Apple Retail Employees File Class Action Lawsuit Over 'Bag Check' Lost Wages

[xxBURT0Nxx]

The fact that you signed a contract doesn't mean that everything in it is valid and you cannot complain about it.

why on earth would you sign a contract that you didn't agree with? That's like saying oh I want to buy this house so I'm going to sign the mortgage paperwork, even though I don't agree that I should be paying $4,500 a month. I believe that the house should only cost me $3,750 a month.

But don't worry, I'm going to sign the contract that I don't find valid nor agree with, and I'll just complain about it later on....

This is the kind of logic that proves why America is going downhill.....

 

[mikecwest]

My employer's computers take soooo long to boot up. And I am forced to wait for them to load before I can clock in. Time to sue for 10 years of backpay.

That is illegal, at least in California. I used to work for an employer that had "work sites" at many locations, and my work placed varied. At one location, they would threaten to "write me up" for not being at work 30 minutes before my assigned shift. I would, each time, inform them that, the practice was (and still is now 15 years later) illegal. They got sued and had to pay penalties to the workers that were short changed, along with back pay to all of them. (I was not included, because I refused to comply with the required thirty minute early arrival.)

In California, the law requires that "all hours work, must be paid". If the employer says that you MUST be there thirty minutes before your shift, it is considered hours worked.

Oh, and those "off the clock" mandatory meetings? If the work "required" or "mandatory" are included in the notice, or any indication of reprimand, or reprisal for failure to appear at the meeting, means they have to pay you.

I have seen numerous illegal practices by employer's (not my current employer), however have never participated in any of the lawsuits I have seen occur. I proactively stand up for my rights in advance. My current employer always complies with labor laws, and their compliance make me think that my previous employer violated the meal break laws in my state. (I did not attempt to pursue any action. I don't mind benefitting from these laws, however I do feel they might be unfair to the employer at times.)


California is from I understand the most Employee friendly state.

Apple can easily remedy this, by having the "clock out" immediately after the manager checks their bags.

I am not affiliated with these two websites, but anyone concerned with their rights should check them out. www.gotmealbreaks.com and www.gotovertime.com .

 

[appleisking]

What about my argument is invalid? Good response...

So let me ask you should I be paid for the time I wait at the security gate to get to my office building? How about the time I have to wait for doors to open after I swipe my access card so that I can leave the building? Granted it’s only a couple seconds per door here and there; but I clock out and I have to walk through 5 locked doors UNPAID just to get outside. I suppose I should have a right to being paid that time I lose back because it’s not fair that I wait for security doors to open ON MY TIME!!!

That’s seriously how pathetic of an argument it is to get paid for waiting on a security checkpoint.

Welcome to the real world… almost EVERY large company has some form of security you must pass through to get to and/or from work. What are you guys going to do? Sue every employer because you lost a minute here or there?

If the security check takes an unreasonable amount of time (I would say anything more than a few minutes), then yes there's no reason for you to have to sit there on your own time and wait. That would mean its an inefficient system and it needs to be changed. You have people waiting for up to 15 minutes (so that means for some people, half their lunch break is lost), don't you think that's unreasonable? The situation here takes far more time and also happens on their lunch break.

 

[Terrified]

What about my argument is invalid? Good response...

So let me ask you should I be paid for the time I wait at the security gate to get to my office building? How about the time I have to wait for doors to open after I swipe my access card so that I can leave the building? Granted it’s only a couple seconds per door here and there; but I clock out and I have to walk through 5 locked doors UNPAID just to get outside. I suppose I should have a right to being paid that time I lose back because it’s not fair that I wait for security doors to open ON MY TIME!!!

That’s seriously how pathetic of an argument it is to get paid for waiting on a security checkpoint.

Welcome to the real world… almost EVERY large company has some form of security you must pass through to get to and/or from work. What are you guys going to do? Sue every employer because you lost a minute here or there?

All of the things you've listed would be classed as reasonable requirements for most employers - building security, doors unlocking, lifts moving etc are all things that are, more often than not, necessary.

A blanket bag search of every employee isn't - it's being done at the behest of Apple. It's entirely their choice. Ergo, if it costs the employee in terms of time, Apple should pay for it.

----------

why on earth would you sign a contract that you didn't agree with? That's like saying oh I want to buy this house so I'm going to sign the mortgage paperwork, even though I don't agree that I should be paying $4,500 a month. I believe that the house should only cost me $3,750 a month.

But don't worry, I'm going to sign the contract that I don't find valid nor agree with, and I'll just complain about it later on....

This is the kind of logic that proves why America is going downhill.....

Is there a difference between a contract and a company handbook in America? Because there is in the UK. If it's the same over there, the bag search policy won't be in the contract. There'll be a clause in the contract stating that you have to adhere to the policies stated in the handbook, but that those policies can change any time based on any number of things, including changes in the law.

 

[Tinmania]

I work for a law firm that practices, among other things employment law. We are also very risk averse when it comes to things like this, always erring on the side of avoiding litigation. Incidentally, my firm is also very humane and employee friendly, generally speaking.

Our policy for hourly workers is that they are to be at their desks, logged in and ready to work when their "shift" starts. I would imagine that our HR department would not mandate this if there were a precedent that would expose the company to risk. Incidentally, the company is very, very sensitive to hourly employees working from home, as they do not want to risk getting in trouble for not paying employees for their time.

My point to all of this is that I do not believe my company would have their policy the way it is were it not already established in common law. But this should be interesting, because I could see a jury being convinced to find in favor of the plaintiffs if the case law was murky.

What the heck are you going off about? I see nothing that resembles the subject at hand.



Michael

 

[jlgolson]

That is not even close to the same thing, we all can get technical with any other anology. The nearest place for me to park at my work is apr 9 min away by foot, I am not compensated for that time. Its not my fault my employer doesnt have adequate parking closer to my work station. I should be compensated form th emoment I physically arrive on my employers property. Shouldnt I? No, I shouldnt. I also have to wear button down shirts and slacks to work, shouldnt they have to pay for that? I mean if I were at home I'd be in some shorts and tshirt. I should be reimbursed for having to follow there dress code. Right? No, there are certain things I have to deal with if I want to work here, I agree to them and gladly take home my salary.

I didn't realize that federal labor law addressed parking distance. In this case, the plaintiffs believe that labor law does address their situation since they are being held on work property without pay.

 

[xxBURT0Nxx]

If the security check takes an unreasonable amount of time (I would say anything more than a few minutes), then yes there's no reason for you to have to sit there on your own time and wait. That would mean its an inefficient system and it needs to be changed. You have people waiting for up to 15 minutes (so that means for some people, half their lunch break is lost), don't you think that's unreasonable? The situation here takes far more time and also happens on their lunch break.

The law does not state that you can ONLY have a 30 minute lunch, it states that you must take AT LEAST a 30 minute lunch. If I wait 10 minutes for security to check my bags, I can still take a "40" minute lunch so that I don't "lose" my 30 minute break....

And NO, I should not be paid because I sometimes wait 5-10 minutes to get through a security checkpoint at work. When a new shift comes on there can be as many as a few hundred people trying to get here at the same time. I'm not going to sue my company because we have to wait at the security gate to get to the office... just absurd.

All of the things you've listed would be classed as reasonable requirements for most employers - building security, doors unlocking, lifts moving etc are all things that are, more often than not, necessary.

A blanket bag search of every employee isn't - it's being done at the behest of Apple. It's entirely their choice. Ergo, if it costs the employee in terms of time, Apple should pay for it.

The security gate and locked doors are done at the behest of my company. It's entirely their choice, so why should I have to wait on my own time for their choices???

People will just do anything to get their free money, thinking they are entitled to everything. The real world is going to be a harsh place for you...

 

[Rossatron]

seems unfair.
plus, it's nothing you cant solve in the first place with some creativity. if they worry so much that they inspect employees bags, they could implement a locker system that opens at shift start/end and at break time.

 

[Tinmania]

Checking employees bags before leaving the store is common practice for retail stores, especially those that operate in shopping malls. I worked at Banana Republic for 4 years, patiently waited for managers to check my bags before leaving the store after the end of my shifts, don't have a problem with it....these clowns are just trying to get money out of Apple, simply nonsense.....

Forcing African Americans to use separate bathrooms and drinking fountains was "common practice" not too long ago in the southern US. Since it was "common practice" I guess it should have been OK to continue it, right?



Michael

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

By this I mean why do I have to make accommodations for the fact that you don't own a car?

--

When I was young I worked two jobs and went to school so I could have a nice car. If someone doesn't want to make that sacrifice then fine. But, if you don't have a car and have to take public transportation and that means you have to bring a bag and have it searched, then that is just too bad for you. It's part of a series of life choices you can make.

I imagine that sounds harsh,

--

As to your point of bringing an umbrella or other bags to work, I would again just ask, who should pay for your right to bring an umbrella?

Maybe I'm wrong, but, I'm guessing that you live in a dry place where everyone drives everywhere. Sure, you can leave everything in the car. Believe it or not, some people live in cities where it rains and either don't have or can't drive cars to work. I would think that Apple, or any other retailer, would factor that into their store design.

How do you know? Maybe they do need medical supplies. Also, not everyone has a car you know. Particularly people making a sub-living wage in retail.

Already been over this argument many times… give it up, there are plenty of solutions where you don’t always need a bag. YES, there are SOME instances where a person may need a bag, but that is not a majority situation. People are acting like it’s impossible to go to work without a bag. If they got rid of searching the people who really don’t need to bring bags, there would be less wait time for those who actually DO need bags. Problem is everyone thinks they are so entitled to free money because OMG I need to have a bag at work to hold my lunch… No you don’t plain and simple. This thread just goes to show why America is becoming such a lousy country with a pathetic workforce.

Yes, anyone who doesn't drive to work is a member of the pathetic workforce. What is America coming to?

 

[ScottNWDW]

The everyone else is doing it does not make it legal. You yet again are providing a reason why I want apple to get raked over the coals on this. It is force all the other retail to clean up its act. I would not be surpised if part of the reason Apple is being targeted is they know it is an open shut case and Apple getting nailed will force everyone else to clean up and shape up.

You will be amazed at how fast that 5-15 min wait will drop if Apple has to pay for it instead. Hell Apple would reduce it to less than 1 min as 1 min per shift per employee adds up REALLY fast.

Or, another thing they could say is "Remember that employee discount you used to get. That's right used to get. We are no longer offering an employee discount."

They are not required to offer such a discount and if employer offers such a discount, they can change that discount or eliminate it at their discretion. If I were in Tim Cook's shoes and lost this lawsuit, I would tell the retail employees to kiss their discounts good-bye.

 

[Aaargh!]

I don't understand why there are bag checks (which sounds highly illegal anyway). It basically means that Apple hires people they don't trust. If their employees can't be trusted, how can they expect me to hand in a computer full of potentially sensitive data to these people if it needs repairing ?

 

[Terrified]

The security gate and locked doors are done at the behest of my company. It's entirely their choice, so why should I have to wait on my own time for their choices???

People will just do anything to get their free money, thinking they are entitled to everything. The real world is going to be a harsh place for you...

Sorry, but it's not. Quite often security is dictated by other forces. Apple frequently has it's retail shops in malls and shopping centres - the security will be dictated by the owners of those premises.

I work in a building where the security is dictated by our government due to the nature of the contract/account we work on.

They're both reasonable things to expect in terms of getting into your place of work. A blanket bag search isn't. And, again, why just bags? Why not all pockets? Jackets? Anything you could hide an iPod in? It's arbitrary, and it's solely Apple's choice.

 

[mattster16]

The law does not state that you can ONLY have a 30 minute lunch, it states that you must take AT LEAST a 30 minute lunch. If I wait 10 minutes for security to check my bags, I can still take a "40" minute lunch so that I don't "lose" my 30 minute break....

Have you ever worked retail? Ha. When I was much younger and worked in retail we would get written up if we took even a 31 minute lunch. In retail you don't TAKE your lunch break, you are GIVEN your lunch break. You don't just get to decide to take a 40 minute lunch break. You have no say on when it occurs or how long it is. We also would be written up if we clocked in 2 minutes or more before or after our start time or clocked out more than 2 minutes before or after our end time. We would also be written up if we worked even a second more than 38 hours a week (even if we were in the middle of talking to a customer we were to walk away and clock out) - they of course didn't want to give any employees benefits or overtime pay.

 

[Bigdawg4]

I didn't realize that federal labor law addressed parking distance. In this case, the plaintiffs believe that labor law does address their situation since they are being held on work property without pay.

Im sorry, maybe I didnt explain it correctly. I just gave you an example of me being on my employers property while coming to work and parking(not to mention the 25 min I wait to go thru the security check points as it is a gov't facility), then having to walk on average 9 min to my work station. how is this not comparale to these plaintifs situation?

 

[unobtainium]

you can always quit and work somewhere else.

With that attitude we'll be able to match China's working conditions by 2020! Hoorah.

Instead, companies could just follow labor laws.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Or, another thing they could say is "Remember that employee discount you used to get. That's right used to get. We are no longer offering an employee discount."

They are not required to offer such a discount and if employer offers such a discount, they can change that discount or eliminate it at their discretion. If I were in Tim Cook's shoes and lost this lawsuit, I would tell the retail employees to kiss their discounts good-bye.

Apple stores, like any retail businesses, depend on the goodwill of their employees. You want people to work there who want to work there. If you treat your employees badly, you will get a different kind of employee and behavior.

 

[Terrified]

Im sorry, maybe I didnt explain it correctly. I just gave you an example of me being on my employers property while coming to work and parking(not to mention the 25 min I wait to go thru the security check points as it is a gov't facility), then having to walk on average 9 min to my work station. how is this not comparale to these plaintifs situation?

Because if you work at a government facility, a security check is reasonably expected. Walking to your workstation is a reasonable expectation. A blanket bag search of all employees is arguably not.

 

[xxBURT0Nxx]

Yes, anyone who doesn't drive to work is a member of the pathetic workforce. What is America coming to?

where did I state that??

The pathetic workforce comes from people who think they are entitled to a company bending over backwards to accommodate their every need because they have to do this, and i don't drive so you better make sure my work schedule accommodates the bus route, and I have school so you better give me a locker where I can store my school supplies. It’s just absurd to believe that every company should have to try to make sure every employees needs are met. You agree to work at a place that has procedures in place. If you don’t like those procedures don’t work there, plain and simple.

I’m sure those employees have no problem taking advantage of the VERY generous employee perks, but then they turn around and want to sue the same company over a couple lousy minutes they think they are entitled to be paid for??? Absurd. I’m sure all of the employees at these retail outlets never bend any rules, like not using their discount for friends and family either…

Sorry, but it's not. Quite often security is dictated by other forces. Apple frequently has it's retail shops in malls and shopping centres - the security will be dictated by the owners of those premises.

I work in a building where the security is dictated by our government due to the nature of the contract/account we work on.

They're both reasonable things to expect in terms of getting into your place of work. A blanket bag search isn't. And, again, why just bags? Why not all pockets? Jackets? Anything you could hide an iPod in? It's arbitrary, and it's solely Apple's choice.

oh, but a bag check isn't reasonable? They are only searching the bags because they have had problems with EMPLOYEES shoplifting... Apple having a bag check security is no different from a security guard at an entrance gate or security locked access card doors either....

 

[Mr Rabbit]

Apple only has lunch breaks of 30 minutes. If you count the bag check, it becomes less than that which needs to be inspected by law, which obv. was not.

FWIW I think this varies per state. We had one hour lunch breaks for both part time and full time employees.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

I don't understand why there are bag checks (which sounds highly illegal anyway). It basically means that Apple hires people they don't trust. If their employees can't be trusted, how can they expect me to hand in a computer full of potentially sensitive data to these people if it needs repairing ?

Good point, and, I basically agree with it. But, most businesses in retail have problems every now and then, and, will reserve the right to take some measures. The problem isn't 99% of the employees. It is how to keep the 1% of bad eggs in check. Which is one of many reasons why, by the way, that I would be running FileVault2 on any computer with "potentially sensitive data".

 

[thefourthpope]

wasnt expecting this from a company like apple.

Totally agree. Whatever comes of the case, I hope the (minimal) attention this receives brings a change in their retail procedures.
It's obviously not a scale with suicides in manufacturing stream, but it stems from the same idea of how your treatment of employees reflects your values.

 

[Terrified]

where did I state that??

The pathetic workforce comes from people who think they are entitled to a company bending over backwards to accommodate their every need because they have to do this, and i don't drive so you better make sure my work schedule accommodates the bus route, and I have school so you better give me a locker where I can store my school supplies. It’s just absurd to believe that every company should have to try to make sure every employees needs are met. You agree to work at a place that has procedures in place. If you don’t like those procedures don’t work there, plain and simple.

I’m sure those employees have no problem taking advantage of the VERY generous employee perks, but then they turn around and want to sue the same company over a couple lousy minutes they think they are entitled to be paid for??? Absurd. I’m sure all of the employees at these retail outlets never bend any rules, like not using their discount for friends and family either…

These things aren't mutually exclusive. Employers have needs of their employees, and employees have needs of their employers. Good employers will do their best to meet the needs of their employees. Good employees will do their best to meet the needs of their employers. It's a two way thing. I don't owe a company any more than they owe me, and vice versa. Good will on both sides goes a long, long way. It's why good employees find it easy to get good jobs, and good employers find it easy to find get good staff.

 

[BaldiMac]

It would never hold up. That is not an acceptable excuse in the eyes of the law here. You can not reasonably expect your employees never to bring personal belongings or bags to work.
Answer is if you want to check the bags and personal belongs it must be done ON THE CLOCK. It is not free. The solution is have a locker room and require all personal belongs to be put in there before clocking in and get them after clocking out. It must be close to where they work. Simple as that.
if you want to check them then you have to pay the employees. No ifs and or buts about it.

Can you please quote the relevant law that you are referencing here?

chances are no one has really fought it before. Or you do what other companies have done. They just give you the average time. AKA if it takes on average 5 mins for the computer to boot up. Guess what you add those 5 mins to your clock in time.
If you fill out your own time card that one you again add in the time on your own. Either way the company is paying for that time.
A lot of places will network boot their computers before the employees get in to solve this problem.

Except that I provided an example of a class action suit for this exact situation that was dismissed.

 

[thefourthpope]

Or, another thing they could say is "Remember that employee discount you used to get. That's right used to get. We are no longer offering an employee discount."

They are not required to offer such a discount and if employer offers such a discount, they can change that discount or eliminate it at their discretion. If I were in Tim Cook's shoes and lost this lawsuit, I would tell the retail employees to kiss their discounts good-bye.

Yeah! Tim Cook, multibillionaire leader of the most valuable company ever, getting vindictive against hourly employees asking to get paid for their time! Roll back that clock.

If I were in Tim Cook's shoes, regardless of the outcome of this lawsuit, I would change the policy and thank the retail employees for helping our company do so well.