Apple Store Worker Says Staff Routinely Get Death Threats From Customers

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Who doesn't get threats in the retail world?

For 5 years before Sears tanked, I ran a store. Boy if I had a $1 for every threat I got, I could retire.

Everybody in retail gets death threats? Gee, it has been a long time since I worked a cash register, but, all I remember is the constant examples of probability, queuing theory, etc. Nothing to do, nothing to do, suddenly 10 people wanting my attention. No death threats. But, that was back in the old days. (Prior to 1980.)

You know what? I don't think poor retail employees should have to get pushed around and threatened by people with money.

Look at Wendy's. 'Ok people want $15 an hr to work here? No prob we'll cut our labor force 40% and install self-service kiosks!' Not that hard to hit a few buttons on a screen that says 'hamburger. no onion. no cheese.'

If you want a job that pays $15 hr+, work for it and improve your worth. People just want a Bernie government cheese handout.

As automation becomes cheaper, any limit to how low wages should go? I mean, why $15? Why not $5? Why not $1?

 

[Renzatic]

Everybody in retail gets death threats? Gee, it has been a long time since I worked a cash register...

Tell me about it. The worst thing that happened to me during my stint in retail was having to deal with this one lady who kept bringing cockroach filled printers back to the store.

 

[Thunderhawks]

Science says otherwise - http://www.msnbc.com/martin-bashir/minimum-wage-meta-analysis-evidence-over-the.
[doublepost=1464632259][/doublepost]

If I read that correctly , that study was done about teenage employment. Nevertheless I am not saying that increasing minimum hourly wages necessarily kills a significant amount of jobs or everybody is fired immediately.

MY logic is very easy and the question remains:

Where does a business put the increased costs?
Depending on how large the cost impact is a business will find ways to make it all work, by increasing prices, automating and using less workers.
There is also a natural fluctuation and economic impact in that not every year all companies are booming with sales, recession = higher jobless numbers.

I also think that after a recession companies will only slowly hire more workers back and try to get away with as few as possible doing the same work as more workers did.
No idea how to account for that scientifically.

As written many states are already way beyond the $ 7.25 Federal hourly wage.

My state NY is at $ 9.00 and $ 10.45 (not sure, could be 0.25 in NYC)


Even Bangladesh has a fertility rate barely above replacement at 2.2 per woman - http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN.

Sorry, that info doesn't work for me. My first measuring stick is how many people live in a country and is that country overpopulated. If all the overpopulated countries only reproduce at an average of 2 children per couple their status will never change.
If we take an isolated look at the countries , one can see that the poorest nations (Especially African Continent) still make the most children, with only 0.X trending towards lower rates.

Again, if they all maintain the lowest rate, nothing is gained as they start from an overpopulated base.

 

[Eraserhead]

Sorry, that info doesn't work for me. My first measuring stick is how many people live in a country and is that country overpopulated. If all the overpopulated countries only reproduce at an average of 2 children per couple their status will never change.
If we take an isolated look at the countries , one can see that the poorest nations (Especially African Continent) still make the most children, with only 0.X trending towards lower rates.

Again, if they all maintain the lowest rate, nothing is gained as they start from an overpopulated base.

Actually 2.1 is considered the replacement rate - as it is per woman.

 

[blacktape242]

The real outrage is about those privileged enough to afford Apple products. Hang your heads in shame.

There will be no money shaming me.

 

[AxoNeuron]

It is also human nature not to think ahead. If minimum wages in USA go to $ 15 an hour ALL prices go up proportionally.
That means the people who are in low level jobs will have to pay more at the stores where they shop or fast food places. There will be no significant net gain.

Even the welfare limits will have to be raised and create a new poverty $ level.

The upper crust is never effected by minimum wage increases. They adjust the profit and operating margins accordingly.

And yes, when I go through certain neighborhoods where I live and see the attitude towards working, not even looking for work, I shudder to think that these people deserve at minimum$ 15 an hour.

You know, a lot of people say things like this, even when the data clearly proves them wrong.

A raise in national minimum wage doesn't usually lead to a proportional rise in inflation. In fact, that's quite rare.

Here's what actually happens. In a country like the US where the wealthy own such a large percentage of the wealth, what are they doing with this money? Essentially sitting on it or putting it into the stock market.

What happens when you raise the minimum wage? More of that money that normally goes to boost corporate profit margins ends up going into the pockets of minimum wage workers...where it almost immediately ends up getting spent and stimulating the economy.

I'm tired of seeing such astonishingly uninformed arguments about the minimum wage when the economic data shows that you are completely wrong.

 

[Eraserhead]

There will be no money shaming me.

I see no reason anyone should be embarrassed for owning nice stuff.

 

[Thunderhawks]

You know, a lot of people say things like this, even when the data clearly proves them wrong.

A raise in national minimum wage doesn't usually lead to a proportional rise in inflation. In fact, that's quite rare.

Here's what actually happens. In a country like the US where the wealthy own such a large percentage of the wealth, what are they doing with this money? Essentially sitting on it or putting it into the stock market.

What happens when you raise the minimum wage? More of that money that normally goes to boost corporate profit margins ends up going into the pockets of minimum wage workers...where it almost immediately ends up getting spent and stimulating the economy.

I'm tired of seeing such astonishingly uninformed arguments about the minimum wage when the economic data shows that you are completely wrong.

Sorry to be very simple: Nobody has answered my questionOther than pointing to data and research)

Where do the additional costs go? (That's unrelated to whether jobs would be cut)

If I ran a business which produces 10,000 pieces with 20 workers (8 hours) at $ 9.00 it costs 0.144 per piece.
If it now now costs apr. 67% more = 0.24 per piece. ($ 9 to $ 15)

None of these labor rates include additional labor costs like Workers comp, disability, FICA and medicare, unemployment charges, insurance. (Some of these costs are capped per year)

My per piece price goes up, right? Anything wrong with that data?

So, now I have to negotiate price increases with my customers and look for other ways to get my margins back.
Guaranteed nobody will accept a 67% price increase.

Since everybody is getting more all companies have to find ways to make it all work. That means my prices for material will go up also.

If the low income earners indeed spend all that extra money, they will spend it mostly on higher prices.

If you really believe that any of the corporate profit margins ends up going into the pockets of minimum wage earners, I have a bridge I can sell you.

 

[Eraserhead]

Sorry to be very simple: Nobody has answered my questionOther than pointing to data and research)

Where do the additional costs go? (That's unrelated to whether jobs would be cut)

If I ran a business which produces 10,000 pieces with 20 workers (8 hours) at $ 9.00 it costs 0.144 per piece.
If it now now costs apr. 67% more = 0.24 per piece. ($ 9 to $ 15)

None of these labor rates include additional labor costs like Workers comp, disability, FICA and medicare, unemployment charges, insurance. (Some of these costs are capped per year)

My per piece price goes up, right? Anything wrong with that data?

So, now I have to negotiate price increases with my customers and look for other ways to get my margins back.
Guaranteed nobody will accept a 67% price increase.

Since everybody is getting more all companies have to find ways to make it all work. That means my prices for material will go up also.

If the low income earners indeed spend all that extra money, they will spend it mostly on higher prices.

If you really believe that any of the corporate profit margins ends up going into the pockets of minimum wage earners, I have a bridge I can sell you.

What, beyond research, do you actually want to answer your question? The real world is complex, and increasing money flow improves the economy.

 

[Thunderhawks]

What, beyond research, do you actually want to answer your question? The real world is complex, and increasing money flow improves the economy.

I see you can't or want to answer where the additional costs to the business get applied in their calculations?
My calculation showing a 67% increase in production costs has to be dealt with via:

automation
less workers doing more p.piece
outsourcing
maybe lastly a minute cut of profit margins.

Even with money flow increased, when the things you get buy are now more expensive, what is the net effect for the worker?

Taking our local McDonald, Burgerking and Wendy's as an example, when the NY state wages went up, their prices went up
accordingly.
You can research that all day long and will find it to be true.

In general there are quite different viewpoints and everybody has research to prove that their viewpoint is correct.

Just read an article in Forbes, which is about the UK and can't completely be applied to the US, however the gist of it was that if one wants to have the lower working class to have more money, stop taxing them so much.

 

[MH01]

Death threats only happen in non affluent neighborhoods? Is that what you're trying to assert?

you missed the point that I don't even believe death threats happen routinely. Having been to the UK stores and given thier locations , the idea is even more comical for me. I would find them to be extremely rare.

Most important this story is not about Apple employees getting death threats but your suckered right in. Click bait journalism 101.

OMG I can't believe you are buying into this .....
[doublepost=1464662228][/doublepost]

That's how a top story always is anywhere. But it does get the attention,

You are correct . It's cause people read the headline and don't even bother reading the Story. Works a charm

 

[samcraig]

you missed the point that I don't even believe death threats happen routinely. Having been to the UK stores and given thier locations , the idea is even more comical for me. I would find them to be extremely rare.

Most important this story is not about Apple employees getting death threats but your suckered right in. Click bait journalism 101.

OMG I can't believe you are buying into this .....

Who said in buying into anything. I just don't think being in a good or bad neighborhood determines if you get death threats

 

[Renzatic]

If the low income earners indeed spend all that extra money, they will spend it mostly on higher prices.

Prices do go up, but not so much as to moot the whole point of the raise. Most retail outlets that do a decent amount of business could easily compensate by raising their prices up around 15% or so, give or take. The end result would be people having a good bit more money to spend on slightly more expensive goods.

 

[AxoNeuron]

Sorry to be very simple: Nobody has answered my questionOther than pointing to data and research)

Where do the additional costs go? (That's unrelated to whether jobs would be cut)

If I ran a business which produces 10,000 pieces with 20 workers (8 hours) at $ 9.00 it costs 0.144 per piece.
If it now now costs apr. 67% more = 0.24 per piece. ($ 9 to $ 15)

None of these labor rates include additional labor costs like Workers comp, disability, FICA and medicare, unemployment charges, insurance. (Some of these costs are capped per year)

My per piece price goes up, right? Anything wrong with that data?

So, now I have to negotiate price increases with my customers and look for other ways to get my margins back.
Guaranteed nobody will accept a 67% price increase.

Since everybody is getting more all companies have to find ways to make it all work. That means my prices for material will go up also.

If the low income earners indeed spend all that extra money, they will spend it mostly on higher prices.

If you really believe that any of the corporate profit margins ends up going into the pockets of minimum wage earners, I have a bridge I can sell you.

In the real world, most industries that rely on minimum wage workers ALSO benefit the most when the minimum wage goes up. For example, fast food. The data shows that when the minimum wage goes up, their labor costs go up...but their sales ALSO go up, and in most examples, this more than makes up for the increased labor costs.

You really don't like looking at data do you? It's not as if this is the first time any country/region has ever considered raising the minimum wage in the history of the world. It's happened a LOT of times. So yes, we have the data, and it largely doesn't show what you are saying is gonna happen. When a country/region raises the minimum wage, prices do go up by a very tiny amount, nearly imperceptibly. But the corresponding increases in sales (since more people have more cash to spend) MORE than makes up for these tiny price increases. Thus, raising the minimum wage benefits BOTH businesses and workers in the vast majority of industries.

You are only looking at one part of the puzzle (expenses). Due to competitive pressures, a lot of companies won't be able to rise prices.

Furthermore, for the average product out there, only a very tiny percentage of its cost actually went to paying minimum wage employees. Thus, the vast majority of companies and products out there would only have to raise prices by less than a percent, and this is exactly what happens in the real world when a state/country raises its minimum wage: inflation does increase, but only by a very tiny amount.

And this is what happens in the real world: businesses CANT raise their prices due to competition, but increased sales make up for the gap.

 

[IJ Reilly]

you missed the point that I don't even believe death threats happen routinely. Having been to the UK stores and given thier locations , the idea is even more comical for me. I would find them to be extremely rare.

According to the former employee, he or she received death threats "maybe a couple of times." So perhaps twice. Or less. So the "routine" headline both Business Insider and MR decided was an accurate reflection of that statement was plainly contradicted by the article itself. Strange and sad how we continue to debate headlines when real information can be so readily found underneath. Kind of leaves you not wondering so much about how the world got into the state it is in.

 

[MH01]

Who said in buying into anything. I just don't think being in a good or bad neighborhood determines if you get death threats

While not relevant to this topic, I'd argue strongly that you are far more likely to get death threats in a bad "neighborhood", there is a reason you call them bad. Crime stats kinda support that....especially following through on the death threats....

back on topic , can you see how click bait journalism works a treat.... Have you read the actual article ? Do you believe it's actually about what we are discussing right now ?
[doublepost=1464677613][/doublepost]

According to the former employee, he or she received death threats "maybe a couple of times." So perhaps twice. Or less. So the "routine" headline both Business Insider and MR decided was an accurate reflection of that statement was plainly contradicted by the article itself. Strange and sad how we continue to debate headlines when real information can be so readily found underneath. Kind of leaves you not wondering so much about how the world got into the state it is in.

Given it was "one" former employee and as you say, information contradicts itself, shows how much people actually read and analyse the information before accepting it as fact written in stone. I'd argue the majority just read the headline, form an oppion and become keyboard warriors...

I find it hilarious that people link people's posting attitudes on MR, be it aggressive at times, to fans making death threats in store . Geeks make the biggest keyboard warriors , while face to face in a public areas ......ha ha ha....

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

For the life of me I can't understand why people would send death threats to employees in the Apple Store. I think it's more of a reflection of the area that store is located in rather than the company itself.

If anybody has had a bad experience with a product, it's best to buy an alternative. Threatening to kill people who work there is beyond ridiculous and those people need to be investigated.

 

[Cloudane]

Sounds awful. But then retail always does. That's why I try my best to treat retail workers as human beings, which everyone should do - besides, if you have a fault or something then people are naturally more inclined to help if you're polite (but firm) and nice to deal with. If you're an absolute douchenugget they'll want to stand their ground.


This employee really needed to be more careful about correlation though. They get called a bitch which is most commonly directed at females, so can take a guess at gender. She revealed starting and ending wage, approximate dates, that she's had an email from Tim Cook, that a colleague in the same store said buying Beats was a terrible idea, that another colleague suggested something and CC'd it to the London store and had a reply off Tim, if the death threat was documented (probably has to be if it's reported to a manager) then they can look for incidents mentioning a customer threatening to run over the employee. A "Net Promoter" score of 88. The list goes on. None of these things would identify her on their own, but it seems to me it wouldn't be too difficult for them to piece them together and figure out who it was by correlation, if they really wanted to pursue them legally.

Edit: Also yeah, agree that commission is better off out of it. It's a breath of fresh air walking into a store and not being pounced on with all the "suits you sir" business, desperate upselling etc.
There is definitely a bit of sensationalism to the piece though (with tactics like taking "They would wait outside until I finished work to run me down with their car." as a soundbite, making it sound like a regular occurrence and not a part of a single story as per the context), and clearly some sour grapes from the ex-employee. A bit concerning in places, a bit disappointing that Apple are no better at treating retail employees than other big companies, but not as scandalous as the article seems to be trying to position it as.
As a general comment, I'm starting to tire of the "death threats card" being used to exaggerate and sensationalise. See literally any article mentioning Twitter, too. Don't get me wrong, this direct threat she had was serious and should've been reported to the police. But they just couldn't resist making out like it happens all the time. The other version of this is people tweeting dumb stuff like "this sucks, I'll kill you!" and it being played up as them literally plotting murder. Usually it's just some gobby kid.

 

[Thunderhawks]

In the real world, most industries that rely on minimum wage workers ALSO benefit the most when the minimum wage goes up. For example, fast food. The data shows that when the minimum wage goes up, their labor costs go up...but their sales ALSO go up, and in most examples, this more than makes up for the increased labor costs.

You really don't like looking at data do you? It's not as if this is the first time any country/region has ever considered raising the minimum wage in the history of the world. It's happened a LOT of times. So yes, we have the data, and it largely doesn't show what you are saying is gonna happen. When a country/region raises the minimum wage, prices do go up by a very tiny amount, nearly imperceptibly. But the corresponding increases in sales (since more people have more cash to spend) MORE than makes up for these tiny price increases. Thus, raising the minimum wage benefits BOTH businesses and workers in the vast majority of industries.

You are only looking at one part of the puzzle (expenses). Due to competitive pressures, a lot of companies won't be able to rise prices.

Furthermore, for the average product out there, only a very tiny percentage of its cost actually went to paying minimum wage employees. Thus, the vast majority of companies and products out there would only have to raise prices by less than a percent, and this is exactly what happens in the real world when a state/country raises its minimum wage: inflation does increase, but only by a very tiny amount.

And this is what happens in the real world: businesses CANT raise their prices due to competition, but increased sales make up for the gap.

I've read plenty of research by now and most of what I see analyzes the effect in fast food, Starbucks, Dunkin'Don't Eats etc.
Their prices go up (more than 1 %, McDonalds was estimated at 4.3%), but not at the full wage increase equivalent. Reason is that in their calculation labor costs are only part of the overall cost structure.

That is different for small factories, which provide services where almost all work is done by hand.
It is not so easy to just claim no jobs are cut or lost.
Say a worker leaves and you just don't replace her/him. That will not show up as a lost job in any statistic.

It's not an easily solvable issue, but to claim it has almost no effect is not correct.

 

[Eraserhead]

I've read plenty of research by now and most of what I see analyzes the effect in fast food, Starbucks, Dunkin'Don't Eats etc.
Their prices go up (more than 1 %, McDonalds was estimated at 4.3%), but not at the full wage increase equivalent. Reason is that in their calculation labor costs are only part of the overall cost structure.

That is different for small factories, which provide services where almost all work is done by hand.
It is not so easy to just claim no jobs are cut or lost.
Say a worker leaves and you just don't replace her/him. That will not show up as a lost job in any statistic.

It's not an easily solvable issue, but to claim it has almost no effect is not correct.

Why don't the studies on minimum wage increases show this?

 

[langis.elbasunu]

Sorry to be very simple: Nobody has answered my questionOther than pointing to data and research)

Where do the additional costs go? (That's unrelated to whether jobs would be cut)

If I ran a business which produces 10,000 pieces with 20 workers (8 hours) at $ 9.00 it costs 0.144 per piece.
If it now now costs apr. 67% more = 0.24 per piece. ($ 9 to $ 15)

None of these labor rates include additional labor costs like Workers comp, disability, FICA and medicare, unemployment charges, insurance. (Some of these costs are capped per year)

My per piece price goes up, right? Anything wrong with that data?

So, now I have to negotiate price increases with my customers and look for other ways to get my margins back.
Guaranteed nobody will accept a 67% price increase.

Since everybody is getting more all companies have to find ways to make it all work. That means my prices for material will go up also.

If the low income earners indeed spend all that extra money, they will spend it mostly on higher prices.

If you really believe that any of the corporate profit margins ends up going into the pockets of minimum wage earners, I have a bridge I can sell you.

oh this old chestnut

 

[jephrey]

Should everyone working at the Maserati dealer be able to buy a Maserati?

I don't feel bad for Apple retail employees. There are a plethora of other retail outlets. If you don't like it, go work elsewhere. In my experience most businesses holding employees are more about getting the most and highest quality work out of every individual for the least amount of money.

Sorry about the death threats tho. How often do Apple employees get physically attacked in/out of the store? Not to say that a death threat is something to take easy but are these empty threats?

 

[DavidLeblond]

Sounds to me like a pretty routine retail job.

 

[FieldingMellish]

Q: How much is that Thunderbolt cable in the window?

A: $45.00

WHAT?! I'm going to kill you!!

 

[wigby]

Stock discounts to employees are perfectly legal. Learn first. Post second.

Several posters already educated me. You're late. Read first. Post second.