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

[Terrified]

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....

A bag search is reasonable. But since it's entirely at the company's behest, they should pay for it.

And yes, there is a difference between those things. Again, for a start, security guards and locked access doors are often to do with the premises, not the company. You don't seem to have much appreciation of the fact that companies using retail space rarely own the buildings they're using. This is true of most businesses - you don't buy lots of property, you rent.

Searching a bag is absolutely, purely Apple's choice. They should therefore pay their employees if it impinges on their personal time. It's not Apple's time - it's the employee's. Simple as that, really.

 

[thefourthpope]

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

This whole thread is chock full of these types of ridiculous statements.

 

[mattster16]

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…

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....

1) When did anyone state work schedules need to be arranged around bus schedules?

2) VERY GENEROUS perks? Ha. Higher wages would be generous, perks are not. Oh and I know a thing or two about retail. Employee discounts are PROFITABLE to most retail establishments. As in, they recoup a fairly significant portion of the wages they pay out through them. When you are around cool products all day AND you get a discount (although marginal) you are likely to purchase them. Discounts are a greater net benefit to employers than they are to employees.

3) "Apple having a bag check security is no different from a security guard at an entrance gate or security locked access card doors either" ---- Yes, yes it is.

 

[xxBURT0Nxx]

A bag search is reasonable. But since it's entirely at the company's behest, they should pay for it.

And yes, there is a difference between those things. Again, for a start, security guards and locked access doors are often to do with the premises, not the company. You don't seem to have much appreciation of the fact that companies using retail space rarely own the buildings they're using. This is true of most businesses - you don't buy lots of property, you rent.

Searching a bag is absolutely, purely Apple's choice. They should therefore pay their employees if it impinges on their personal time. It's not Apple's time - it's the employee's. Simple as that, really.

And again I am telling you... it is ENTIRELY the company that I work for‘s choice to require us to go through a security gate. It’s ENTIRELY their choice to require us to walk through 5 security doors just to exit the building. I am not the one deciding that. THE COMPANY IS! Just like apple is the one deciding to require a bag check. At least those employees have an option to avoid the bag check very easily. I have no choice, but I’m not kicking and screaming thinking that I am entitled to free pay for the minor time spent waiting around for the COMPANY’S security measures….

 

[mattster16]

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

People have been saying that forever, and yet they have always been wrong overall. So pessimistic...

 

[Terrified]

And again I am telling you... it is ENTIRELY the company that I work for‘s choice to require us to go through a security gate. It’s ENTIRELY their choice to require us to walk through 5 security doors just to exit the building. I am not the one deciding that. THE COMPANY IS! Just like apple is the one deciding to require a bag check. At least those employees have an option to avoid the bag check very easily. I have no choice, but I’m not kicking and screaming thinking that I am entitled to free pay for the minor time spent waiting around for the COMPANY’S security measures….

And I'm telling you that, since the company has paid for those security gates, and 5 security doors, there's likely a security reason in place. The company needs those things in order to do business. Ergo, it would be classed legally as a reasonable request to expect you to use them. If the company didn't *need* them, they wouldn't be there.

In order to do business, Apple doesn't require a bag search. Their business doesn't depend on it. Ergo, it could arguably be classed legally as an unreasonable request.

Seriously, you're arguing all of this stuff with what seems like minimal knowledge of how the world works beyond your own very small view of how you think it *should* work.

 

[xxBURT0Nxx]

1) When did anyone state work schedules need to be arranged around bus schedules?

2) VERY GENEROUS perks? Ha. Higher wages would be generous, perks are not. Oh and I know a thing or two about retail. Employee discounts are PROFITABLE to most retail establishments. As in, they recoup a fairly significant portion of the wages they pay out through them. When you are around cool products all day AND you get a discount (although marginal) you are likely to purchase them. Discounts are a greater net benefit to employers than they are to employees.

3) "Apple having a bag check security is no different from a security guard at an entrance gate or security locked access card doors either" ---- Yes, yes it is.

Earlier responses in this thread for people saying that they have to go to school before or after work shifts and how apple should accommodate them.

They don't have to give you any perks at all, be grateful you get a discount, instead you would rather complain that it's not enough and they are still making money off of you.... and like I said, usually you are not supposed to use those discounts for friends and family, but many employees do. It's sad, they all think they can do no wrong, yet everything done to them is an utter atrocity.

So you will argue for retail employees getting paid for waiting in security but others who don’t work retail shouldn’t receive the same pay? Hypocritical.. At least be consistent with your argument.

And I'm telling you that, since the company has paid for those security gates, and 5 security doors, there's likely a security reason in place. The company needs those things in order to do business. Ergo, it would be classed legally as a reasonable request to expect you to use them. If the company didn't *need* them, they wouldn't be there.

In order to do business, Apple doesn't require a bag search. Their business doesn't depend on it. Ergo, it could arguably be classed legally as an unreasonable request.

Seriously, you're arguing all of this stuff with what seems like minimal knowledge of how the world works beyond your own very small view of how you think it *should* work.

If apple didn't "need" to do bag checks, they also wouldn't be there... you have no point. You are saying that one form of security checkpoint is allowed, but another is not. your arguments don't agree with each other so pick a side and stick to it. How can you tell one company they must pay employees during security checkpoints and another doesn't have to pay their employees????

 

[appleisking]

Earlier responses in this thread for people saying that they have to go to school before or after work shifts and how apple should accommodate them.

They don't have to give you any perks at all, be grateful you get a discount, instead you would rather complain that it's not enough and they are still making money off of you.... and like I said, usually you are not supposed to use those discounts for friends and family, but many employees do. It's sad, they all think they can do no wrong, yet everything done to them is an utter atrocity.

So you will argue for retail employees getting paid for waiting in security but others who don’t work retail shouldn’t receive the same pay? Hypocritical.. At least be consistent with your argument.


If apple didn't "need" to do bag checks, they also wouldn't be there... you have no point. You are saying that one form of security checkpoint is allowed, but another is not. your arguments don't agree with each other so pick a side and stick to it. How can you tell one company they must pay employees during security checkpoints and another doesn't have to pay their employees????

I see no reason employees shouldn't demand more from their employers. That's how all benefits have been won (unions, minimum wage, reasonable hours), through court cases and battle. All we're doing here is holding Apple responsible to the law. You want something to be done right, you gotta fight for it. We wouldn't have any of the stuff we had now if we took your attitude about being grateful for our employers.

----------

Earlier responses in this thread for people saying that they have to go to school before or after work shifts and how apple should accommodate them.

They don't have to give you any perks at all, be grateful you get a discount, instead you would rather complain that it's not enough and they are still making money off of you.... and like I said, usually you are not supposed to use those discounts for friends and family, but many employees do. It's sad, they all think they can do no wrong, yet everything done to them is an utter atrocity.

So you will argue for retail employees getting paid for waiting in security but others who don’t work retail shouldn’t receive the same pay? Hypocritical.. At least be consistent with your argument.


If apple didn't "need" to do bag checks, they also wouldn't be there... you have no point. You are saying that one form of security checkpoint is allowed, but another is not. your arguments don't agree with each other so pick a side and stick to it. How can you tell one company they must pay employees during security checkpoints and another doesn't have to pay their employees????

Apple doesn't have to do bag checks. How many employees are realistically stealing? I'm sure they can be more or less just as profitable without them, but then that's not the point. Stop bring up your scenario and let this case rest on its own merits.

 

[karlwig]

I don't know about you guys, but when I go to work I expect to get paid 100% of the time I'm there, from I come until I leave – minus the 30 minute lunch break of course.

If I have to work extra, I demand overtime for those hours, or go home earlier another day.

I'm not working for free, and so shouldn't Apple employees.

 

[Terrified]

If apple didn't "need" to do bag checks, they also wouldn't be there... you have no point. You are saying that one form of security checkpoint is allowed, but another is not. your arguments don't agree with each other so pick a side and stick to it. How can you tell one company they must pay employees during security checkpoints and another doesn't have to pay their employees????

Sigh. You don't seem to be grasping this.

If a company has paid for 5 security gates, a security guard, and a whole other host of very expensive bits of equipment and staff, then there's a reason for it. An example of this is that they may do work for someone else as a contractor, and those security gates are a part of the stipulations of the contract. Without them, they'd not be eligible for the contract and would therefore be unable to carry out their business. This is called a business need. It's a recognised thing. The company is well within their rights to enforce the employee to use them, even if it impinges on their own time, because it's a necessary part of doing business.

My employer has this. As stated before, I work for another Silicon Valley based tech company. They provide government work in other countries, and that work comes with security implications. I need to swipe in twice, go through a manned security checkpoint, use two RSA fobs, an ActivID, and several passwords just to get to (and into) my workstation. These are all reasonable things for me to do because they're required for the company to do business. If they didn't absolutely *need* these things, they wouldn't be shelling out money for them. That's called good business sense.

A bag search isn't. It's not a requirement. If Apple stopped bag searching, they wouldn't *not* be able to carry out their role as a company. There's also more ways than bag searching to prevent or combat shrinkage, as shown by the thousands of other large companies who don't use it. I've worked for 5 companies in my working life, 2 of which were retail positions. None of them implemented blanket bag searches, and they could all still carry on doing business.

Now, again, which part of the above is it that you don't grasp?

 

[samcraig]

I'm unclear how any poster here could consider getting paid what you are legally entitled to, is a "perk."

Someone will need to explain that one to me.

And be legally entitled - I mean *if* Apple (or any party) is found guilty of infringing on employees rights when it comes to hourly wages.

 

[BaldiMac]

Sigh. You don't seem to be grasping this.

If a company has paid for 5 security gates, a security guard, and a whole other host of very expensive bits of equipment and staff, then there's a reason for it. An example of this is that they may do work for someone else as a contractor, and those security gates are a part of the stipulations of the contract. Without them, they'd not be eligible for the contract and would therefore be unable to carry out their business. This is called a business need. It's a recognised thing. The company is well within their rights to enforce the employee to use them, even if it impinges on their own time, because it's a necessary part of doing business.

My employer has this. As stated before, I work for another Silicon Valley based tech company. They provide government work in other countries, and that work comes with security implications. I need to swipe in twice, go through a manned security checkpoint, use two RSA fobs, an ActivID, and several passwords just to get to (and into) my workstation. These are all reasonable things for me to do because they're required for the company to do business. If they didn't absolutely *need* these things, they wouldn't be shelling out money for them. That's called good business sense.

A bag search isn't. It's not a requirement. If Apple stopped bag searching, they wouldn't *not* be able to carry out their role as a company. There's also more ways than bag searching to prevent or combat shrinkage, as shown by the thousands of other large companies who don't use it. I've worked for 5 companies in my working life, 2 of which were retail positions. None of them implemented blanket bag searches, and they could all still carry on doing business.

Now, again, which part of the above is it that you don't grasp?

That's some crazy logic!

 

[mattster16]

I see no reason employees shouldn't demand more from their employers. That's how all benefits have been won (unions, minimum wage, reasonable hours), through court cases and battle. All we're doing here is holding Apple responsible to the law. You want something to be done right, you gotta fight for it. We wouldn't have any of the stuff we had now if we took your attitude about being grateful for our employers.

xxBURTONxx would be very happy working in the turn of the century meat packing industry it seems. Do your work and be happy you make barely enough to buy tainted milk and saw dust bolstered bread from the company store. You should be happy the company offers you the convenient store! It's a perk! Don't like working unreasonable hours with no breaks and being shorted on your pay despite giving the company your time? Too bad - that's what the market supports! If you don't like it you can quit and work at another factory that pays no money and takes advantage of you.

 

[linuxcooldude]

One of the biggest things going for the employee's is the law. Its pretty clear any policy that takes an employees time, will be paid.

It does not matter in the slightest what the written policy of bag searches may be. Or if the workers agreed with said policy. What really matters is if the policy abides with the current local & national laws, period.

Telling people they need to avoid bringing bags is not realistic. People bring their lunch, medications, feminine hygiene products ect.

I find it hilarious people mentioning putting tampons in their pockets just to avoid bag checks.

 

[Terrified]

That's some crazy logic!

Which part of it is crazy?

 

[MegamanX]

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.

Funny part is people keep pretending that will happen. Reality is it will not. Reason being is that would push their pay and what not out of line with everyone else.

So yeah that part is not going to happen. instead it will become the bag checks will stop or they will be done on company time in a much faster manner.

 

[samcraig]

One of the biggest things going for the employee's is the law. Its pretty clear any policy that takes an employees time, will be paid.

It does not matter in the slightest what the written policy of bag searches may be. Or if the workers agreed with said policy. What really matters is if the policy abides with the current local & national laws, period.

Telling people they need to avoid bringing bags is not realistic. People bring their lunch, medications, feminine hygiene products ect.

I find it hilarious people mentioning putting tampons in their pockets just to avoid bag checks.

And yet myself and a few others have been saying the exact thing since nearly the beginning of this thread and we're up to how many pages/posts of people who refuse to understand?

 

[BaldiMac]

Which part of it is crazy?

If <somecompanyotherthanApple> requires off the clock security check, it must be necessary, or they wouldn't do it. If Apple requires off the clock security check, than it isn't necessary because other companies don't.

 

[xxBURT0Nxx]

You guys argue for apple paying employees extra money for their security, but other companies should not. Stop saying it’s because of contracts this and that… I know where I work and we don’t have security because it is mandated by a contract, we have security because they don’t want people getting in who are not authorized to do so. It has nothing to do with being mandated by a contract…

There is NO difference between an apple employee waiting OFF the clock to get their bag checked and me waiting OFF the clock for a security door to open after I have swiped my access badge.

You can’t argue one side for company A, and then say the opposite for company B.

Your arguments have no merit when you can’t even keep them consistent. This company should pay, but this one shouldn’t, even though the situations are the exact same.

BOTH companies have decided to put a security measure in place before employees can leave. BOTH sets of employees clock out and go through the security checkpoints on THEIR OWN TIME.

As for apple not needing to check bags because “not that many people steal stuff” you obviously are lost in la la land… they wouldn’t have implemented the policy if it wasn’t a problem, and it IS cutting into their profit margins. To think otherwise is ignorant. No company wants to allow their product to be stolen, and if they didn’t do bag checks and every employee under the sun can load up free apple gear in their backpacks why wouldn’t they all steal computers and iPhones every day? To say it’s a negligible amount that is stolen is the most ridiculous statement. You guys are arguing over a few dollars a week being paid to you, but apple shouldn’t be allowed to ensure their several thousand dollar computers are not being stolen?

If <somecompanyotherthanApple> requires off the clock security check, it must be necessary, or they wouldn't do it. If Apple requires off the clock security check, than it isn't necessary because other companies don't.

THANK YOU!!

I don't know how they can argue that one company should have to pay, but the next shouldn't.

 

[samcraig]

Funny part is people keep pretending that will happen. Reality is it will not. Reason being is that would push their pay and what not out of line with everyone else.

So yeah that part is not going to happen. instead it will become the bag checks will stop or they will be done on company time in a much faster manner.

Agreed. I stated earlier to someone ranting about what Apple would do that that it was pure FUD. There's nothing in Apple's history to remotely suggest the course of action hypothesized.

 

[Terrified]

THANK YOU!!

I don't know how they can argue that one company should have to pay, but the next shouldn't.

Because one is a business need, the other is a business choice. Legally, there's a difference. The fact that you don't know this is really showing.

 

[samcraig]

I see we still have a rabid poster refusing to understand labor laws as they apply to hourly employees in the USA and that the court will determine what is legal and not.

Everything else is white noise in this thread.

 

[Terrified]

If <somecompanyotherthanApple> requires off the clock security check, it must be necessary, or they wouldn't do it. If Apple requires off the clock security check, than it isn't necessary because other companies don't.

One is a business need, the other is a business choice. There's a big difference legally.

 

[Treq]

I'm not anti labor, when labor has a valid point. These two people don't. Neither do won't of the folks posting here cheering them on. No one has found a law or case that makes bag checks a work function and thus required to be paid,when talking about personal items you choose to bring. Nor has anyone proven their claims that it actually takes that long every time etc. and yet everyone is quick to say 'apple is evil' and 'this is wrong'

If they were talking about requiring you to do work related training like learning mavericks or logic X on yr own time and on your own equipment or requiring you to download iOS 7 to learn it but you have to pay for it out of your own pocket or be fired then they would have a valid point. But if I choose to learn Logic X on my own or choose to sign up as a developer and get iOS 7 that is my choice. And outside of a few outliers most folks don't have to bring their iPad, a book bag etc but choose to. So they created the mess themselves and need to take responsibility for it.

The simple fact is they can't leave until their bag is checked. If they can't leave, they should be on the clock. Once someone punches out, they can do whatever they want. If the company wants to check their bag, they need to pay their employee for their time. This is so basic, I can't even believe it is in question.

 

[xxBURT0Nxx]

Because one is a business need, the other is a business choice. Legally, there's a difference. The fact that you don't know this is really showing.

THERE IS NO BUSINESS NEED FOR SECURITY HERE... it is not required by any contract, it is the choice of the COMPANY. We could still do business without the security here, just like apple could still do business without the bag checks..... get that through your head.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE....