Apple Set to Battle Class Action Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations Starting Tomorrow

[Chupa Chupa]

People with that mentality, don't have 'loyalty'. People who have a job think that way. People who have a career are usually a little more strategic, and often strategy means long term gain, not short term profit. There are many in the world, that will stay where they are out of 'loyalty'. Not because they feel they owe something, but because it's the right place, it's the right thing. It's not all about the money... or at least it shouldn't be.

“Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do.”
Steve Jobs

What do you think working at a retail Apple store is... or any retail store. It's a job, not a career. But even people with careers are constantly changing firms or companies because it's the best move for their career path, family situation, whatever. People stay put when they are in the palce they need to be at that time or they don't have the skills or initiative to look for something better or they are just complacent.

 

[Asarien]

I worked for Apple retail for 3 years and corporate for 2, from 2008 to 2013. Breaks were mandated HARD. Like, you got written up if you didn't take them. 30 minutes if you went over 5 hours, a 15 if you were under.

I wouldn't be surprised if the violations here are rogue managers.

I worked for Apple retail for 8 years. 4 of which were in the flagship San Francisco store.

Breaks were indeed heavily mandated, but to leave a busy floor, traverse to a break room, wait to have bag inspected before leaving building, get lunch, eat lunch, traverse back to break room then back to the floor in a hard 30 minutes is impossible. At least 10 of those minutes involve leaving the floor, being inspected and getting to the break room. ...And that's if you really rushed.

Apple Retail was a horrendous place, where non-management were over worked and severely underpaid. Apple's policy is to pay their employees the "market retail rate." Meaning, quadruple the work for about the same pay as some other retailer who services maybe 50 people in an entire day.

Absolute trash.

 

[crescentmoon]

I doubt many that try to whitewash corporations have actually read a David Cay Johnston book (like Free Lunch), but he's worth mentioning for those that want a window into reality.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01182008/watch.html

I agree.... used to watch Moyers....

 

[OLSinFLA]

Bunch of apologists. Every worker deserves their legally allowed lunch and break time including slaborers in China. With all the cash Apple has hidden away they can afford this.

Unfortunately not all states have a law requiring lunches. The state I work in (Florida) does not and there was quite a few times Comcast told us lunches were cancelled due to peak call volume. Federal low does require a 15 minute break,

 

[freiherrchulainn]

Former Apple retail employee here. I did two stints with Apple at two different stores in two different cities in two different positions. My experience was the exact opposite of what this suits claim. Managers and Store Leaders not only required us to take our breaks on time they practically hounded us to do so, going so far as to sub employees out with someone else if they were in deep helping a customers and needed to take a break. I'm not saying this suit doesn't have merit; I have no doubt some stores and managers did not follow the law. However, to put this on the level of institutional malfeasance? I don't think so.

I am also a former retail employee. Our managers required us to take breaks on time as well. However, when the going got tough there were many times that I was put in the position of not being able to take my break on time, or at all. My store was often understaffed to handle the amount of appointments in our queue. There were two reasons for this; failure to quickly react to upward trending in store growth with appropriate staffing levels and high employee turnover rate.

We had our breaks scheduled in concierge. Quite often, a situation would arise that would result in an appointment going over the allotted time for my break. Due to limited staffing, on frequent occasion there was no substitute for me. Taking my break during a non-scheduled time would result in the queue falling behind and pressure was applied from management to work through, while they tried to get a break scheduled in the queue at a later time. Operative word in that sentence; tried. Additionally; there was high pressure from my management to assist walk in customers, often also to the detriment of the employees.

Regarding institutional malfeasance; keep in mind Apple is legally responsible for all it's employee's actions while they're on the clock. Apple is not absolved of wrong doing simply because the issue was not systemic. Managers acting on Apple's behalf infringed on the right's of employee's (in my opinion) and did so with enough frequency for the case to be granted class status. Apple thusly becomes legally liable for the infringements.

 

[CFreymarc]

I worked for Apple retail for 3 years and corporate for 2, from 2008 to 2013. Breaks were mandated HARD. Like, you got written up if you didn't take them. 30 minutes if you went over 5 hours, a 15 if you were under.

I wouldn't be surprised if the violations here are rogue managers.

That is also my view. There have been many I know that worked the Apple retail stores and it has been a positive experience for all. My take is that the plaintiff will have a hard time proving that ALL Apple retail store employees were not following labor code.

 

[PeterKG]

Does anything good ever come from class action suits? Maybe it helps conditions for future employees/customers/etc.

I just received a check for $0.04 (yes, 4 cents!) as a settlement for an AT&T class action lawsuit.

Haha! I got $1.83 in the settlement. Think the lawyers got 1.83 million!

 

[gavroche]

And that's exactly why there has to be legislation to prevent you from doing this not only to yourself but to others. If you are willing to waive your right to breaks and overtime don't you think you would be looked upon more favourably by your employer? So now everyone has to waive breaks and overtime. What about weekends? Holidays? Willing to work straight time for those? What if someone else is?

How long before you compromise yourself (and others) into a six day week, 12 hour day with no overtime, no holidays, all in order to compete with those who are willing to do just a little more for less.

There is a major flaw with what you are saying. It's that you think it is always beneficial to the employer if i don't take a break. Guess what, it's not. Meal breaks are not paid. It saves them money when you are not on the clock. And i've worked a lot of places where every time it was slow, and there were not many customers... they were going way over their labor projections... and they NEEDED to save money by having people clock out for a while. Employees that were willing to do split shifts (and save them a lot of money as opposed to having someone on the clock the whole stretch of time) were way more appealing to scheduling managers.
I've worked jobs where you were scheduled a three hour rush shift... and they made you take a 30 minute meal break, conveniently for them when there was a slow point. We hated that, and it was in no way HELPING us to force them to do that.
You make it sound so cut and dry... like these rules only help people. They don't. For absolutely any of these laws that you think just help people, i guarantee i can point out to you situations where it hurts other people. I don't feel as justified as you do in trying to decide which of those people are more deserving of being helped and which are deserving to be hurt by the same rule. And since i don't think its always such an easy solution to make those decisions... i think that the better solution is to let people decide best for THEMSELVES... by choosing to accept a job where they get what works better for them individually.
[doublepost=1476737583][/doublepost]

Well I guess your viewpoint is that apple can do no wrong.... unfortunately that is not the case.... with Apple and most other corporations "money doesn't talk, it swears". Give them an inch and they will take a mile.... you would probably disagree... About Apple's revenue...yes they should pay tax if their headquarters are here... If they are hiding their revenue overseas because of our high tax rates at 35%, certainly that should be changed to reflect the world averages... however many companies do not pay taxes in the US because of tax breaks and loopholes supplied to them by the congress through their lobbyists.... get rid of their tax breaks and loopholes and I may be more sympathetic to your Adam Smith policies of unrestricted capitalism.

Why on earth do you come into a discussion about one specific case against one specific company, and berate the people that say you should not presume guilt. People tell you that you should wait to see the facts, and your default reply is to rain against greedy corporations and all that. Wrong forum man. There are plenty of places that are having those discussions. This is not that place. If you want to actually discuss the facts of this case, great... we'd love to hear those (such a novel concept for some of the people responding here).

 

[XAppleEmployee]

I worked in Apple Retail for 6 years. I worked in both CA and AZ. Honestly, Apple treats their employees very well compared to the rest of the industry. However, I honestly believe we were underpaid for what we had to deal with. For god sake, Costco employees were getting paid way better than Apple Retail Employees . I like Tim Cook but he is a lousy CEO. Angela Ahrends is also an amazing woman but a terrible leader.

 

[freiherrchulainn]

That is also my view. There have been many I know that worked the Apple retail stores and it has been a positive experience for all. My take is that the plaintiff will have a hard time proving that ALL Apple retail store employees were not following labor code.

Who cares if it was a positive experience? I had a positive experience overall, but they still violated my rights. The plaintiffs do not need to prove that ALL Apple retail store employees were not following the labor code. That's not how it works.

 

[Juicy Box]

Nice. People finding Apple guilty before the trial even begins. Shocker...

It happens all the things me. Look at all the major news stories in the US over the past few years.

Facts don't matter. Peoples' lives get ruined.

But, I think Apple's rep will be fine no matter the outcome.

 

[gavroche]

Who cares if it was a positive experience? I had a positive experience overall, but they still violated my rights. The plaintiffs do not need to prove that ALL Apple retail store employees were not following the labor code. That's not how it works.

Firstly, thanks for your input as to what you experienced working there. Most of the negative bashing here offers no details or insight. Second, you then sort of ruined my positive impression of your insight by bashing the next guy, saying "who cares about your positive experience." He offered his insight into working there, and you yours. Why do you think its ok to ridicule his opinion?
On a side note, out if genuine curiosity... if you had to choose between a job that had a horrible work experience, but you were punctually given your breaks to the exact second.. or one with a positive work experience, but inconsistent breaks... which would you choose?

Edit: I should preface my posts by mentioning that i'm of a much higher age group than most of the people here. I come from a generation of workers that appears to have a much higher level of gratitude towards employers and having a job that i can support my family from. Most people from my generation and older have a very different viewpoint from younger people today. If an employer did not treat us well, we would walk and find a different job. Simple as that. We didn't think to sue the company and demand things. Companies that understood how important having happy employees is to having good customer experience and retention (and it is very important) learn to respect and appreciate their employees. Those that didn't, would find it hard to have good workers. And this could spell doom for the company. As it should. But i think we older people have a much higher threshold for what we consider "being wronged" by an employer. It is a complex relationship. And we do NOT live in a perfect world. We are not perfect people, or perfect employees.... but we do our best. And employers or managers are not perfect people either. We all do our best. I guess i'm saying that I have a higher tolerance for understandable situations that might arise that are not done to spite me, or to "earn more corporate profit," or any of that.

 

[FoundAHalo]

Former Apple retail employee here. I did two stints with Apple at two different stores in two different cities in two different positions. My experience was the exact opposite of what this suits claim. Managers and Store Leaders not only required us to take our breaks on time they practically hounded us to do so, going so far as to sub employees out with someone else if they were in deep helping a customers and needed to take a break. I'm not saying this suit doesn't have merit; I have no doubt some stores and managers did not follow the law. However, to put this on the level of institutional malfeasance? I don't think so.

Totally agree (former Apple corporate employee) – it was drilled repeatedly into us that we had to take our breaks when designated, and it would be brought up in review sessions if we missed or were late to breaks. As a company, Apple would do the opposite of what this lawsuit suggests, so I can only assume it either isn't a valid suit or there was some now-probably-long-gone manager who ignored directives.

 

[freiherrchulainn]

Firstly, thanks for your input as to what you experienced working there. Most of the negative bashing here offers no details or insight. Second, you then sort of ruined my positive impression of your insight by bashing the next guy, saying "who cares about your positive experience." He offered his insight into working there, and you yours. Why do you think its ok to ridicule his opinion?
On a side note, out if genuine curiosity... if you had to choose between a job that had a horrible work experience, but you were punctually given your breaks to the exact second.. or one with a positive work experience, but inconsistent breaks... which would you choose?

Edit: I should preface my posts by mentioning that i'm of a much higher age group than most of the people here. I come from a generation of workers that appears to have a much higher level of gratitude towards employers and having a job that i can support my family from. Most people from my generation and older have a very different viewpoint from younger people today. If an employer did not treat us well, we would walk and find a different job. Simple as that. We didn't think to sue the company and demand things. Companies that understood how important having happy employees is to having good customer experience and retention (and it is very important) learn to respect and appreciate their employees. Those that didn't, would find it hard to have good workers. And this could spell doom for the company. As it should. But i think we older people have a much higher threshold for what we consider "being wronged" by an employer. It is a complex relationship. And we do NOT live in a perfect world. We are not perfect people, or perfect employees.... but we do our best. And employers or managers are not perfect people either. We all do our best. I guess i'm saying that I have a higher tolerance for understandable situations that might arise that are not done to spite me, or to "earn more corporate profit," or any of that.

My intent was not to bash his experience. I was trying to establish the point that the employment experience, positive or negative is irrelevant to having your rights infringed upon. Legally, is just doesn't matter.

I understand how you feel regarding gratitude towards employers that offer a good job. I try to avoid the entitled attitude that is often associated with my generation. However, I also feel that the labor laws exist for a reason and in my case with Apple, it essentially boils down to working extra without compensation. I don't know how those of your generation felt about that...but as singular representative of my generation...I expect to paid for work I do.

 

[gavroche]

This is brick and mortar retail which even Apple doesn't have the tech to move to china (yet).

Considering that Apple is moving everything they can overseas and giving the US tax payers the middle finger -- and screwing over the retail workers they would love to replace with cheaper foreign labour if they could figure out how well beyond what is legal, what would possibly make you side with Apple?

You really side with screwing over 100,000 people (the ones who work in retail and the ones who's jobs Apple shipped off-shore) so that Timmy can pat himself on the back with another $5 million bonus?

No wonder the US is in massive decline while China overtakes them.

Three points:

1) He was referring to all of these frivolous class action lawsuits as being the reason may companies consider basing themselves elsewhere.. so they don't have to invest millions of dollars defending them.

2) Yes, i may be premature in assuming they are not guilty and that its a frivolous lawsuit. But you likewise are premature in having already declared them guilty and already proclaiming that they have ripped off thousands of employees.

3) America is in decline because its now a nation of people that don't believe in working hard, thinks they are owed and entitled to absolutely everything, and think that if someone else is successful (such as your Cook bonus comment) its because they are screwing someone else over. We stopped being a nation of opportunity through hard work. We are a nation of lazy people demanding things. More and more countries are going to start passing the US, because they have citizens that appreciate what they have and are willing to work hard.
[doublepost=1476743049][/doublepost]

I also feel that the labor laws exist for a reason and in my case with Apple, it essentially boils down to working extra without compensation. I don't know how those of your generation felt about that...but as singular representative of my generation...I expect to paid for work I do.

I agree with that. I was trying to limit my earlier statements about not minding skipping a meal break to just that, the meal break. These breaks are off-clock.... and unpaid. So if you skip, you are getting paid more money than you would have made if you did clock off for the break.

I'm actually in an interesting situation right now.... wife is pregnant again... and i'm working a couple nights a week for a major well known employer, for a little extra cash. When i took the job, one of the forms i had to sign was a form saying i was voluntarily waiving my right to breaks. I took it to mean that if i don't end up taking one, i am doing it voluntarily. But i have overheard employees on numerous occasions ask for a break, and they were denied. I specifically heard the manager say "you signed a form waiving your right to a break." I polity tried to point out that we didn't waive our right to a break, that at best we just said we chose not to take it voluntarily. The manager seemed bewildered by what i said. Later, she approached me and told me that she had talked to higher-ups... and that yes i could take the break, but had to clock out. I laughed, and showed her online that by law they have to give 10 minutes for every four hours worked, PAID break. you should have seen her face. They spend a lot of time training manager about what employees can't do or have to do.... but most definitely avoid telling them what we are entitled to.

 

[macs4nw]

So i presume you have already tried and found them guilty?
Having been sued does not mean you are guilty (yet). I had a friend that owned a business that was brought before the labor board multiple times by disgruntled employees. Not only did he win every time after he presented his evidence, but the judge on one occasion told an employee that was saying they were not paid overtime correctly that they were in fact OVERPAID..
Lets not rush to judgement until all facts are presented.

Fair enough.

 

[Little dude]

I worked for Apple retail for 8 years. 4 of which were in the flagship San Francisco store.

Breaks were indeed heavily mandated, but to leave a busy floor, traverse to a break room, wait to have bag inspected before leaving building, get lunch, eat lunch, traverse back to break room then back to the floor in a hard 30 minutes is impossible. At least 10 of those minutes involve leaving the floor, being inspected and getting to the break room. ...And that's if you really rushed.

Apple Retail was a horrendous place, where non-management were over worked and severely underpaid. Apple's policy is to pay their employees the "market retail rate." Meaning, quadruple the work for about the same pay as some other retailer who services maybe 50 people in an entire day.

Absolute trash.

Yet you worked for 8 YEARS in a "horrendous enviroment?

 

[Duane Martin]

There is a major flaw with what you are saying... i guarantee i can point out to you situations where it hurts other people.

Ok, I will wait for your "major flaw" example. I would hardly call your examples "major" and they certainly wouldn't be illegal where I live.

I work in film and television and when I was working non-union I experienced some real abuses taking place, labour code be damned. I much prefer working in an environment where my rights are protected and I have recourse when they are not.

 

[Digital Dude]

Nice. People finding Apple guilty before the trial even begins. Shocker...

[doublepost=1476747175][/doublepost]

I have seen similar issues in the corporate world. Sometimes it wasn't practical to take a break, but the boss and the employees agreed to a trade-off whereby the employees made out. They received almost twice as much and time off vs. the actual break time. Sometimes, people just get greedy and they know the agreement made can't be verified, so they end up filing a complaint. I'm not saying that's what happened here but I have seen it.

 

[sudo1996]

Guys, just let the trial create the verdict instead of jumping to conclusions about who was right.

 

[Tech198]

Company A telling employees you *must* take breaks ? That don't sit well with me. Don't the workers have their own mind they can think for themselves ?

Or does the fact "You are not human" come into this equation because you'r at work.

 

[MH01]

Sounds like a manager issue. Apple becomes responsible once complaints are lodged against said managers and no action is taken.

the damn trees in the London regent street store get a 6 week break each year in Norway or something .... A tree... So yeah Apple does treat its staff and trees well. Humans being humans though , crap managers will come through.

 

[Arcus]

I side with Apple. This is one of the reason why US companies move factories to China.

Go work in China for a while and you would not be saying this. Take your ignorance elsewhere.

 

[Konrad9]

Nice. People finding Apple guilty before the trial even begins. Shocker...

People who have worked retail and experienced similar, I would guess.

And please, go to any thread about someone being sued for 'stealing' something of Apple's and you'll see a consensus they are guilty before the trial even begins.

 

[Spincity]

Why any company wants to have a business in CA is beyond me, granted you have to treat employees fair but CA seems to go overboard. My company is being sued for the same thing in that state and knowing the facts as I do with my company it is real apparent it's a money grab by the employee and the lawyers. Can't speak about the apple charges but I would assume it's blown out of portion.

The lesson here is do not f*ck with CA weights and measures. Give employees their allotted breaks and document that stuff.
[doublepost=1476845532][/doublepost]

I worked at Apple for 3 years. The management at Apple is amazing above top notch in many cases. Taking breaks and lunches are pressed pretty hard, you have to go or could risk getting into trouble. The only reason lunches and breaks would not have been taken if it was extremely busy but at the stores I worked at we all knew this and if a lunch was severely needed a manger could be told and it would happen.

This lawsuit is either rogue managers or people who just couldn't deal with the demands. As a whole however the company respects its retail empoloyees and treats them pretty well. I began as a part time employee and received tuition reimbursement for a major that wasn't even related to Apple.

Maybe the managers at your particular store were on top of this. But CA weights and measures was leaning on Apple and Apple was leaning on the managers. Everyone who works retail or manages retail knows that they have to deal with CA enforcement, which is very strict. Maybe Apple really is concerned about their workers, but always lurking in the background is the very large hammer of CA enforcement hanging over every person's head. You can thank players like Macy's for that, understaffed and unconcerned retailers are the reason CA is so rough.
[doublepost=1476845883][/doublepost]

Company A telling employees you *must* take breaks ? That don't sit well with me. Don't the workers have their own mind they can think for themselves ?

Or does the fact "You are not human" come into this equation because you'r at work.

No, this has everything with retailers like Macy's and Walmart treating their workers like crap. When regulators get this brutal it is always because some corporation took every possible excuse and every possible workaround to violate the spirit of the law. Do that enough and the regulator will get very specific, and leave no wiggle room for doubt. The regulator gets very rigid with all players because of the actions of few.
[doublepost=1476846462][/doublepost]

That is also my view. There have been many I know that worked the Apple retail stores and it has been a positive experience for all. My take is that the plaintiff will have a hard time proving that ALL Apple retail store employees were not following labor code.

Tort lawyers are not generally a careless lot, and a tort lawyer going after Apple would be even less so. The may get an out of court settlement from Apple yet as Cupertino does not want to deal with this PR headache. Both sides are playing hardball for now, but I can almost guarantee that the tort lawyers have enough to put a hard squeeze on Apple and will use discovery to increase the level of pain for Tim Cook et al.