times herein mentioned, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, were members of, and engaged in, a joint venture, partnership and common enterprise, and acting within the course and scope of, and in pursuance of, said joint venture, partnership and common enterprise.

16. At all times herein mentioned, the acts and omissions of various DEFENDANTS, and each of them, concurred and contributed to the various acts and omissions of each and all of the other DEFENDANTS in proximately causing the injuries and damages as herein alleged. At all times herein mentioned, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, ratified each and every act or omission complained of herein. At all times herein mentioned, the DEFENDANTS, and each of them, aided and abetted the acts and omissions of each and all of the other DEFENDANTS in proximately causing the damages as herein alleged.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
17. Definition: The named individual Plaintiff bring this action on behalf of himself and the class pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 382. The Class consists of all DEFENDANTS’ past and present non-exempt employees of DEFENDANTS employed in California during the period from April 2003 to the present who did not have their rates of overtime pay properly recorded and did not have accurate wage statements; Plaintiff also alleges a Subclass of all past and present non-exempt call center employees of DEFENDANTS employed in California from April 2003 through the present.

18. Numerosity: The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all members would be impractical, if not impossible. The identity of the members of the class is readily ascertainable by review of DEFENDANTS’ records, including payroll records. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that DEFENDANTS failed to (a) pay to Plaintiff and the class all overtime wages owed at the proper rate of overtime pay, (b) pay to Plaintiff and the class all final wages upon termination of employment, (c) keep proper payroll records in violation of Labor Code § 226, and (d) engaged in Unfair Business Practices, all in violation of IWC Wage Order No 7-2001.

19. Adequacy of Representation: The named Plaintiff is fully prepared to take all necessary steps to represent fairly and adequately the interests of the class defined above. Plaintiff’s attorneys are ready, willing and able to fully and adequately represent the class and individual Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s attorneys have prosecuted and settled wage-and-hour class actions in the past and currently have a number of wage-and-hour class actions pending in California courts.

20. DEFENDANTS uniformly administered a corporate policy, practice of failing to (a) pay to Plaintiff and the class all overtime wages owed at the proper rate of overtime pay, (b) pay to Plaintiff and the class all final wages upon termination of employment, (c) keep proper payroll records in violation of Labor Code § 226, and (d) engaged in Unfair Business Practices, all in violation of IWC Wage Order No 7-2001.

21. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that DEFENDANTS, in violation of California Labor Code §§ 201 to 204, and 1194, respectfully, had a consistent and uniform policy, practice of willfully failing to comply with Labor Code § 203. Plaintiff and other members of the class did not secret or absent themselves from DEFENDANTS, nor refuse to accept the earned and unpaid wages from DEFENDANTS. Accordingly, DEFENDANTS are liable for waiting time compensation for the unpaid wages to separated employees pursuant to California Labor Code § 203.

22. Common Question of Law and Fact: There are predominant common questions of law and fact and a community of interest amongst Plaintiff and the claims of the class concerning DEFENDANTS’ failure to (a) pay to Plaintiff and the class all overtime wages owed at the proper rate of overtime pay, (b) pay to Plaintiff and the class all final wages upon termination of employment, (c) keep proper payroll records in violation of Labor Code § 226, and (d) engaged in Unfair Business Practices, all in violation of IWC Wage Order No 7-2001.

23. Typicality: The claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of all members of the class. Plaintiff is a member of the Class and Subclass and has suffered the alleged violations of California Labor Code §§ 201-204, 226, 1194 and IWC Wage Order No. 7-2001.

24. The California Labor Code and upon which Plaintiff bases his claims are broadly remedial in nature. These laws and labor standards serve an important public interest in establishing minimum working conditions and standards in California. These laws and labor standards protect the average working employee from exploitation by employers who may seek to take advantage of superior economic and bargaining power in setting onerous terms and conditions of employment.

25. The nature of this action and the format of laws available to Plaintiff and members of the class identified herein make the class action format a particularly efficient and appropriate procedure to redress the wrongs alleged herein. If each employee were required to file an individual lawsuit, the corporate DEFENDANTS would necessarily gain an unconscionable advantage since it would be able to exploit and overwhelm the limited resources of each individual plaintiff with their vastly superior financial and legal resources. Requiring each class member to pursue and individual remedy would also discourage the assertion of lawful claims by employees who would be disinclined to file an action against their former and/or current employer for real and justifiable fear of retaliation and permanent damage to their careers at subsequent employment.

26. The prosecution of separate actions by the individual class members, even if possible, would create a substantial risk of (a) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members against the DEFENDANTS and which would establish potentially incompatible standards of conduct for the DEFENDANTS, and/or (b) adjudications with respect to individual class members which would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interest of the other class members not parties to the adjudications or which would substantially impair or impede the ability of the class members to protect their interests. Further, the claims of the individual members of the class are not sufficiently large to warrant vigorous individual prosecution considering all of the concomitant costs and expenses.

27. Such a pattern, practice and uniform administration of corporate policy regarding illegal employee compensation described herein is unlawful and creates an entitlement to recovery by the Plaitiffs and the class identified herein, in a civil action, for the unpaid balance of the full amount unpaid overtime, meal and break period premiums, and vested vacation wages, including interest thereon, applicable penalties, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs of suit according to the mandate of California Labor Code §§ 226 and 1194 and Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.

28. Proof of a common business practice or factual pattern, which the named Plaintiff experienced and is representative of, will establish the right of each of the members of the Plaintiff class to recovery on the causes of action alleged herein.

29. The Plaintiff class is commonly entitled to a specific fund with respect to the compensation illegally and unfairly retained by DEFENDANTS. The Plaintiff class is commonly entitled to restitution of those funds being improperly withheld by DEFENDANTS. This action is brought for the benefit of the entire class and will result in the creation of a common fund.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES

(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS BY PLAINTIFF)
30. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 29 as though fully set for herein.

31. This cause of action is brought pursuant to Labor Code § 1194, et seq., which provides that employees are entitled to overtime wages and compensation for work performed, and provides a private right of action for failure to pay legal overtime compensation for overtime work performed.

32. At all times relevant herein, DEFENDANTS were required to compensate its non-exempt, hourly employees for all overtime hours worked at the appropriate rate of overtime pay pursuant to California Labor Code § 1194 and IWC Wage Order No. 7.

33. As a pattern and practice, DEFENDANTS regularly required their non-exempt employees including Plaintiff and members of the class to work more than 8 hours per work day or more than 12 hours per day without the proper payment of all overtime wages earned and without the payment of the proper rate of overtime wages. Plaintiff and class members were not compensated at the appropriate rate of pay for all hours they were subject to the control of DEFENDANTS, including all time they were suffered or permitted to work.

34. As a pattern and practice, DEFENDANTS regularly failed to include earned commissions and/or earned bonuses and/or other earned non-discretionary incentive pay into the regular rate when calculating and paying Plaintiff and DEFENDANTS’ other non-exempt California employees proper compensation for daily and weekly overtime hours worked at the appropriate overtime rate.

35. As a pattern and practice DEFENDANTS required their Call Center Employees employed in California during the class period to work off-the-clock at the beginning of their shifts and/or at the end of their shifts without the payment of overtime wages and/or overtime wages at the appropriate rate of pay.

36. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that DEFENDANTS’ policy and practice of requiring overtime work and not paying for said work according to the overtime mandates of California law is, and at all times herein mentioned was in violation of California Labor Code § 1194 and California Industrial Welfare Commission wage order(s). DEFENDANTS’ employment policies and practices wrongfully and illegally failed to compensate Plaintiff and the class for overtime compensation earned as required by California law.

37. The conduct of DEFENDANTS and their agents and employees as described herein was oppressive, fraudulent and malicious, done in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s and class members’ rights, and done by managerial employees of DEFENDANTS. Plaintiff and class members are thereby entitled to an award of punitive damages against DEFENDANTS, in an amount appropriate to punish and make an example of DEFENDANTS, and in an amount to conform to proof.

38. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that DEFENDANTS willfully failed to pay employees proper compensation for all overtime hours worked. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that DEFENDANTS’ willful failure to provide all overtime wages due and owing them upon separation from employment results in a continued payment of wages up to thirty (30) days from the time the wages were due. Therefore, Plaintiff and other members of the class who have separated from employment are entitled to compensation pursuant to Labor Code § 203.

39. Such a pattern, practice and uniform administration of corporate policy regarding illegal employee compensation as described herein is unlawful and creates an entitlement to recovery by Plaintiff in a civil action, for the unpaid balance of the full amount of overtime premiums owing, including interest thereon, penalties, attorneys fees, and costs of suit according to the mandate of California Labor Code § 1194, et seq.



:)

[The Reverend]

:)

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 203

(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS BY PLAINTIFF)

40. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 39 as though fully set for herein.

41. At all times relevant herein, DEFENDANTS were required to pay their non-exempt hourly employees all wages owed in a timely fashion at the end of employment pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 201 to 204.

42. As a pattern and practice, DEFENDANTS regularly failed to pay Plaintiff and class members their final wages pursuant to Labor Code §§ 201 to 204 and accordingly owe waiting time wages pursuant to Labor Code § 203.

43. The conduct of DEFENDANTS and their agents and employees as described herein was willfully done in violation of Plaintiff’s and class members’ rights, and done by managerial employees of DEFENDANTS.

44. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges DEFENDANTS’ willful failure to provide all overtime wages due and owing them upon separation from employment results in a continued payment of wages up to thirty (30) days from the time the wages were due. Therefore, Plaintiff and other members of the class who have separated from employment are entitled to compensation pursuant to Labor Code § 203.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

FOR VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 226 REGARDING RECORD KEEPING

(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS BY PLAINTIFF)

45. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 44 as though fully set for herein.

46. DEFENDANTS failed in their affirmative obligation to keep accurate records regarding the rates of pay and the total amount of compensation of their California employees in pay periods. DEFENDANTS, as a matter of policy and practice, did not maintain accurate records in violation of Labor Code § 226.

47. For example, as a matter of policy and practice, among the violations of Labor Code § 226, DEFENDANTS failed to keep accurate records of Plaintiff’s and the class members’ rates of pay, rates of overtime pay, net wages earned, daily or weekly overtime pay, taxes being withheld, Social Security taxes being paid, hours worked and overtime hours worked.

48. Such a pattern, practice and uniform administration of corporate policy as described herein is unlawful and creates an entitlement to recovery by the Plaintiff and the class identified herein, in a civil action, for all damages or penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 226, including interest thereon, attorney’s fees, and costs of suit according to the mandate of California Labor Code § 226.

49. DEFENDANTS’ wrongful and illegal conduct in failing to accurately record the hours worked in accordance with Labor Code § 226 despite the clear legal obligation to do so, unless and until enjoined and restrained by order of this court, will cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff and all members of the class in that the DEFENDANTS will continue to violate these California laws, represented by labor statutes, unless specifically ordered to comply with same. This expectation of future violations will require current and future employees to repeatedly and continuously seek legal redress in order to gain compensation to which they are entitled under California law. Plaintiff has no other adequate remedy at law to insure future compliance with the California labor laws and wage orders alleged to have been violated herein.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FOR VIOLATIONS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 ET SEQ.

(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS BY PLAINTIFF)

50. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 49 as though fully set for herein.

51. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, have engaged and continue to engage in unfair and unlawful business practices in California by practicing, employing and utilizing the employment practices outlined above, include, to wit, by failing to (a) pay Plaintiff and the class all overtime wages owed, (b) pay Plaintiff and the class all final wages upon termination of employment, (c) keep proper payroll records in violation of Labor Code § 226, and (f) engaging in Unfair Business Practices.

52. DEFENDANTS’ utilization of such unfair and unlawful business practices constitutes unfair, unlawful competition and provides an unfair advantage over DEFENDANTS’ competitors.

53. Plaintiff seeks, on his own behalf, on behalf of other members of the class similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, full restitution of monies, as necessary and according to proof, to restore any and all monies withheld, acquired and/or converted by the DEFENDANTS by means of the unfair practices complained of herein.

54. Plaintiff seeks, on his own behalf, on behalf of other members of the class similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, an injunction to prohibit DEFENDANTS from continuing to engage in the unfair business practices complained of herein.

55. The acts complained of herein occurred within the last four years preceding the filing of the complaint in this action.

56. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that at all times herein mentioned DEFENDANTS have engaged in unlawful, deceptive and unfair business practices, as proscribed by California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq., including those set forth herein above thereby depriving Plaintiff and other members of the general public the minimum working condition standards and conditions due to them under the California laws and Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders as specifically described therein.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment for herself and all others on whose behalf this suit is brought against DEFENDANTS, jointly and severally, as follows:

1. For an order certifying the proposed class;

2. For an order appointing Plaintiff as the representative of the class;

3. For an order appointing Counsel for Plaintiff as class counsel;

4. Upon the First Cause of Action, for consequential damages according to proof, for punitive and exemplary damages according to proof, and for waiting time wages according to proof pursuant to California Labor Code § 203;

5. Upon the Second Cause of Action, for waiting time wages according to proof pursuant to California Labor Code § 203;

6. Upon the Third Cause of Action, for damages or penalties pursuant to statute as set forth in California Labor Code § 226, and for costs and attorney’s fees;

7. Upon the Fourth Cause of Action, for restitution to Plaintiff and other similarly effected members of the general public of all funds unlawfully acquired by Defendants by means of any acts or practices declared by this Court to be in violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq., for an injunction to prohibit Defendants to engage in the unfair business practices complained of herein, for an injunction requiring Defendants to give notice to persons to whom restitution is owing of the means by which to file for restitution;

8. On all causes of action for attorneys fees and costs as provided by California Labor Code §§ 226 & 1194 and Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and for such other and further relief the Court may deem just and proper.

[JNB]

All it really says (once you get beyond all the usual nonsense) is that the employees were required to "work off the clock." That's the entire crux of this. What specifically constitutes "work" in the sense of this action? Since there is no unique preparation for the assigned tasks (such as donning protective gear or other necessary attire, performing significant tasks such as cleaning or aligning equipment prior to "clockable" work, etc.) it becomes a test of reasonableness in the court's mind as to when the work began, and what should be considered a significant or routine task in preparation for that work.

If the time required to boot a machine, launch an application, and log in is under a couple of minutes (and you'd have a hard time convincing me otherwise), then it should be considered a reasonable and routine task. Most employees are getting settled in and organized--completely non-productive--during this period anyway. Over, say, ten minutes, then it's wouldn't be, and should be counted as work hours.

But, what about the clocked-in time you spend not doing the company's work? Getting coffee, BS'ing with coworkers, and so on. Do you clock out while you're not really working? I think not. So who is ripping whom off here, really?

This is just a waste of everyone's time--except the $400/hr+ attorneys, who both sport some fine addresses, I note. :rolleyes:

[yg17]

I think I'm going to sue my employer. I'm not paid for the half a second it takes to push the button to power on my computer.

Lets see...

.5 seconds x 260 weekdays in a year = 130 seconds of unpaid work
130 seconds in hours is 0.0361111111
0.0361111111 x $27/hr (yeah, being an IT guy is nice) = 97 cents of wages owed to me
97 cents - 401k contribution - insurance - taxes = THOSE ********* CROOKS OWE ME A NICKEL!!! :rolleyes:

[The Reverend]

In 1999 Apple had opened it's call center in Elk Grove CA for tech support and they had project managers that knew what time management was and quality control was then.

Yet they had Volt and Apple trainers teaching new tech support agents how to start the day to get ready to take calls.

Apple knew and did nothing about this until after this case started. If they could so easily fix it last year. Why couldn't they do it in 1999?

For a dime or a dollar it was still wrong times 597 people, times many years, times many call center across the county.

Apple should take care it it's people and pay up no matter what the cost.

It's the right thing to do:)

[The Reverend]

The claim is going back 4 years(2002-2006) and let say 260 days a year.

In 2002 Apple tech support agent were still using Consumer grade iMacs, yeah the multi color type: http://support.apple.com/kb/SP109 :o

Sure they had a little more ram then shipped to consumers, but that did not effect the startup time one of those took to get to a login screen. lets average it at about 1.5 minutes.

During this time an agent also had to put on a headset and prepare the desk for the shift. Which could include reading documents that were dropped at the desk during a different shift or reading emails that have been sent to the team for important new tech issues and procedure changes daily.

The apple agents then have to login by typing there name into several programs to gain access to internal services and the data bases for Customer support case logging and tracking. and will suggest that the total logins would be 3 applications and the user account for total of 4 at 1 minute per application and account to fully load.( 4 minutes )

Then the agent could login to the phone system and begin to take calls. For only then could the agent get the customers case started/logged into the data base as per procedure.

Procedure said Ask for the customer name first and type what they say into case data base to search for customer records.


The apple agent paid at about 16.50$ an hour average between new and old agents (15-18$ per hour)

This time is consider "over-time" by the claim, in CA thats time and a half.

In some state there is a fine for paying wages owed past a certain date.
In the case the date is 4 years old, which in most state should be long enough to meet the condition of "paid late".

None of the above says anything about lunch time login/logout and shutting down computer after you logged out of phone system yet either.

So what do we have.

597 people @ 24.75 hourly @ 5.5 minutes daily @ 260 days a year @ 4 years
--------

$41.25 cents a minute x 5.5 minutes = $2.27 per day or about that.

$2.27 x 260 days= $590.20 for 1 person for 1 year

$590.20 x 4 years - $2360.80

597 people x $2360.80= $1,409,397.60
-----------
Now lets say that the state of California has only a 10% fine.

Thats $140,939.76, Apple has avoided paying perhaps.

So Apple may have saved it self over a million dollars at just that one call center.
-----------

Heres a What if, "this has been happening since 1999" when that call center opened in Elk Grove. Is that another million dollars Apple saved by not making the changes they just made late year to how agents power on the computer and login.

Where does it stop.

Apple has several call centers across county, let say 5 in all, including Elk Grove and Cupertino. This case is only about the Elk Grove call center. So is that 1-2 Million per call center that equalling now 5-10 million Apple has not paid out to it's employees.

When you add it all up, and then add in that this gave Apple an unfair business advantage; it's used to win awards with and beat down the competition with.

Apple NOT only ripped off it's employees, it lied to the IRS and State of California that required precise record keeping on all wages paid and it's record do not reflect what they should.

These large corporations think that no one cares, so that do as they wish.

Look at the headlines about CEO's take hugh bonuses as their business goes in the tank.

After all that, the law in California does state any amount that can NOT be paid to an employes. It's Not about the $, it's the law. If you track a employees time to the second in california , then california expects that your records will reflect this and the pay will also. Apple did NOT.

So it is possible that Apple could owe a lot of people in CA some cash.

How much the courts will actually decide, i have not included many other aspects of this case. i have only simplified how much basic cash we could be talking about.

Perhaps $1,409,397.60 or maybe only a dime. But either way it's that law in CA and Apple may have broken it.

[The Reverend]

Humm After i suggest that it could be over a million dollars owed.

No one had any logic why i was wrong, so I must be very close to the truth.
:)

[The Reverend]

The Appeal has been filed.

Date is not set yet for the hearing.

Apple made an offer to close the case that was insulting small to the number of people involved and offer the class nothing and only offer Miles Maria.

Which he said no, and that he was doing it for the group.. not so much for himself!

The lawyers have refused this offer also and are pushing forward.

Rumors are that many of the people that opted in are going to show the day of the hearing.

Can you imagine if 500 people showed up. :p

Apple would OMG for just a second, and so would the 3 judges!!!
:)

[The Reverend]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12282453/Miles-Maria-VS-Apple-Class-Motion-for-Certification

This is a PDF file. It seems that when it was scanned, some of the document had highlighter lines that make parts hard to read.

Still, some thing for you all to review.

Interesting, in this document if says that it's now for over 700 former and current employees! wow!

:)

[The Reverend]

What do we have now?

700 people @ 24.75 hourly @ 5.5 minutes daily @ 260 days a year @ 4 years
--------

$41.25 cents a minute x 5.5 minutes = $2.27 per day or about that.
--------

$2.27 x 260 days= $590.20 for 1 person for 1 year
--------

$590.20 x 4 years - $2360.80
--------

700 people x $2360.80 = $1,652,560

:confused:

Wow.. and this is only for 1 floor and 1 group at 1 call center.

What about the sales teams downstairs at the Elk Grove, CA center.

What about the Cupertino, CA call center.

Could there be another 700+ there?

How much should any large company be able to get over on it's employes?

When do the people stand up and say, "It's wrong and something should be done about it."

With all these companies and banks giving bonuses and hugh awards of cash as the business goes belly up and takes money from the government and citizens to get bailed out.

Apple is just 1 of many large companies, who's top officers garnish 7 figure salaries and even larger bonuses. While the lowest employees that are carrying the company on it's backs, become nothing but an unemployed statistic in hard times.

Why does California put up with this?
Why does any other state in the USA that has an Apple call center in it?

Time will answer many of these.

[petermcphee]

I am not taking a position on whether the OP's case is good or not, but, the Portal to Portal Act (which I believe is part of the Fair Labor Standards Act) covers these sorts of situations pretty conclusively.

These types of cases are all the rage right now. Starbucks was just banged for money damages on a similar kind of suit. The minutes and seconds add up, I suppose.

Again, I am not claiming to evaluate the case of the OP. I merely wanted to point out that the Portal to Portal Act provides clear coverage for these types of situations. I believe California's laws are even more protective, but I only remember that anecdotally, not analytically.

[Melrose]

I really don't understand why the administrators have allowed this thread to continue...

[Plutonius]

I think Apple should pay but should also take the people off the clock when they are not actually working. I think you would see some unhappy workers.

[The Reverend]

To be fair and show that this is really about big companies like Apple.

Here is Apples side of the story so far.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12666839/Apple-Class-Action-Certification-Opposition

:D

This is a PDF copy of the original submitted by Apple to the courts.

I wonder how many employes are actually watching and asking what is happening?

I still think it would be very interesting if a lot of the people in the case just showed up at the court house when the appeal is being review by the 3 judges.

:rolleyes:

That would sure put a face on this case for the judges. They would have to see that this is much bigger that just little old Miles Maria and his 700+ case members.

It's about Big Business and what they have been getting away with for years.

[The Reverend]

http://www.youtube.com/user/bzim05

nothing there yet.. :confused:


who knows what's next :apple:

:eek:

perhaps old Apple employees?

[The Reverend]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEJwmp6KJc8&feature=channel_page

well there we have it.. someone spoke up.

will there be others.. time will tell!

humm..I could make one of those.. wondering how many other could as well.

:D

[The Reverend]

Watch for a movies about him self from Miles Maria

http://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendMilesMaria
;)

[dejo]

Watch for a movies about him self from Miles Maria

http://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendMilesMaria
;)
Interesting YouTube user name there, The Reverend. Or should I say Miles Maria? I think you just tipped your hand...

[aristobrat]

Interesting YouTube user name there, The Reverend. Or should I say Miles Maria? I think you just tipped your hand...
I was just going to post the same thing. :rolleyes:

[bartelby]

I'm surprised this thread is still open, to be honest...

[synth3tik]

Yeah, I here you man. This was my first post and it seems negative.

But for the employees that it's may help and protect from abusive employers. Well, it's a good thing for them.

This is not trash talk..

This is fact.

Somehow someone needs to stand up and watch out for the little people. If standing up for your rights and the rights of others is negative, well then so be it.

I don't want people to rant here. But i do wish people to share their thoughts on this subject. Apple has made a lot of cash of using it's employees above and beyond the call to duty. Yeah sure it's done by a lot of companies, but that doesn't make it right.


Well, if you work at Apple then you would know that Apple does not allow their employees to visit rumor sites. Therefor you would know this would not be the best place to find Apple employees, also you would be working with them and have no reason to post to a rumor forum for any other reason then to be negative.

Don't get me wrong I think Apple does some stupid things, but this is just smear.

[The Reverend]

So I'm safe here.. thank you for reminding those that still are work there.

If you want to post your thoughts as a video without your picture


go to Youtube.com


I am

[LizKat]

Wow. All these years I had only wondered how much my younger siblings might have paid me for making their breakfast pancakes, had I found some way to leverage actual money out of that gig. It never occurred to me that I should have included charges for the prep work as well, like setting the skillet on the fire to heat up while I rummaged around in the fridge and cupboards to find what to make the batter with. I will have to update my American daydream immediately ;)

[Melrose]

I'm surprised this thread is still open, to be honest...

There should be a forum feature where a thread will close if it has a number of votes for doing so.

[Sun Baked]

There should be a forum feature where a thread will close if it has a number of votes for doing so.

Well, we asked for the member rating to be enabled so we could vote a member into a really low rating and hope for a banning ... but the gods in charge said we'd probably be a little too vindictive against some members.

------0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----
||||||||||||

They might have been right. :o

[The Reverend]

Now I understand wanting to ban people that are rude or breaking the law.

But this i an informational posting.

It's not a rant or screaming why I or other hate Apple, I don't hate Apple.

I love Apple products. it's their management team that I question in the AppleCare part of the company.

I was hoping for a public forum, so that this info could be shared.

Honestly I really do thank the makers of this site for allowing me to share this.

This issue does effect many many people.

This issue could be over by the end of this year and then I'll remove it when it's done.

Thank you all for understanding.
:)

[djjclark]

the problem is that in a 4 page thread 90% of the posts are by the OP. Not a good indication of a general interest.

[The Reverend]

Over 3000 views on this thread in just a few months suggests that people are interested, they just don't have loads to say.

People are afraid of Apple, they believe that if they comment, they put their jobs at risk. That is why this is important, it's a way for them to know what is happening with the case.

It's a method to have an open discussion if they feel safe to talk.

If this were not so important, I don't believe that it would have anywhere near this many views. I'm no expert.. thats for sure.

:D

[The Reverend]

The appeal is Official.

Here is the notice.

Now it's a matter of time to get the Briefing.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/15199200/Notice-of-Appeal


:D

[The Reverend]

Well this is how it works.

The Court of Appeals has sent the lawyers confirmation to Miles' lawyers

Each side will have to finish their papers.

Once each side has filed the paperwork. Then a date will be set to have the oral arguments.

Once the oral arguments are done.

Then the Court of Appeals can make a judgement.

Does the Case become a certified Class Action or not, who know?

It will all depend on how good each side presents it's arguments.

If it become a Certified Class Action.. then it will go back to the normal superior court and startup where it left off.

Or perhaps Apple will make an offer to settle before then?

Who knows.. but the ball is rolling.. it's not over yet.
:)

[mikes70mustang]

But I bet that all the things that are against the law they did here in CA are also against the law in other states as well.

Um, cali. has a TON of ridiculous laws that most states do not support and or follow

[maxrobertson]

You do, but that free speech will land you in trouble with a certain employer.

Then that's a violation of free speech. I think this thread is stupid, but you're being complacent in censorship.

[The Reverend]

Then that's a violation of free speech. I think this thread is stupid, but you're being complacent in censorship.


Most companies do not allow their employees to publicly comment on legal matters.

Non disclosure agreements are the most common method for .. censorship sort of!

This thread is about information on a Class Action law suite against Apple and not about censorship or contractual agreements.

But thank you for posting your thoughts.
:)

[The Reverend]

Miles Maria's( the Appellant) lawyers are filling the Appellant's Opening Brief prepared for the first step between June 12 2009 and August 10,2009.

Apple has 90 days to file the Respondents Brief after the Appellant's Opening Brief arrives at the Appeals court.

The Appellant has a max of 50 days to send the Appellant's Reply Brief after the Respondents Brief arrives at the court house.

So it has begun.

:D

After The briefs are done, a court date will be set to begin the oral arguments before the 3 Appeals court judges. Thats right..3 judges!

One can only wonder, will this actuall get to court.. or will Mr Jobs lawyers make an offer at this point.

Miles Maria has made it clear that no tiny offer is going to stop this process.

Mr. Jobs has only to man up and this could be over.

Here's wishing that Mr. Jobs is a bigger man and finds that he has been wrong and make right by his employees past and present.

:o

[yg17]

Then that's a violation of free speech. I think this thread is stupid, but you're being complacent in censorship.

Free speech? Apple is a private employer, and the US Government has no jurisdiction over what's said on the internet, therefore, there is no concept of free speech. You can't trash your employer or post confidential information, on the internet.

And, I think this lawsuit is ridiculous. The employees are doing what's necessary to be prepared for work. By that logic, I should get paid for the time I spend showering and getting dressed before coming to work, since company policy says I can't come to work naked and smelling like ass :rolleyes:

It's a shame we have garbage like this clogging up our court system, preventing legitimate cases from being heard in a timely manner.

[MorphingDragon]

597 people lucky to be working.

Yes!!! Take what you can get, if not you lose out.

I think this is why many countries in europe dumped suing for Tribunal Court or equivalent (And other reasons). Use the judges for something more serious, than people bitching and complaining at each other that they had to do a little extra stuff or that he looked at me funny. You gave me the Evils, give me $5Mill!!!

If its against the law then do so. But you never really told us the extra stuff you had to do before getting on to the actual system. Until then your word is questionable. OMG I got asked to boot the computers at work. You owe me overtime!!! This crap would never be allowed outside America.

BTW you do know the Reverend is a title of respect for a Clergyman? (Oxford Dictionary) Right? (Clergy being a group of priests and bishops)

Rofl

[The Reverend]

BTW you do know the Reverend is a title of respect for a Clergyman? (Oxford Dictionary) Right? (Clergy being a group of priests and bishops)

Rofl

BTW I am a Reverend in a church. And it's part of my title. So I am allowed to use it when I wish. I am not being disrespectful to anyone here either!

:)

As for everyones comments on this information that I'm sharing. Thank you.

This posting is not just about Apple and their policies. It's not about Miles Maria and why he is suing Apple for overtime that wasn't paid or that Apple may have broken California labor laws.

These posting are also for discussing Corporate America. Miles Maria VS Apple is the example.

Apple like many large companies in America have the ability to do everything by the book. And yet many large companies seem to think they are above the law, because they are SO big.. that no one will notice things that are small and a few minute of time from each employee each day.

Apple like many companies has project managers and other specialist that can project what any employee may need to do and could do on any given job.

In this case, it appears that Apple may not have projected that several hundred employees could be doing a behavior that now seems to have broken a law. Did Apple know?.. how could they not know?.. when it would appear to be 500-700+ employees.

Why did Apple change it's internal policy for Applecare Rep's and other employes to automatically have their workstation computers boot-up before they clocked into work and why did they change that policy right after the case started if Apple wasn't doing anything wrong?

To understand the nature of this discussion, you sort of have to read the documents that are posted online about the case and read what they say about the law and what is claimed in the names of several hundred people.

Again.. thank you all for you your comments.

:o

[andrew upstairs]

I usually get to work an hour before I'm supposed to start. I'll start working before I clock in, and I'll work after I clock out.

I fill out my own timecards.

I'm just sayin'.

[dejo]

It's not about Miles Maria and why he is suing Apple for overtime that wasn't paid or that Apple may have broken California labor laws.
Haven't we already established that "The Reverend" = Miles Maria? Why do you continue to speak about yourself in the third-person? Can't we just end the charade?

[Pnut13]

Apple Should have had this figured out back in the 90's. When they took over all the call centers that were done by 3rd party contractors. They knew how to mange time then.

Here are some of the links found by searching google
you know way too much about the history of it to be a third party unbiased viewpoint.........then i read on....


This may seem like an attack on Apple directly, but it is not.


Apple is just the possible example of the corporate giant and the 597 people in that case, are just the little people.

that is why you are posting bad stufff about Apple on a apple rumors sight. I am not pro Microsoft but i am not going to go to a MS rumor site and talk garbage.



Needless to say, I don't believe that Class Action Suits on my behalf are beneficial to anyone but the attorneys/lawyers...
bingo.

Interesting YouTube user name there, The Reverend. Or should I say Miles Maria? I think you just tipped your hand...
wow that was funny for us, kinda sad for Reverend Miles.

Well, if you work at Apple then you would know that Apple does not allow their employees to visit rumor sites. Therefor you would know this would not be the best place to find Apple employees, also you would be working with them and have no reason to post to a rumor forum for any other reason then to be negative.

Don't get me wrong I think Apple does some stupid things, but this is just smear.
yeah and of a man of the cloak (being a reverend) i would think that slandering is not up there on things to be doing.

[yg17]

BTW I am a Reverend in a church. And it's part of my title. So I am allowed to use it when I wish. I am not being disrespectful to anyone here either!

Too bad Jesus never said "Let he who is without sin file the first law suit"

[uberamd]

Oh boy, this is what the world is coming to. Instead of people being glad they even have jobs in this economy, they decide to create a class action lawsuit for measly dollars. Bravo.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why the world is going down the crapper at an incredibly fast rate. People like this are what gets me so worked up. I get to work early to get everything ready for the day! And I don't put that on my time sheet! Booting my computer is NOT working in my book, its pressing a button and staring at a screen for a minute or two. BIG DEAL. And like others have said, given employees don't work 100% of the day, are they deducting that time from their pay sheets? I think not. The OP, and those involved in the CAS make me sick. Sorry, but you people need to quit crying over pennies and grow the hell up.

[Jakethasnake919]

What do we have now?

700 people @ 24.75 hourly @ 5.5 minutes daily @ 260 days a year @ 4 years
--------

$41.25 cents a minute x 5.5 minutes = $2.27 per day or about that.
--------

$2.27 x 260 days= $590.20 for 1 person for 1 year
--------

$590.20 x 4 years - $2360.80
--------

700 people x $2360.80 = $1,652,560


Do you really think that turning on the computer for four years is worth $2360.80? That is pathetic. I am a college student and I am about $30,000 in debt already and I am always respectful to my employer when it comes to money. They are already giving you a job. They are paying you 52 weeks/yr * 40 hrs/week * $24.75/hr = $51,480/year to answer a damn phone. And you are going to try to shaft them over booting your computer? How hard were you really working while it was booting up? You were probably sitting in your rolly chair spinning around twiddling your thumbs until it booted. I am still not convinced that it takes 5.5 minutes to boot your computer. My computer may take 2.5 minutes to boot on a bad day.

[The Reverend]

These numbers were based on rough numbers for the discussion and were to make a point. The discussion is about large companies taking advantage of their employees. Apple is the example.

-----------------
700 people @ 24.75 hourly @ 5.5 minutes daily @ 260 days a year @ 4 years--- this is for the total of the day.. not just turning on the computer=5.5 minutes
--------
$41.25 cents a minute x 5.5 minutes = $2.27 per day or about that.
--------
$2.27 x 260 days= $590.20 for 1 person for 1 year
--------
$590.20 x 4 years - $2360.80
--------
700 people x $2360.80 = $1,652,560.00
------------------
These numbers only represent one state in the USA, Apple has several other call centers that all had the same policies. Who's to say that this didn't happen across the country and is 4 times the amount above.

It would NOT matter if it were 1/10th of these amounts, in the state of California, USA it's the law. The employer has to pay ever penny earned.

Since Apple holds the employees accountable to the second for call durations and so on.. for all AppleCare Rep's, then why shouldn't Apple be held accountable for what they owe them. It's the law here in CA.

A lot of big companies don't like doing business in CA because of some of these type of laws.. but the point is.. it's the Law.

All companies , Like Apple should be held accountable .. for everything they do with their employees.

Apple has always had the ability since 1998 when it opened it's OWN call centers and stopped having most of the calls done by 3rd party contractors.
They could have made the policies then that could have prevented it. Why didn't they? Why did they choose to wait till just last year to change them?

:confused:

[uberamd]

These numbers were based on rough numbers for the discussion and were to make a point. The discussion is about large companies taking advantage of their employees. Apple is the example.

-----------------
700 people @ 24.75 hourly @ 5.5 minutes daily @ 260 days a year @ 4 years--- this is for the total of the day.. not just turning on the computer=5.5 minutes
--------
$41.25 cents a minute x 5.5 minutes = $2.27 per day or about that.
--------
$2.27 x 260 days= $590.20 for 1 person for 1 year
--------
$590.20 x 4 years - $2360.80
--------
700 people x $2360.80 = $1,652,560.00
------------------
These numbers only represent one state in the USA, Apple has several other call centers that all had the same policies. Who's to say that this didn't happen across the country and is 4 times the amount above.

It would NOT matter if it were 1/10th of these amounts, in the state of California, USA it's the law. The employer has to pay ever penny earned.

Since Apple holds the employees accountable to the second for call durations and so on.. for all AppleCare Rep's, then why shouldn't Apple be held accountable for what they owe them. It's the law here in CA.

A lot of big companies don't like doing business in CA because of some of these type of laws.. but the point is.. it's the Law.

All companies , Like Apple should be held accountable .. for everything they do with their employees.

Apple has always had the ability since 1998 when it opened it's OWN call centers and stopped having most of the calls done by 3rd party contractors.
They could have made the policies then that could have prevented it. Why didn't they? Why did they choose to wait till just last year to change them?

:confused:

Do these employees deduct time from their time sheets when they are talking with each other? When they are not actually doing work? I guarantee the time they spend doing nothing will cancel out, if not exceed the time they are crying over!

[mscriv]

Just for fun I checked out the OP's profile. In the six months of being a member you have posted in only 4 different threads. Not surprisingly, there's quite a pattern.

#1 This thread

#2 Apple Philosophy of no choice (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=714108)

#3 Is anybody beginning to personally dislike Jobs? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=561200)

#4 Incompetent Apple staff in Premium Reseller (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=638913)

I know you keep saying that this thread and your participation is about spreading information and contributing to the community. However, the evidence doesn't seem to support this. I'm not defending Apple and I'm no fanboy. However, I do think this community is a great place to both get information and support others who come here for help, friendship, and recreation. How about you try actually being a part of the community and participating in helping others as opposed to pushing your single minded agenda. Just my $0.02.

[Eraserhead]

$1,652,560.00

Apple's annual profit is at least $5 billion, so that is considerably less than 0.1% of their annual profit (and maybe, per year less than 0.01%) AKA its utterly insignificant.

[Melrose]

Do these employees deduct time from their time sheets when they are talking with each other? When they are not actually doing work? I guarantee the time they spend doing nothing will cancel out, if not exceed the time they are crying over!

Where my dad works (and has worked, for the last 35 years) the smokers can take 10 minutes here and there no problemo; Other guys - who don't smoke - get yelled at or a letter in their company file if they dawdle around for a few minutes talking.

Talk about equality. I see it myself - the people that complain the most are oftentimes the ones that abuse the company the most. Wasting time when you're supposed to be on the job is the same as stealing form your employer.

[The Reverend]

Apple's annual profit is at least $5 billion, so that is considerably less than 0.1% of their annual profit (and maybe, per year less than 0.01%) AKA its utterly insignificant.


So your saying it's Ok for Apple to take the cash from it's employees? .. because it's such a small amount?

The State of CA doesn't care about the amount.. it doesn't say anything about if it's less than the annual profit ;that it doesn't count. The State says it's "not ok" to NOT pay wages earned... period!

That much profit would suggest that paying these employees what they earned would be very easy ..." considerably less than 0.1%" ?????

;)

If this issue were only about money though.. this would be over already I'm thinking.

This is about the laws of CA and employee rights... and money!

Here is s list to look at what the different laws say about this case.

I found these links.. they aren't real non-lawyer friendly, but maybe they might help.

The below was copied from the document called Motion for Class Certification

Statutes and Regulations
===============
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 392 http://law.onecle.com/california/civil-procedure/392.html

Cal. Labor Code 512 http://law.onecle.com/california/labor/512.html

Cal Labor Code 1194 http://law.onecle.com/california/labor/1194.html

Cal. Labor Code 1174 http://law.onecle.com/california/labor/1174.html

Cal. Evid. Code 411 http://law.onecle.com/california/evidence/411.html

If anyone has any real questions about the laws involved with this case please see the doc below for the names of all the lawyers involved and contact them directly.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12282453/Miles-Maria-VS-Apple-Class-Motion-for-Certification

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or judge .. or even an expert in general law.

I'm just reading what these documents seem to say and sharing it; and getting general discussion on "How can large corporations like Apple in CA get away with this types of thing? How and why? When they can easily avoid them.

It's not just bad for the employees, it bad for Apples Rep, it's bad for people with Stock in Apple.. they may loose confidence and sell.. it's something that should have been totally avoided.. but seems it may not have been.

:confused:

[MorphingDragon]

Common Sense != Law
Laws are made for Whiny People
People With Common Sense < Stupid Whiny People

Now derive and solve for X.

If you read that and understood it... You need help.

I love math!!! ;)

I'm expected to turn on all the computers and wash my hands before I start work. I could take my boss to the Tribunal but It wont work because its stupid.
If you seriously think turning on a computer is worth money you'd be shot down in a country where Common Sense = Law. AKA European countries.
This is why Im not too keen to work in America because people lack Common Sense. Yes I can be petty, its my future career.

Laws can be misguided to suit the defender or the attacker...

And people are always interested who the next idiot to sue Apple , Google or Microsoft is. You just happened to of used fancy words.

[Melrose]

Laws are made for Whiny People

That's going in my quotable file. :D

[The Reverend]

It's people like you that keep others in the dark about the law.

You think that by de-valuing other peoples thoughts and statements that somehow that make you better or correct. So much so you have to insult them to make your point.

You could be a better person if you actually used valid points of discussion and laws from where you live and examples others can look at to make up their own minds.

If almost like your job is to look for posting like this and degrade, belittle and otherwise insult the people reading it that might actually care.

Show us your laws and examples: post some links for us to read.

You seem to be whining about the discussion, perhaps you should find something to read that make you not so whiny and a little more happy.
;)

Don't be whiny be happy!
:)



Common Sense != Law
Laws are made for Whiny People
People With Common Sense < Stupid Whiny People

Now derive and solve for X.

If you read that and understood it... You need help.

I love math!!! ;)

I'm expected to turn on all the computers and wash my hands before I start work. I could take my boss to the Tribunal but It wont work because its stupid.
If you seriously think turning on a computer is worth money you'd be shot down in a country where Common Sense = Law. AKA European countries.
This is why Im not too keen to work in America because people lack Common Sense. Yes I can be petty, its my future career.

Laws can be misguided to suit the defender or the attacker...

And people are always interested who the next idiot to sue Apple , Google or Microsoft is. You just happened to of used fancy words.

[andrew upstairs]

If this issue were only about money though.. this would be over already I'm thinking.

This is about the laws of CA and employee rights... and money!:rolleyes:

It's about money. It's disgruntled employees with no work ethic looking for a handout.

I'm no fan of giant corporations, but this is the definition of frivolous.

[uberamd]

:rolleyes:

It's about money. It's disgruntled employees with no work ethic looking for a handout.

I'm no fan of giant corporations, but this is the definition of frivolous.

Exactly. Have you noticed that The Reverend never, EVER answers people when they point out that they boot their systems, and what not before clocking in for the day? The Reverend dodges those points, because they PROVE how frivolous this lawsuit is.

[TJRiver]

[QUOTE=The Reverend;7979579]Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or judge .. or even an expert in general law.
I'm just reading what these documents seem to say and sharing it; and getting general discussion on "How can large corporations like Apple in CA get away with this types of thing? How and why? When they can easily avoid them.


Boy, isn't this the truth. I am a lawyer, and the Rev probably will want to go back to law school before attempting to reach a number of the legal conclusions expressed in this thread.

A few points:

1. The granting of a class action certification simply means that there is a commonality of alleged facts and law between the class representative's claim and that of the class members. It is not surprising this was motion was granted, as there does not appear to much dispute regarding the alleged facts, as it appears to have been a common practice. The grant of class certification expressly does not render any opinion on the merits of the matters alleged in the lawsuit. The number of class members has absolutely no bearing on the merits of the lawsuit either. Most class certifications are actually drafted so that the member of the class are parties to the lawsuit automatically once class certification is granted, and that the putative class members have to take affirmative action to opt out of the litigation.

2. In California in particular, wage and hour laws have become so utterly complicated and convoluted, that it takes an expert in the area to guide management as to what they can and can't do regarding issues like this issue. What is allowed and prohibited changes every time our friends in Sacramento decide to tinker with the laws. If the practice is not expressly prohibited, it may be in management's best interests financially to defend a test case. This is particularly true if there are significant cost savings to be had due to the practice. We shall see what the end result will be.

3. Unless you are a client or class member, none of you is going to get ahold of any of the lawyers in this case to discuss litigation involving your favorite company (or the Rev's apparent nemesis). Time is money boys and girls.

4. The free speech guarantees in the State and Federal Constitutions only apply to actions by the government, not corporate entities. If you sign a legal, nondisclosure agreement, that is a private matter between you and your employer. No govermnmental action is involved and no "free speech guarantee" exists. If you don't like your job or the conditions being imposed upon you, quit. There is no indentured serrvitude in this country (any more).

5. The Rev apparently does not much experience with class action litigation. The class action lawsuit was specifically designed to allow a number of individual claimants with factually similar, SMALL DOLLAR AMOUNT claims, to have a representative(s) prove up the case in order to avoid the expense of each individual claimant having to prove up his/her individual claims, one at a time. If you are looking for a big dollar payday from this litigation (assuming it is successful) guess again. As several posters have pointed out, the first things paid are: court costs, legal fees (often in the millions of dollars), payment to the class representative(s), administrative costs (such as giving written notice to thousands or hundreds of thousands of class members, and finally, our class members, who often are left with MUCH less in pocket than had they pursued their own suit.......

6. In California, wage and hour claims are most often brought on behalf of the employee by the California Labor Board, at no cost to the employee. Why is this huge claim not being pursued by the Labor Board instead of private attorneys? Either: (i) the Board determined there was no cause to prosecute, leaving the employees free to pursue private litigation; or (ii) the class action lawyers and representatives convinced the Board not to act, ensuring they got most of the recovery (if there is one).

I am not a fan of the class action process because I believe it has been perverted from a useful legal tool into a cash cow for class action lawyers. I have no opinion regarding the legality of the practice, It sounds like a law school examination question that is designed so that you have a set of facts and laws that lend themselves to good arguments in either direction. Compaired with the other "headline news" lawsuits Apple faces every day, this is probably pretty small potatoes.

And no, the District Attorney and State Attorney General are not going to swoop in and save our brothers slaving away at their terminals. It is a civil matter that will, at the end of the day, only enrich the lawyers......:p

[yg17]

So, all these employees who claim they spent 5 minutes getting ready for work....I'm guessing that for their full 8 hour shift, they worked every single minute? During those 8 hours, they never got up to use the bathroom, or chat with coworkers about non-work related things, get something to eat or drink from the vending machine, check their personal email, post on message boards whining about the lawsuit, none of that? They're productive for every minute of their full shift? If the answer is yes, then not only do the deserve backpay, but they deserve to be promoted 2 or 3 levels up the chain of command. If they're not superhuman and the answer to that question is no, then they're just like every other worker in the country and don't deserve a dime.

I sometimes arrive at work early, stay a bit late or cut my lunch short and don't ask for overtime pay because I know I spend enough time during the day not being productive to make up for it.

[killerrobot]

I skipped some pages so I'm sorry if this was already brought up but...

this reminds me of the LA Police Officers' court case about being paid for time putting on the uniform and taking it off before and after their shifts back in may.

http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/features/overtime-pay-laws-rules-2.html

I know one is about uniforms and one is about waiting to log in to a computer but in general it seems like a similar argument - you should start getting paid the moment you start doing anything your employer requires you to do.

I understand the argument that no one has a task master hovering over them during their entire shift to make sure all breaks are exact, and all time paid is for actual work done, and that in general it all evens out ... but when does the official time clock start ticking?

I wonder if the LAPD court case will be or could be used during the appeal?

[The Reverend]

You haven't even read the case have you?

Your just talking about these posts?

How about you post some law.. with some links for all to look at..not jjst your idea of what the law is.. MR LAWYER
:D

[The Reverend]

The discussion is about, if big US company LIKE Apple should be able to skirt the law.

Should they be able to use their employees anyway they wish because they can and everyone is afraid to stand up to them or fear for their jobs.

Look at the fear in the mind of that poor man who recently committed suicide in China, when he lost a prototype iphone. Apple acknowledged that he was one of their employees.. not just a 3rd party sub-contractor.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8162325.stm
:(


Apple ability to have a fear factor within it's employees ranks to such a level is know world wide. Apple internal policies with what it calls protecting it's products is the foundation of that fear factor.

Apple is just an example of what other companies in the USA are doing also.

These companies uses their size to tell there employees they can be easily replaced and the company has no trouble in doing so to ANYONE for any reason.

So this discussion isn't so much about just a bunch of labor laws in CA, USA.

It is more about the Ethical side of business and what big companies get away with. When should a company be responsible, not just profitable.

Yes, America is about capitalism(making a profit).. but it's also about the Right to be treated fairly. To be paid for what you earned, every minute of it.

When is it unfair to the employee and that unfairness is because of the employer?
Then employer is NOT being held responsible for that unfairness?

Does that make the unfairness worse?

Does it suggest to other companies that it's O.K. to be unfair?

Ok so if your going to talk Law.. please post a link to the law your talking about.. so we got a clue like you.

Otherwise, keep reading. New information about this example case is due out any time from the Appeals Courts in California, USA.

Please read the case documents that were submitted to the courts by both parties Apple and Miles Maria. Links to most court documents are in this thread. Or just search google for "Miles Maria VS Apple" using quotes seems to work best.

Thanks all.
;)
:apple:

[dejo]

Look at the fear in the mind of that poor man who recently committed suicide in China, when he lost a prototype iphone. Apple acknowledged that he was one of their employees.. not just a 3rd party sub-contractor.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8162325.stm
:(

Except that poor man actually worked for Foxconn and not Apple.

[The Reverend]

Yeah you right,, Foxconn, one of Apple's largest manufacturers.

And the man working for Foxconn.

The man was Chinese and the company Taiwanese , Not Chinese.

Still Apple is working with a company that, "According to a BBC correspondent in Beijing, Chris Hogg, Foxconn has faced allegations in the past that it treats its employees poorly."

So why is Apple working with this company and ignoring what it does?
"Sun's former classmates have told Chinese newspapers that during the firm's investigation he was beaten, his house was searched and he was locked up alone in a room."

And what did Apple do... pretty much nothing.... no reports about the company doing anything at all beside doing an investigation.

This is just another example of Apple . like many other large US companies just looking the other way so they can make a profit.

here's another article about that.

http://digital.venturebeat.com/2009/07/21/iphone-prototype-goes-missing-chinese-worker-investigated-commits-suicide/

[uberamd]

Yeah you right,, Foxconn, one of Apple's largest manufacturers.

And the man working for Foxconn.

The man was Chinese and the company Taiwanese , Not Chinese.

Still Apple is working with a company that, "According to a BBC correspondent in Beijing, Chris Hogg, Foxconn has faced allegations in the past that it treats its employees poorly."

So why is Apple working with this company and ignoring what it does?
"Sun's former classmates have told Chinese newspapers that during the firm's investigation he was beaten, his house was searched and he was locked up alone in a room."

And what did Apple do... pretty much nothing.... no reports about the company doing anything at all beside doing an investigation.

This is just another example of Apple . like many other large US companies just looking the other way so they can make a profit.

here's another article about that.

http://digital.venturebeat.com/2009/07/21/iphone-prototype-goes-missing-chinese-worker-investigated-commits-suicide/

Quit ignoring the question. Why do you think you should get paid for turning on your computer? I don't get paid for that. I am expected to be ready to operate 100% before I clock in, that includes booting my system, washing my hands, etc.

And answer this (don't ignore it like you do every other question), do these employees work 100% of the time they are on the clock? Because every off-task thing they do, based on your reasoning, means they should need to pay Apple back for the wasted time. I *guarantee* they waste more time than they spend booting their system.

[belvdr]

do these employees work 100% of the time they are on the clock?

Of course they do. They work on their resume, personal email, bandwidth testing, etc. ;) I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

Now back on track....

[The Reverend]

Ok you said " Why do you think you should get paid for turning on your computer? I don't get paid for that. "

-----Dang they screwing you dude! So sad for you.

-----Well you should get paid if it's a job duty.

You said , "I am expected to be ready to operate 100% before I clock in, that includes booting my system, washing my hands, etc."

-----AH ha.. then you claim that WORK is expected of you before YOU begin to get paid.

-----How do you figure thats lawful. Work is work.. Pay is pay.

------Apple holds their service tech on the phone to the second.. that right no to the minute but to the second. each all most be under so many minutes and seconds or they are threatened with loss of job if they do not find a way to keep the calls under the times that are set by Apple.

-----So if a company holds it's employees to the second for every call they take.. then the State of california can hold the company to the minute for paying them... and perhaps even the second.

If any US company wants you to work before you get paid.. they are breaking US labor laws, besides California State labor laws.

Apple should have had a policy that stated that the first 5 minutes of work was for powering on your computer and doing whatever it too to be ready to take calls.. But they didn't have these policies till after this case started.
:D

[uberamd]

Ok you said " Why do you think you should get paid for turning on your computer? I don't get paid for that. "

-----Dang they screwing you dude! So sad for you.

-----Well you should get paid if it's a job duty.

You said , "I am expected to be ready to operate 100% before I clock in, that includes booting my system, washing my hands, etc."

-----AH ha.. then you claim that WORK is expected of you before YOU begin to get paid.

-----How do you figure thats lawful. Work is work.. Pay is pay.

------Apple holds their service tech on the phone to the second.. that right no to the minute but to the second. each all most be under so many minutes and seconds or they are threatened with loss of job if they do not find a way to keep the calls under the times that are set by Apple.

-----So if a company holds it's employees to the second for every call they take.. then the State of california can hold the company to the minute for paying them... and perhaps even the second.

If any US company wants you to work before you get paid.. they are breaking US labor laws, besides California State labor laws.

Apple should have had a policy that stated that the first 5 minutes of work was for powering on your computer and doing whatever it too to be ready to take calls.. But they didn't have these policies till after this case started.
:D

So you STILL IGNORE my main question! Typical. Do these people work 100% of the time they are on the clock, never doing anything personal like talking to a coworker or checking personal email?

[MacVixen]

I'll answer it for you uberamd ;)- of COURSE they don't! IMO, it stretches credibility for any person to claim they spend absolutely 100% of their work time working - a few minutes of chit-chat here and there add up, and I have yet to hear of an employee saying "Oh I was goofing off for 7 minutes - don't pay me for that today!"

The Reverend certainly believes in his case and we will see how it all plays out. Interesting thing about demands to be paid for every minute at work - at a former employer, they paid in 6 minute increments. Say you were scheduled to start work at 8:00, as long as you were clocked in by 8:05, there was no ding to your pay. So in short, if you were early or late less than 6 minutes, you were no compensated for that time - who knows if it was legal, the company had that practice in place for YEARS with apparently no penalties.

I will say that the number of people that have joined the suit means absolutely nothing - it's the job of the lawyers to track down former employees and ask them if they want in. Many will say "yes" because basically, there's nothing to lose. By signing on, these employees have the chance for a little settlement money coming their way. I'll admit that I was a class action plaintiff for a former employer - this was related to the company supposedly not offering breaks - whatever. It was never a problem for me, but I still collected a whopping $56 for my 3 years of service with the company :rolleyes:

How I see it playing out: Apple will offer to settle this case (without admitting any fault), the courts will pay the lawyers and the workers will get a little bit of cash that's left in the end - not nearly as much as expected, but I suppose something is better than nothing.

[The Reverend]

You said
"Do these people work 100% of the time they are on the clock, never doing anything personal like talking to a coworker or checking personal email?"

You have got to be kidding right? Tell me .. who works 100% of the time.. that is NOT the point at all...

The point is,, working before the clock starts is wrong.. period.

USA trashed slavery "work for no pay" long ago.. perhaps the county in which you live still thinks that slavery is still fine.. as long as it's only a few minutes a day.

Look Apple could have avoided all of this.. but didn't till after the case started. We are NOT talking about employees on a salary .. we are talking about hourly .. so pay by the minute is what we are talking about.

Apple took advantage of over 500 people ,,,

and somehow thats ok with you ..

it's NOT OK with me and many many others.

US companies should never be allowed to do this.. since they can always easily avoid it by creating policies that take care of the employes instead of the company.

The US has a long way to go in protecting it's people from the ravages of large companies that wish to capitalize on employees that have of the lack of knowledge and legal support.

:cool:
:apple:

[dejo]

The point is,, working before the clock starts is wrong.. period.
Oh, but not working while the clock is still running is okay? FAIL! :mad:

[rdowns]

How the eff do you compare slavery to not being paid until your computer boots up?

(deleted a whole bunch of stuff against the forum rules)

[belvdr]

-----Dang they screwing you dude! So sad for you.


Nice language for a reverend.

[belvdr]

You have got to be kidding right? Tell me .. who works 100% of the time.. that is NOT the point at all...

The point is,, working before the clock starts is wrong.. period.

Boy, you're a work of art. So it's okay for the worker to take advantage of the company, but not vice versa.

That's not a very intelligent case.

[uberamd]

Boy, you're a work of art. So it's okay for the worker to take advantage of the company, but not vice versa.

That's not a very intelligent case.

Thats EXACTLY what I was waiting to get out of him. He admits that it is ok to take advantage of a company by not working 100% of the time, but not ok for the company to not pay people for booting their systems. What a total joke.

I bet the time spent booting is less than the off-task time of the employees. This lawsuit is a TOTAL ********** joke. This shows how the US is plagued with frivolous lawsuits, thanks for making my country a worse place The Reverend.

[belvdr]

You said
"Do these people work 100% of the time they are on the clock, never doing anything personal like talking to a coworker or checking personal email?"

You have got to be kidding right? Tell me .. who works 100% of the time.. that is NOT the point at all...

The point is,, working before the clock starts is wrong.. period.

I thought about this and figured out the ultimate solution.

Worker's Pay = Gross Pay + Time spent booting before work hours - Time spent not being productive at all (bathroom breaks excluded, smoking breaks included)

I think the worker's would be more than happy to keep the current arrangement.

[Melrose]

This thread is still alive?! :eek:

http://dl-client.getdropbox.com/u/64005/downloads/facepalm.jpg

[TJRiver]

You haven't even read the case have you?

Your just talking about these posts?

How about you post some law.. with some links for all to look at..not jjst your idea of what the law is.. MR LAWYER
:D

Let's keep things informal, shall we? Mr. River is just fine. I will be more than happy to provide you with my work product when you pay me for the work, Rev. How many class action lawsuits have you handled, sir? You want legal research, pay someone who knows what they are doing, or do it yourself. Posting links to statutes alleged in a pleading is not research. It is stating the obvious.

You, MR. REVEREND, have an excellent day.

[gnasher729]

Thats EXACTLY what I was waiting to get out of him. He admits that it is ok to take advantage of a company by not working 100% of the time, but not ok for the company to not pay people for booting their systems. What a total joke.

I bet the time spent booting is less than the off-task time of the employees. This lawsuit is a TOTAL ********** joke. This shows how the US is plagued with frivolous lawsuits, thanks for making my country a worse place The Reverend.

Do you work one hundred percent of the time that you are paid for? Let's see: Do you go to the toilet when you feel the need to, or do you go to the toilet when your lunch break starts? Since I hope that you are not stealing electricity from your company, do you turn off your computer at night _after_ your employment time has ended and do you come early to work to start your computer so that it is ready when your employment time starts? Do you ever, ever talk to your colleagues about anything that is not work related? Do you say "good morning" when someone enters the room? That is two seconds of time stolen from your employer, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Do you work without interruptions, without any breaks? That is actually inefficient, because you will be more tired, more exhausted, and achieve less. Your body and your mind are not built for uninterrupted work.

Charles Dickens wrote a book about a character like yours. The character's name was Ebenezer Scrooge.

[rdowns]

Do you work one hundred percent of the time that you are paid for? Let's see: Do you go to the toilet when you feel the need to, or do you go to the toilet when your lunch break starts? Since I hope that you are not stealing electricity from your company, do you turn off your computer at night _after_ your employment time has ended and do you come early to work to start your computer so that it is ready when your employment time starts? Do you ever, ever talk to your colleagues about anything that is not work related? Do you say "good morning" when someone enters the room? That is two seconds of time stolen from your employer, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Do you work without interruptions, without any breaks? That is actually inefficient, because you will be more tired, more exhausted, and achieve less. Your body and your mind are not built for uninterrupted work.

Charles Dickens wrote a book about a character like yours. The character's name was Ebenezer Scrooge.


Don't you think you're exaggerating a bit here? It only takes 1 second to say good morning.

[uberamd]

Do you work one hundred percent of the time that you are paid for? Let's see: Do you go to the toilet when you feel the need to, or do you go to the toilet when your lunch break starts? Since I hope that you are not stealing electricity from your company, do you turn off your computer at night _after_ your employment time has ended and do you come early to work to start your computer so that it is ready when your employment time starts? Do you ever, ever talk to your colleagues about anything that is not work related? Do you say "good morning" when someone enters the room? That is two seconds of time stolen from your employer, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Do you work without interruptions, without any breaks? That is actually inefficient, because you will be more tired, more exhausted, and achieve less. Your body and your mind are not built for uninterrupted work.

Charles Dickens wrote a book about a character like yours. The character's name was Ebenezer Scrooge.

As I said, I am expected to be ready to work when my job starts. Thus, I boot my computers, etc before I 'clock' in. I also need to be readily available outside of work if something happens (IT work). For example last night at 7:30 PM I got an email from my boss saying that our building was going to be losing electrical power from 7:00-7:30 AM. Well crap. We have many servers running, but our UPS systems are only designed to handle 12 minutes of runtime at their capacity. Moreover since they are new UPS, we haven't had a chance to get the 'shutdown when battery is low' scripts properly configured.

Thus, I had to SSH and remote desktop into a bunch of servers last night and shut each one down 1 by 1. Did I get paid for that? No. Do I expect to? No. I admit I don't work 100% of the time I am at work, thus I am not going to try to nickel and dime my employer. Along with that, I am also not dumb enough to file a lawsuit because of stuff like that because I realize I am not on task 100% of the time, and that simple things like booting a computer, or doing some remote tasks while I am at home just even the time out.

So, whatever you were trying to prove, I don't get it. My point was simply this: nobody works 100% of the time, so why try to nickel and dime your employer for a few minutes you *think* you should get paid for when they don't ask you to refund money for the time you are off task?

[The Reverend]

Well Well. so many thoughts.

Let break it down. A little experiment. Since most Apple agents were not using new systems to support clients.. try this.

Any of you that wish to find a 2000 to 2005 iMac.. as it came from the Apple.. not after you modified it.... lol .. do it without startup scripts .. which Apple only started to use after 2006 when this case started.

All of these were required to be set up before you were allow to login to the phone system and start your day and get paid.

Please use the OS that shipped with the 2000 to 2005 iMac and NO startup scripts

1. Time how long does it take for your 2000 to 2005 iMac to get to the login screen from the power on button?

2. How long to login and get to desktop?

3. How long to login and launch any database program( program must have a login and connect to server somewhere like Vantive BD or PeopleSoft )

4. How long to launch a web browser.. don't matter which one.

5. How long to read a dozen emails about product and policy changes.

6. Then after you have done all that.. which was expected that you do before you start you day.. and get paid. ( yeah.. if you didn't read your emails and you started a case with a client and you gave them wrong info because you hadn't read the email memo could loose you your job..
then put on your headset and type in your login code to the Cisco phone system and your time clock was started and is tracked by your supervisor to the second..yeah.. the second... not the minute. Remember that Apple holds their support agents to a First Call Resolution duration to 15 minutes 35 seconds. So add up all this time and then say you would give it away everyday for year times several hundred employees.

To me:

Apple could have clearly taken advantage of hundreds of employees.. simply by looking the other way while they all did this... and SOMEHOW.. thats OK... HELL NO..


The whole point is to show that Apple expected their agents to do job related duties that the job could NOT be done without before the clock started and that is just WRONG. Morally and Ethically.. just wrong. Apple did not need to do this.. but it seems they didn't care to NOT do it... and so.. we are still taking about it.
:D
:apple:

[Counterfit]

The MacRumors forum is not a legal document, it does not have to be double-spaced.

[The Reverend]

Now that you have your own time amount for booting your older iMac and launching all your App's ,,you can use my formula and plugin what you got and lets see.

Take out my minutes and add in the time you found..see how much money?

Oh yea, this doesn't include shut-down times and other off the clock work.

The actual amount of people is much larger then 597 now, but we can stick to this.

The law in CA only allows to go back 4 years.. but the policies within Apple had been alive and well since the late 1990's when I was there.

Here is what I thought it might all add up to,.. which this is from an earlier posting.
---------------------
"So what do we have.

597 people @ 24.75 hourly( this is considered overtime pay in CA) @ 5.5 minutes daily @ 260 days a year @ 4 years
--------

$41.25 cents a minute x 5.5 minutes = $2.27 per day or about that.

$2.27 x 260 days= $590.20 for 1 person for 1 year

$590.20 x 4 years - $2360.80

597 people x $2360.80= $1,409,397.60
-----------
Now lets say that the state of California has only a 10% fine.

Thats $140,939.76"
---
This is not small change were talking about. It's hundreds of thousands of dollars, and maybe millions and millions if you think US-wide and for more then 10 years.
----------

Anyone that thinks it's OK for Apple or any company to not have paid it's employees what they have all earned; is either confused about the law and/or is rich from walking on the backs of the poor.

:cool:

[uberamd]

Now that you have your own time amount for booting your older iMac and launching all your App's ,,you can use my formula and plugin what you got and lets see.

Take out my minutes and add in the time you found..see how much money?

Oh yea, this doesn't include shut-down times and other off the clock work.

The actual amount of people is much larger then 597 now, but we can stick to this.

The law in CA only allows to go back 4 years.. but the policies within Apple had been alive and well since the late 1990's when I was there.

Here is what I thought it might all add up to,.. which this is from an earlier posting.
---------------------
"So what do we have.

597 people @ 24.75 hourly( this is considered overtime pay in CA) @ 5.5 minutes daily @ 260 days a year @ 4 years
--------

$41.25 cents a minute x 5.5 minutes = $2.27 per day or about that.

$2.27 x 260 days= $590.20 for 1 person for 1 year

$590.20 x 4 years - $2360.80

597 people x $2360.80= $1,409,397.60
-----------
Now lets say that the state of California has only a 10% fine.

Thats $140,939.76"
---
This is not small change were talking about. It's hundreds of thousands of dollars, and maybe millions and millions if you think US-wide and for more then 10 years.
----------

Anyone that thinks it's OK for Apple or any company to not have paid it's employees what they have all earned; is either confused about the law and/or is rich from walking on the backs of the poor.

:cool:

I don't care what you say. These employees do not work 100% of the time. Thus, they should be forced to refund their pay to Apple for the total of their minutes over the years spent off task. It goes both ways.

I have no pity for bottom feeders like you.

[yg17]

You still haven't answered this question:

What about all of the time employees spend talking with other employees, getting something from the vending machine, using the bathroom, talking/texting on their cell phone, goofing off on the internet, etc. You can't tell me that from the second their shift starts to the second their shift ends, minus the exception of exactly 1 hour, no longer, no less, for lunch, they're working. Nor would I believe you if you told me that none of the employees ever snuck out at 4:57 PM instead of 5:00, or whenever their shift ends.

Don't you think you're exaggerating a bit here? It only takes 1 second to say good morning.
Well, it only takes 1 second to press a power button on a computer so I think it's fair game ;)

[CipherMe]

This thought that it's OK to give ANY employer free time or quit your job is just wrong....
.

And we are supposed to believe that every one of these employees gave the company 100% of the time due it. they never took a personal phone call or did anything not directly associated with the job for their entire shift.

Yea right.

[Sun Baked]

And we are supposed to believe that every one of these employees gave the company 100% of the time due it. they never took a personal phone call or did anything not directly associated with the job for their entire shift.

Yea right.

Just another CA lawsuit over prep-time/uniform/costume changing/etc.

Can't wait for the chefs at all the restaurants to sue over the time they spend sharpening their knives and putting on their aprons and paper hats.

[djjclark]

Just another CA lawsuit over prep-time/uniform/costume changing/etc.

Can't wait for the chefs at all the restaurants to sue over the time they spend sharpening their knives and putting on their aprons and paper hats.

Key here is this lawsuit is in California which has the most liberal employment laws around. Sadly the employees will win and each get $1 while the lawyers get $1,000,000 and Apple will set the machines to autoboot at 7:55 am from now on.

[The Reverend]

Key here is this lawsuit is in California which has the most liberal employment laws around. Sadly the employees will win and each get $1 while the lawyers get $1,000,000 and Apple will set the machines to autoboot at 7:55 am from now on.

And btw... when this case started , Apple changed their internal policy to have all the computers in the call centers use a startup script before the employee arrives. Why did they wait until AFTER the case started to do this. Why didn't they do it in 1998 when the call center opened?


---------------------
597 people @ 24.75 hourly( this is considered overtime pay in CA) @ 5.5 minutes daily @ 260 days a year @ 4 years
--------

$41.25 cents a minute x 5.5 minutes = $2.27 per day or about that.

$2.27 x 260 days= $590.20 for 1 person for 1 year

$590.20 x 4 years - $2360.80

597 people x $2360.80= $1,409,397.60
-----------
Now lets say that the state of California has only a 10% fine.

Thats $140,939.76"

-----

Now the number has gone up since more Apple employees have joined the class action since it began.. but the point is the same. Apple didn't pay these people what they earned.

I seriously doubt that each employee would only get a dollar and the lawyers would get the rest.

As I understand it, the lawyers in this case are asking the courts to pay their fees since CA laws where broken and that the people in the class action do not have to pay anything at all.

[The Reverend]

Just another CA lawsuit over prep-time/uniform/costume changing/etc.

Can't wait for the chefs at all the restaurants to sue over the time they spend sharpening their knives and putting on their aprons and paper hats.

This is hecka funny.. I was a chef for years and years.. and we always hit the time clock with our time cards before we did anything, including putting on a apron or chef's hat.. And many Chef's and cooks are part of unions that make sure that timecards and everything is fair.

The Apple employees have no body to make sure they are treated fairly, other then CA laws.

Apple knew.. Apple could have done something to avoid it as far back as 1998. Apple did not, until this case came up.

[pdjudd]

Why didn't they do it in 1998 when the call center opened?


The most innocent explanation - they never expected to be sued over this and though it would be an interesting idea in case the problem should crop up again. Not everything happens because of a conspiracy. It could very well be that they never instigated before because there was no reason to until recently. It may not have anything to due with litigation and may simply coincide with other routine events that was planned before. It doesn't mean anything.

[The Reverend]

The most innocent explanation - they never expected to be sued over this and though it would be an interesting idea in case the problem should crop up again. Not everything happens because of a conspiracy. It could very well be that they never instigated before because there was no reason to until recently. It may not have anything to due with litigation and may simply coincide with other routine events that was planned before. It doesn't mean anything.

So this happened all for no reason?

600+ people all think the same thing happen to them.. .. but it doesn't mean a thing... jezzz ... some of you people just can not see beyond your own little worlds.

An innocent explanation... you must be one of the lawyers that works for Apple and spends their free time here.

How do you figure 600+ people being ripped off ..... innocent?

If it was just .. lets say.. 1-50 people maybe there was an innocent explanation.. something that happened by chance.. but it was going on for years and years and affected hundreds of people... in just this one state.. what about the other Call Centers across the country and the world..

How about we times all the people in just California times .. of let say 10.. thats about how many centers there are around the world... now where talking thousands of people and many millions of dollars.

There is NO innocent explanation. Laws were broken it would appear and Apple should have avoided it from the beginning. ...OH and your also saying that all those high priced project managers could NOT predict this RISK. Come on now.. Apple has some of the highest paid porject managers in the world,, and they couldn't see this coming?.. or they just ignored it?...OMG..NO

Apple knew.. they choose to look that other way as long as they could, then they figured they would just cover it up .. or maybe it would just go away... they think it's cheaper to play damage control after the fact that they have been caught in the act.. rather then actually doing what is right and paying the employees what they earned.

An innocent explanation..NO. I think not.
;)

[yg17]

You still haven't answered this question:

What about all of the time employees spend talking with other employees, getting something from the vending machine, using the bathroom, talking/texting on their cell phone, goofing off on the internet, etc. You can't tell me that from the second their shift starts to the second their shift ends, minus the exception of exactly 1 hour, no longer, no less, for lunch, they're working. Nor would I believe you if you told me that none of the employees ever snuck out at 4:57 PM instead of 5:00, or whenever their shift ends.


Still haven't addressed this point, have you? How much time did Apple pay these guys for while they didn't do any work?

[feelthefire]

So this happened all for no reason?

600+ people all think the same thing happen to them.. .. but it doesn't mean a thing... jezzz ... some of you people just can not see beyond your own little worlds.




No. 600+ people have been TOLD that they have been ripped off. ONE person actually felt they were being ripped off enough to file a suit. Joining a class action requires little to no effort on the part of the participants. All it takes is calling the lawyer who sent you a letter telling you were ripped off, and now you're in on it, regardless of your actual feelings on the matter.

You think Apple "holds down" their employees? You should try working for a pharmaceutical company, or better yet, the US Government.

This lawsuit is stupid. It is naive to think that anyone participating will recover anywhere near the amount owed. Once the lawyers get their cut, very little will remain for the actual participants in the suit, and NO, the court does NOT pay the lawyers because Apple broke the law, I have no IDEA where you got that little tidbit of nonsense. A lawsuit is a civil action, not a criminal one.

[The Reverend]

Still haven't addressed this point, have you? How much time did Apple pay these guys for while they didn't do any work?

At every job everywhere .. it is accepted that most employees will have a little time to do all those things.. like talk to a cube mate or get a drink of water or whatever.

But the Labor laws are very clear. If you do a action at the place of your employment and that action is directly related to your job functions, then you are consider to be working and should be paid for that action.

There are NO laws that say the opposite in the State of California, USA.

I have worked at jobs where you have no time to talk to others, it's impossible to start early or leave early and every action that you do as employees is accounted for.

The fact remains that if you do any action at your place of employment that is part of your job duties, you should be paid for that action and that action should be accounted for in the work flow plan of the employer.

These were employees that were paid hourly and their times card are held accountable to the minute. If you didn't work that minute according to your time card, you were not paid for it.

Apple had the ability to forecast in the work flow of the call center employees and know what each and every job duty was. Why didn't why account for setting up each workstation?

The time after you've logged and and started working is heavily monitored and accounted for. Why wasn't the time before and after the shift accounted for as part of the workstation setup.

This case is not about job breaks, or internet surfing or talking to others.. all while on the job.. thats stealing time from your employer and Apple like many companies in the USA has no issue terminating employees for such behavior while on the clock.

You attempt to distract the point from Apple stealing from it's employees to employees stealing from Apple is NOT relative to this case.

Thank for you input.
;)

[yg17]

This case is not about job breaks, or internet surfing or talking to others.. all while on the job.. thats stealing time from your employer and Apple like many companies in the USA has no issue terminating employees for such behavior while on the clock.

You attempt to distract the point from Apple stealing from it's employees to employees stealing from Apple is NOT relative to this case.



Yes it is relevant. Apple steals a little from the employees, the employees steal a little from Apple, in the end, it all evens out, and the employees do 8 hours of work, and get paid for 8 hours of work.

[The Reverend]

No. 600+ people have been TOLD that they have been ripped off. ONE person actually felt they were being ripped off enough to file a suit. Joining a class action requires little to no effort on the part of the participants. All it takes is calling the lawyer who sent you a letter telling you were ripped off, and now you're in on it, regardless of your actual feelings on the matter.

You think Apple "holds down" their employees? You should try working for a pharmaceutical company, or better yet, the US Government.

This lawsuit is stupid. It is naive to think that anyone participating will recover anywhere near the amount owed. Once the lawyers get their cut, very little will remain for the actual participants in the suit, and NO, the court does NOT pay the lawyers because Apple broke the law, I have no IDEA where you got that little tidbit of nonsense. A lawsuit is a civil action, not a criminal one.

Not following California Labor codes and laws is criminal and subject to the full extent of the Law in California USA.

While it is true that lawyers and court fees may get most of the money.. the case is NOT about the money so much.. it's seems more about the rights of employees in CA USA.

When this many people stand up together and say" It happen to me", it means something more then just a noise. It means that something needs to be done. That someone has to stand up and say, it's not right and I'm going to try and do whatever i can to fix it.

No one said that Apple was "Holding Down" their employees.

This treat is a discussion about " Why should companies LIKE Apple be allowed to not pay the employees for ALL the work they do for the company?

Apple is the example here. The legal documents linked for the basis of the discussion.
:confused:

Please take some time to review that legal documents, they will tell you which business & labor laws and codes could have been violated.

And yeah. I did say business laws and codes. Because, if this case is true and Apple should have paid their employees. Then this action gave them an unfair business advantage and in the state of california that also is against the law.
:apple::eek:

[yg17]

Not following California Labor codes and laws is criminal and subject to the full extent of the Law in California USA.


But no labor codes have been broken. Apple pays these employees for 8 hours a day (or however long their shift is) and the employees work 8 hours a day, probably less, even including the time they spend turnnig on their bloody computer.

If you believe employees can use Apple for the work they did while off the clock, why can't Apple countersue the employees for the work they didn't do while on the clock....all the bathroom breaks, all the coffee breaks, all the web surfing, all the chatting, etc?

[mkrishnan]

If you believe employees can use Apple for the work they did while off the clock, why can't Apple countersue the employees for the work they didn't do while on the clock....all the bathroom breaks, all the coffee breaks, all the web surfing, all the chatting, etc?

That's really not the way US Labor Law for hourly-wage employees works... for instance, just today, there was a study published about the frequency with which individuals earning at or near minimum wage are paid less than they are legally owed...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/us/02wage.html?hpw

Low-wage workers are routinely denied proper overtime pay and are often paid less than the minimum wage, according to a new study based on a survey of workers in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

The study, the most comprehensive examination of wage-law violations in a decade, also found that 68 percent of the workers interviewed had experienced at least one pay-related violation in the previous work week.

The study was conducted multi-site by major universities, and while I haven't seen the whole report yet, it looks reasonably credible.

It's common -- it's certainly not a case of Apple being an evil standout, but it doesn't seem like a case where there is absolutely no prima facie claim, either. For salaried workers (like myself), I do generally buy the pinch here, pinch there type of argument, but these individuals earn a lot less money than we do.

[The Reverend]

That's really not the way US Labor Law for hourly-wage employees works... for instance, just today, there was a study published about the frequency with which individuals earning at or near minimum wage are paid less than they are legally owed...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/us/02wage.html?hpw



The study was conducted multi-site by major universities, and while I haven't seen the whole report yet, it looks reasonably credible.

It's common -- it's certainly not a case of Apple being an evil standout, but it doesn't seem like a case where there is absolutely no prima facie claim, either. For salaried workers (like myself), I do generally buy the pinch here, pinch there type of argument, but these individuals earn a lot less money than we do.


Thank you for pointing out that Apple is NOT the only company in the USA that could be breaking labor laws or at least going around them.

The point has been .... Why should companies like Apple get away with this type of treatment of it's employees?

Apple like many companies has had the ability to totally remove this problem from the beginning and yet they did not.

We are NOT talking about salaried employees.. we are talking about hourly wages and overtime earned for regular employees.
:D

[killerrobot]

Thank you for pointing out that Apple is NOT the only company in the USA that could be breaking labor laws or at least going around them.

The point has been .... Why should companies like Apple get away with this type of treatment of it's employees?

Apple like many companies has had the ability to totally remove this problem from the beginning and yet they did not.

We are NOT talking about salaried employees.. we are talking about hourly wages and overtime earned for regular employees.
:D

There have been a few lawsuita against Starbucks in CA for similar "off the clock" no pay time for salary and non-salary employees.

http://www.starbucksunion.org/node/971
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/670267/starbucks_loses_105_million_lawsuit.html

I worked for Starbucks for a long time, as well as some other managers and in all honesty there was plenty of **** that we didn't get paid for, but none of us were ever going to join in on the lawsuit because in all honesty, we never really felt shafted. I guess everyone is different though.

[mkrishnan]

Thank you for pointing out that Apple is NOT the only company in the USA that could be breaking labor laws or at least going around them.

If you really value your cause, it would seem to serve you well to be able to tell the difference between your supporters and your opponents. Then again, maybe you don't really value your cause? ;)

[The Reverend]

The Appellants Opening Brief was filed on August 10 2009 in the Third Appellate District in CA USA.

C060412 ( Sacramento Superior Court No.07AS02124)

The discussion is still : Should companies like Apple,a big powerful USA businesses be allowed to just do as they wish with their employees?

Admitting that there are other companies that could be doing it is a mute point, they are and will continue to until someone says something about them.

We American's tend to stand up and say" Hey, don't tread on me", and what we mean by this is.. Don't walk on me at all.. not even a little or I'll bite you!

Apple is like many large US companies feel that they can walk on the backs of their employees, so a few at the top can get rich and the rest get a sore backsides.
:(
:apple:

[rdowns]

is a mute point

If only. :rolleyes:

[The Reverend]

The next step since an Appeal has been filed by Miles Maria's lawyers. Basically why an Appeal should be granted.

Is for Apple to file with the Appeals court in California , USA within 60 days of Miles Maria and his classes date of filing. Basically, why Apple thinks that an Appeal should not be granted. This could have happened already since it's been about 60 days since the first papers were filed by Miles Maria's lawyers.

Then after Miles Maria's lawyers gets their copy from Apple , they file their finial documents with the Appeals court. This is the rebuttal to Apple's reasons why no Appeal should be granted. This also can take 60+ days in some cases. So this could happen around the beginning of next year.

Then a date will be set for the verbal argument to begin in front of the 3 judges. Most likely in early 2010, maybe first quarter of the year.

Now it is possible for either side to back out if they wish, Apple could offer to settle if they don't want the case to go further. Or, Miles Maria's lawyers could tell him that they can't win after seeing Apple's Appeal documents.

I would think that Apple would not want to go further. Due to this could be negative PR ,if Miles Maria could win in Appeals court. And maybe cost them more then they wish.

Most likely Apple will not offer to settle and fight. The case will drag on another year or more. Like most of these cases do.

If I can get a copy of the Appeal's documents from both sides from the courts, I'll share those as well. The Appeals court in Sacramento, CA, USA is where all documents are now accessible.

[yg17]

I would think that Apple would not want to go further. Due to this could be negative PR ,if Miles Maria could win in Appeals court. And maybe cost them more then they wish.

If by negative PR, you mean one person posting these complaints on an internet forum filled with Apple fanboys and apologists, I don't think they have a whole lot to worry about.

[dejo]

The next step since an Appeal has been filed by Miles Maria's lawyers. Basically why an Appeal should be granted.
If an appeal has been filed, does that mean we already have a ruling on the original case? What was it?

[belvdr]

a mute point

How about you getting back to being mute? I think everyone would appreciate it.

[The Reverend]

If an appeal has been filed, does that mean we already have a ruling on the original case? What was it?


As far as I know. The appeals court has made no rulings.

This most likely will happen beginning of next year. Both side have several documents to deliver to the courts before the year is out.

[Apple Genius]

I bet that all the things that are against the law they did here in CA are also against the law in other states as well...

Nope... Just California. :o

[bruinsrme]

Nope... Just California. :o

California labor laws are very liberal and favors the employees.

Intel used to operate all their US fabs under California laws. When they switch the Massachusetts fab to Mass labor laws I lost $l09 every 2 weeks

[The Reverend]

Nope... Just California. :o


You think that CA is 1 in 50?

You really think it's the only state with labor laws that cover overtime pay?

WOW.. !! :rolleyes:

I guess it could be true the CA takes better care of it's people that live in the state.. I don't know.

It doesn't feel like it when big companies like Apple or Intell can have their employees do things that skirt the law. Using plausible deniability, and as soon as it's noticed. Oh .. They suddenly have a fix for it now, to avoid it in the future.

When all along it was possible that any of the project managers or other specialists employed could have easily projected that employees could have this behavior in a call center. Apples computer operating systems OS8 to X have had the ability do do what they do now, to avoid the issue. Thats many many years of ability... I mean.. really OS 8 had the ability to have a startup script.. yet it took Apple until this issue to have a written policy about how computers startup scripts in relation to employee work start time and login.

Maybe CA is the place where a lot of Law is written.. hummm I don't know.. fate plays it's hand when and where it feels like it.

It is possible that the Call Centers Apple has across the county all made the change at the same time. Or it could be possible that Apple has employees that continue this behavior unaware of what is happening in CA.

PERHAPS, the worlds lawyers watch CA law changes to build their own cases with?

QUESTIONS AND THE MORE QUESTIONS.. :confused:

TIME HAS THE ANSWER.:D

[dejo]

As far as I know. The appeals court has made no rulings.
I realize that. But I thought that in order for an appeal to be filed, there would have to be a ruling on the original case. What was the outcome?

[belvdr]

I can't believe he keeps coming back to post updates on a subject nobody cares about except him.

[The Reverend]

I realize that. But I thought that in order for an appeal to be filed, there would have to be a ruling on the original case. What was the outcome?

"ruling on the original case:

The class certification was not granted.

The first court ruled that certain parts of a class action were not meet.

example: like the part for how many people are involved

Please read the documents filed with the courts..posted on the first page of this discussion.
---------

closing note

Apple and Miles Maria's lawyers have filed their briefs. The court date for the oral argument should be set in the next 60 days.
;)

[mojohanna]

So wait, let me get this straight. Employees are complaining that they must boot their computer and wait for like what, a maximum of a minute, before they log into their computer?

Here is a thought for them, how many of these wheeze bags logged into their computers, clocked in and immediately got up and went to get coffee, go to the bathroom, fix their hair, finish their makeup, or otherwise spent 5-10 min of Apple's paid time not actually working?

The bottom line is you are expected to be at work and ready to work at your start time. If I am understanding this correctly, this is a huge BS play here. Its whats wrong with our legal system, wrong with our court system and one of the reasons why prices are artificially higher in our country than need be and is also a contributing factor to jobs being moved overseas (IMO).

[jimmyjoemccrow]

I can't believe he keeps coming back to post updates on a subject nobody cares about except him.

I care. I read this thread months ago and was interested. Then it dropped off the first page and I forgot about it. I am interested in how cases like this progress.

[mojohanna]

If only. :rolleyes:

LOL

[yg17]

Here is a thought for them, how many of these wheeze bags logged into their computers, clocked in and immediately got up and went to get coffee, go to the bathroom, fix their hair, finish their makeup, or otherwise spent 5-10 min of Apple's paid time not actually working?


I asked the OP the same question on multiple occasions and never got a response, so don't hold your breath ;)

The fact of the matter is, unless these employees worked every second, from when they clocked in, until when they clocked out, they may have a case. But no employee, I don't care how good they are, does that.

[The Reverend]

This is the a PDF copy of what is called the Appellants Brief.

It basically says why the first ruling should be overturned. Please read it carefully.

It makes some interesting statements about the courts.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/24192697

Happy Holidays All
:D

[Kristenn]

Who is Apple Computers?

This company does not exist! Oh sorry. I just had to post a spam post! But really, it amazes me how many people still call them Apple Computers inc. (Or computer... which ever it was)

I'm pretty sure they changed it to Apple inc. like... 3 years or so ago.

[The Reverend]

All documents related to the Court of Appeals in Sacramento , CA.

Both side now are waiting for the court to make a ruling or to start the oral arguments. In many cases the court of appeals wants both sides to have their arguments before the 3 judges that will over see this case.


So it could go:
1. The Court rules in favor of the Apple Employees and grants the certification of the Class Action against Apple and the case moves on to next step.

2. The Court rules on Apple side and declines the class certification and end of story.

3. The oral argument begin sometime in exit few months.


An so the discussion was about:

How can big companies like Apple in Ca, USA get away with this typer of behavior? All these big companies have people that could tell them all about how to avoid this type of thing and yet, it still happens.

Could it be that all these companies are aware that it could happen, but choose to look the other way until they are forced to address it. Which saves these companies millions on the bottom line.

Apple, Inc. is the example of a company in question, but surely there have been other large companies that have been brought before the court for this type of issue. I don't happen to have a list. But a list is provided in the Case by the lawyers on the Apple employees side. If you wish to see what other company have already been successfully sued you can find a list in the case.
:rolleyes:

I think it's time for the CA government to crack down on large companies for this and make an example of them to other states in the union that also have companies doing the same behaviors.
;)

[The Reverend]

The court date is expected soon.

The the oral arguments start.

[*LTD*]

Rofl.

[samiwas]

You said
"Do these people work 100% of the time they are on the clock, never doing anything personal like talking to a coworker or checking personal email?"

You have got to be kidding right? Tell me .. who works 100% of the time.. that is NOT the point at all...

The point is,, working before the clock starts is wrong.. period.

OK, so this is an old thread, but it's like a train wreck. I've been reading every post for the past hour just befuddled. So I'm going to clarify TheReverend's position here so that we are all on the same page.

"Tell me..who works 100% of the time"...This basically means, in his own mind, and really any sane person's mind, that no one works 100% of the time they are on the clock. But that is OK, and normal, and acceptable. The company should understand that, even though you are on the clock and being paid by them, that you don't have to work the ENTIRE time.

HOWEVER, it is completely abhorrent that you might have to do things in order to be prepared for your shift (ie: off-the-clock booting of a computer).

Reverend, you are specifically saying that it IS ok for the employee to not work 100% of the time when they ARE being paid, but it is NOT ok for the employee to have to do two minutes of work BEFORE being paid. So at the end of the day, the company might well be paying the employee for 5 or 10 or 30 minutes they did not work (when they went to pee or get a drink of water). You are truly a leech and really must have some other issues in your life if this is actually that important to you.

I am a stagehand. If I receive a call for a job at 8am, that means that we start work **AT** 8AM. That means that you are clocked in, tools on, bathroom business done, and ON stage READY to work **AT** 8am. You do not show up at 8:01am. You do not start putting your tools on at 8am. You do not clock in at 8am. You WORK at 8am. If you do not have your tools on, ready to go at 8am, you are sent home immediately, and a replacement is brought in for you. In fact, you will usually get a phone call if you are not signed in 10 minutes ahead. You have a problem with that? Fine. You don't work. There's no requirement saying they have to use you.

If you brought your pathetic work ethic to my place, you'd be on the street before you could even clock out.

I worked for a company once that had a no-facial-hair policy. A group of total loser asshats tried to stir up trouble saying they should now be paid 24 hours a day since they must be shaven at all times. I really wanted to kick one of them in the junk.

The funnier part is how much of a complete lack of knowledge you have for the class-action process, and then tell A LAWYER that he is wrong. HAHAHA.

And stop saying, "That's not the issue here." Yes, we understand that your issue is thinking that Apple owes you (Miles) pay for "working" off the clock. I don't think a single person has agreed with you on this. Because your issue is a total non-issue, and the REAL issue is that no one was being screwed.

[The Reverend]

This a another case , in another State. But the facts are very interesting and almost the same as the case in this discussion.

http://www.plansponsor.com/Ex_Amex_Travel_Workers_File_FLSA_Overtime_Suit.aspx

Hummmmm.
:cool:

[dukebound85]

Well of course they do.

But this is America and we all have the right to free speech.

If Apple thinks they can threaten people and deny them the right to speak their thoughts and beliefs. Then Apple should go to some other country that doesn't give the right to say your mind.

I would suggest that current employees post without using their real names Since Apple is known to be an jerk and hold people back that do not conform to the Apple secret society wish's.

Here a tiny bit for you all.

When the Class Action Suit started, Apple had to change it's internal policies to have all computers power on and other login features before each agent was allowed to login to the system and start their time on the clock. This only happened AFTER the suit began. It wasn't like they could not have done that years before, but they didn't. This is true for all the Apple call centers across the world I would guess.

Well you did sign an agreement to not post on forums when you decided to work with apple

Dont like it, dont work for apple....nothing to do with free speech

I find this to be a silly case personally

Do you know flight attendants dont get paid until they are on the plane? On layovers in the airport, r being at the airport while not on a plane, they dont get paid. Thats one industry out of many others that are like that in a sense

******** about turning on computers....seriously:rolleyes:

They're actually running with this same case at a lot of companies. I think it's a little nit-picky if you ask me, but have fun. Maybe some day you'll get your check for $3.47 in the mail

One can only dream of that much fortune.


OP: You lnow that EVERY salaried job is based off a 40hr work week for most part and we are all expected to do casual overtime if need be and not be compensated for it.

Working at apple doesnt require a special skill set. if I were apple, I would fire all you people for making such a dumb case. Once you get a reality check, you will realize how stupid this case is
Ha... a non-disclosure agreement.

I know that, but that is not what we are talking about.

Apple goes through a lot of trouble to keep their people held down.

I do understand that they have the right to protect their products and that non-disclosure agreement is that that reason.

At what point does this non-disclosure agreement become a breach of the law for free speech tho?

Those non-disclosure agreements are only for Apples benefit, and do nothing for the employees rights.

I say..BAAAA.. to non-disclosure agreements.. as long as you have to cover up a breach of the Law. No one should have to sign something that could cause them to become a not report an employer that is breaking the law.:eek:

Wow. So you have no issue breaking the terms of employment with apple on your end by ignoring the NDA that YOU signed to even work there and are fileing a class action suit for apple potentially not holding theirs up.

How ironic
Miles Maria and the other Plaintiffs are not being charged any legal fees and that the lawyers PETER M. HART and KENNETH H. YOON have petitioned the courts for there fees.

Go to Sacramento County Records office and superior court house and get a copy of the records yourself.

Jeebus, what a WASTE of PUBLIC tax money and time

I am quite pissed at this whole suit to be honest
Humm After i suggest that it could be over a million dollars owed.

But I thought this wasn't about the money....

No one had any logic why i was wrong, so I must be very close to the truth.
:)

I think you are new to the workforce and don't know what is expected when you take a job and are ******** when you arent being paid for the first minute

Hell, why not petition for wages on your drive to work?
Then that's a violation of free speech. I think this thread is stupid, but you're being complacent in censorship.

Hardly

I cant go talk about classified stuff and use "free speech" as my defense. You need to study up on what "free speech" is maxrobertson

BTW I am a Reverend in a church. And it's part of my title. So I am allowed to use it when I wish.

When you make up a church "Church of Creativity", you can be called anything you want I suppose eh?

I mean that is what you post in your profile "TheReverend" or should I say MilesMaria....
http://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendMilesMaria
The court date is expected soon.

The the oral arguments start.

Haha...oral arguments huh? You ready to get embarrassed by apple when they say "well you don't work 100% of time when on clock"

[TechieJustin]

did anyone notice the OP used the wrong version of the word "their" in his first post?

[DesignerOnMac]

Well of course they do.

But this is America and we all have the right to free speech.

If Apple thinks they can threaten people and deny them the right to speak their thoughts and beliefs. Then Apple should go to some other country that doesn't give the right to say your mind.

I would suggest that current employees post without using their real names Since Apple is known to be an jerk and hold people back that do not conform to the Apple secret society wish's.

Here a tiny bit for you all.

When the Class Action Suit started, Apple had to change it's internal policies to have all computers power on and other login features before each agent was allowed to login to the system and start their time on the clock. This only happened AFTER the suit began. It wasn't like they could not have done that years before, but they didn't. This is true for all the Apple call centers across the world I would guess.

Guess you haven't done any research on the Patriot Act when Bush was president! We all lost a lot of our freedoms. Tried wearing a negative political t-shirt at the airport? Raised your voice at the airport? Have you applied for a new drivers license since 911? And so much more....

[TechieJustin]

Guess you haven't done any research on the patriot Act when Bush was president! We all lost a lot of our freedoms. Tried wearing a negative political t-shirt at the airport? Raised your voice at the airport? have you applied for a new drivers license since 911? And so much more....

The Patriot Act has to do with national security - not corporate America.
By definition a corporation or private entity cannot violate your constitutional right. The US constitution puts restrictions on the government - not the people.
For example, if I try to interfere with somebody making a negative post/speech/whatever against my company - that may be a violation of civil law. Now if a police officer tried to prevent somebody from making negative remarks about the mayer, that's different because he is acting on behalf of the government.

The US Constitution shouldn't belong in a discussion about a corporation.

[dukebound85]

The Patriot Act has to do with national security - not corporate America.
By definition a corporation or private entity cannot violate your constitutional right. The US constitution puts restrictions on the government - not the people.
For example, if I try to interfere with somebody making a negative post/speech/whatever against my company - that may be a violation of civil law. Now if a police officer tried to prevent somebody from making negative remarks about the mayer, that's different because he is acting on behalf of the government.

The US Constitution shouldn't belong in a discussion about a corporation.

Wrong

You do not have the right to free speech to say anything and everything you want wherever you want

[TechieJustin]

Wrong

You do not have the right to free speech to say anything and everything you want wherever you want

Incorrect with regards to the US Constitution.
Going outside and yelling "dukebound85 sleeps with sheep!!" Is not a violation of anything in the US Constitution. It can be, however a violation of civil law. If you think it is a violation of the US Constitution - which amendment.

I keep emphasizing US Constitution because the piece of crap EU Constitution may be different.

[JNB]

Incorrect with regards to the US Constitution.
Going outside and yelling "dukebound85 sleeps with sheep!!" Is not a violation of anything in the US Constitution. It can be, however a violation of civil law. If you think it is a violation of the US Constitution - which amendment.

I keep emphasizing US Constitution because the piece of crap EU Constitution may be different.


Try yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater and see how far a 1st Amendment claim will get you. :rolleyes:

[rhett7660]

Or better yet, "I have a bomb strapped to me", or "give me the money in the cash register"... hmmmmmmm

[TechieJustin]

Try yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater and see how far a 1st Amendment claim will get you. :rolleyes:

That is a violation of civil law - not the constitution.

[TechieJustin]

Or better yet, "I have a bomb strapped to me", or "give me the money in the cash register"... hmmmmmmm

That would be armed robbery. Again, another violation of criminal law - not the US Constitution.
That's the distinction.

[dukebound85]

That is a violation of civil law - not the constitution.

That would be armed robbery. Again, another violation of criminal law - not the US Constitution.
That's the distinction.

The flaw with that argument is that the US Constitution trumps any "civil law"

The point is that there is indeed limitations to freedom of speech defined by SCOTUS

Want evidence? look at Schenk v. U.S. (1919)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

In summary.... it states a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a "clear and present danger" — i.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent.

No civil law about it..its been defined in SCOTUS cases

[TechieJustin]

The flaw with that argument is that the US Constitution trumps any "civil law"

The point is that there is indeed limitations to freedom of speech defined by SCOTUS

Want evidence? look at Schenk v. U.S. (1919)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

In summary.... it states a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a "clear and present danger" — i.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent.

No civil law about it..its been defined in SCOTUS cases

That case is irrelevant to what we're discussing.

I'm trying to argue that the USC puts restrictions on the government - not the people.
chenk v. U.S. set a precedent that if you yell something crazy that can potentially endanger lives - your ass is grass.

I san sit around and make a webpage saying Microsoft sucks. Or Apple sucks. Apple can't do anything under the guise of the Constitution. They can sue me for libel which is a violation of code law.

I've discussed this very issue with my law professor when I got my Masters.

The only was I as a private citizen of the US can violate your constitutional rights is if I held you as a slave.

[rhett7660]

That would be armed robbery. Again, another violation of criminal law - not the US Constitution.
That's the distinction.

Should of put a smiley at the end of it.. I was being sarcastic regarding the post right above mine...... sorry bout that.

[JNB]

That is a violation of civil law - not the constitution.

That would be armed robbery. Again, another violation of criminal law - not the US Constitution.
That's the distinction.

I'm sorry, but your concept of civil and criminal law, and the protections of the Constitution are fairly twisted to the point of making my head hurt.

Civil and criminal laws in this country have to pass constitutional muster. They are restrictions on the individual citizenry; the Constitution—through the Amendments—places limits on the power of the government, which is why any civil argument or criminal action can be appealed through the judiciary up to and including the Supreme Court, and there the final determination of the constitutionality of the underlying law is put to test. One is neither sued nor arrested for "violating the Constitution," and that wasn't the claim of either of us; your post claiming Constitutional protections is faulty, and laws can be and are drafted and enforced to restrict behavior and seek redress without running afoul of the Constitution.

One doesn't need a law degree to understand this. I think you should get your money back for that Masters. :rolleyes:

[niuniu]

So what happened with the class action in the end?

[dukebound85]

That case is irrelevant to what we're discussing.

I'm trying to argue that the USC puts restrictions on the government - not the people.
chenk v. U.S. set a precedent that if you yell something crazy that can potentially endanger lives - your ass is grass.

I san sit around and make a webpage saying Microsoft sucks. Or Apple sucks. Apple can't do anything under the guise of the Constitution. They can sue me for libel which is a violation of code law.

I've discussed this very issue with my law professor when I got my Masters.

The only was I as a private citizen of the US can violate your constitutional rights is if I held you as a slave.
No it is not irrelevant

You say there are no restrictions on free speech. I gave you SCOTUS cases saying there are

Meanwhile you are trying to say there are NO restrictions:rolleyes:
I'm sorry, but your concept of civil and criminal law, and the protections of the Constitution are fairly twisted to the point of making my head hurt.

Civil and criminal laws in this country have to pass constitutional muster. They are restrictions on the individual citizenry; the Constitution—through the Amendments—places limits on the power of the government, which is why any civil argument or criminal action can be appealed through the judiciary up to and including the Supreme Court, and there the final determination of the constitutionality of the underlying law is put to test. One is neither sued nor arrested for "violating the Constitution," and that wasn't the claim of either of us; your post claiming Constitutional protections is faulty, and laws can be and are drafted and enforced to restrict behavior and seek redress without running afoul of the Constitution.

Well said

[TechieJustin]

No it is not irrelevant

You say there are no restrictions on free speech. I gave you SCOTUS cases saying there are

Meanwhile you are trying to say there are NO restrictions:rolleyes:


That's not what I said - where are you getting that?
I said the US Constitution is a restriction on the government. I also said you can saw whatever you want about another private entity - person, corporation without violating their constitutional rights - because I am not an agent for the government.
If a police officer, mayor, goes around saying you sleep with sheep - that's different.
If I do it, you can visit a lawyer and try to sue me - beyond that there's nothing you can do.

mychryslersucks.com, www.daimlerchryslervehicleproblem, the HP sucks website - all of these websites exist and there's nothing Chrysler or HP can do about it.

I love how you people always take the one exception to the rule and try to apply it as if it were a common situation.
The scotus case you cited is way out of the scope of this "discussion." Saying Apple sucks is very different than yelling fire in a crowded theater, or shouting "kill the prez!!"
If you can't see the difference you're more daft than I originally anticipated. Which is saying alot.

[dukebound85]

Try yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater and see how far a 1st Amendment claim will get you. :rolleyes:

Or better yet, "I have a bomb strapped to me", or "give me the money in the cash register"... hmmmmmmm

That is a violation of civil law - not the constitution.

That would be armed robbery. Again, another violation of criminal law - not the US Constitution.
That's the distinction.

That's not what I said - where are you getting that?
I said the US Constitution is a restriction on the government. I also said you can saw whatever you want about another private entity - person, corporation without violating their constitutional rights - because I am not an agent for the government.
If a police officer, mayor, goes around saying you sleep with sheep - that's different.
If I do it, you can visit a lawyer and try to sue me - beyond that there's nothing you can do.

mychryslersucks.com, www.daimlerchryslervehicleproblem, the HP sucks website - all of these websites exist and there's nothing Chrysler or HP can do about it.

I love how you people always take the one exception to the rule and try to apply it as if it were a common situation.
The scotus case you cited is way out of the scope of this "discussion." Saying Apple sucks is very different than yelling fire in a crowded theater, or shouting "kill the prez!!"
If you can't see the difference you're more daft than I originally anticipated. Which is saying alot.

Excuse me? Look at the first two quoted posts. Ok do it? good

Now look at your repsponse saying those are not violations of free speech but of civil law.

Now look at the court case I cited which states this in the passage
"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

There is limitations on free speech. That is our point you are missing COMPLETELY



The scotus case you cited is way out of the scope of this "discussion."
Hardly. The clear and present danger precedent on freedom of speech as outlined in this case goeas AGAINST your response to the post concerning yelling fire.....
Saying Apple sucks is very different than yelling fire in a crowded theater, or shouting "kill the prez!!"

Well yea, that is our entire point! The point being that there ARE limitations on freedom of speech:rolleyes:

If you can't see the difference you're more daft than I originally anticipated. Which is saying alot.

I see the difference as that is the ENTIRE point I have been making. You however seem to been argueing there are no limitations to freedom of speech when there clearly are

Might help if you knew what you were really arguing..:cool:

[TechieJustin]

Excuse me? Look at the first two quoted posts. Ok do it? good

Might help if you knew what you were really arguing..:cool:

This is my final post on this issue. It is not a limitation on freedom of speech, but a restriction on endangering the public.
This isn't Europe - the government isn't in every aspect of its citizen's lives. Private entities can battle private entities all they want without involving the government/constitution.
I don't know why that's so hard to understand.

[dukebound85]

This is my final post on this issue. It is not a limitation on freedom of speech, but a restriction on endangering the public.
This isn't Europe - the government isn't in every aspect of its citizen's lives. Private entities can battle private entities all they want without involving the government/constitution.
I don't know why that's so hard to understand.


It isn't

Just that you seem to think that yelling fire in a theater is covered by freedom of speech when it isn't as that is spelled out in the SCOTUS case

I don't know why that's so hard to understand.

[The Reverend]

So what happened with the class action in the end?


No date for the oral arguments has been set.

There has NOT been a settlement offer.

There has NOT been a ruling yet.

The case is still in Sacramento, CA USA

Like most of these cases.. they take a long time to get anywhere.

Yes, I know.. this process does take way to long to resolve.

Keep watching.. We will know the answers to all the questions soon.
;)
:cool:

[The Reverend]

American Express VS Travel Workers


This a another case , in another State. But the facts are very interesting and almost the same as the case in this discussion.

http://www.plansponsor.com/Ex_Amex_T...time_Suit.aspx

Hummmmm. How come no ones seems to notice that this is happening all over the country and many many people seem to feel that Big Business is ripping them off.

So.. the discussion was.. why to big companies like Apple think that this behavior is OK and not do anything about it till someone complains.

:confused:

[The Reverend]

Well last week the case went before the judges. Or it could have, unless someone pulled out.

It should take 1-4 months for the judges to rule.

Now we wait and see what's next.
:confused:
:eek:
;)

[belvdr]

This thread is making me sleepy.

[The Reverend]

This thread is making me sleepy.

I guess your really bored and have nothing else to to be comment on things you don't care about.:confused:

I can not imagine why you would do such a thing, but the world is filled with all types of people.:rolleyes:

This group of posting are for those people that actually care and continue to read and watch as time go buy.

Sharing life's story's and trials is it's all about you know. This is a heads up many people that are wondering if the company they work for is screwing them or not.:(

I can say... that at least Apple has not acted like BP and claimed to know nothing and have it all under control. Apple did after all change the internal policies for call center agent login right after the case started back in 2007.


So Mr. Maria and his lawyers did win a moral victory and they did get Apple to change and acknowledge that change was needed. Now the real question is..

Why did Apple wait to be confronted about it to make the change? Apple had the ability to alter it's policies back as far as 1998 when they opened the Elk Grove call center.. humm?:confused:

Well.. we all wait to see what the Judges will say. 1-4 month we should know. To all you people out there that used to work for Apple, now is the time to write the lawyers and judges and tell them your stories... or just watch and see what happens next.

Mr. Maria could still go to private court and file a claim or her could build a new group of people and start al over again. One never knows how these will come out .:o

One thing can be said: Apple pulled out all the stops to shut this case down. I understand that Apple had a team of 7 lawyers fight Mr. Maria's 3 lawyers.. and thats only the lawyers we know of.. how many other lawyers that worked for Apple and actually touched the case is most likely many more.

You would think that if Apple thought they were in the right.. they would only need 1 or 2 lawyers..humm?:eek:

:apple:;)