Apple to Face Class Action Lawsuit Over Off-the-Clock Employee Bag Checking

[C DM]

I think you're just purposely ignoring my point. It IS a privilege to HAVE a job. As you said earlier; "Your employer doesn't give two hoots about you or your welfare except if it benefits them in greater productivity or brings them negative publicity."

And that was exactly my point. An employer can hire anyone they please that qualifies for the job and if they don't like you for any reason they can fire you and replace you. It's not your right to keep that job after they hire you. It's always a privilege to work under someone else's roof who is paying you.

Just as one doesn't have a right to drive a car, it's a privilege.

If you feel indifferent then you're falling under the title of "Entitlement", which is what is sadly wrong with this new generation of people.

Well, it's not always the case everywhere that they can just fire you for any reason.

 

[steve62388]

And that was exactly my point. An employer can hire anyone they please that qualifies for the job and if they don't like you for any reason they can fire you and replace you. It's not your right to keep that job after they hire you. It's always a privilege to work under someone else's roof who is paying you.

I don't know what awful country you live in that does not have any employment law but in the UK an employer cannot summarily dismiss you as they please, at least not yet anyway. Maybe that's why you have a chip on your shoulder about the whole thing?

With views like these I have to assume you're either a business owner, a manager (albeit misguided), or lack any compassion for your fellow human beings. Because I care for the welfare of those less fortunate than myself we're never going to see eye to eye.

 

[maxsix]

Having come to the public's attention, this story reg regarding bag checks isn't unique to the stores. However it's gotten legs because of the number of employees involved and the law suit. Anyone who knows the truth about Apple isn't surprised about these checks. Being highly concerned about potential leaks of company secrets Apple has always been vigilant to the point of outright paranoia. Nothing new, Apple has performed bag checks on thousands of contractors and others that enter Apples walled garden for a variety off reasons. Nothing new here.

 

[HenryDJP]

I don't know what awful country you live in that does not have any employment law but in the UK an employer cannot summarily dismiss you as they please, at least not yet anyway. Maybe that's why you have a chip on your shoulder about the whole thing?

With views like these I have to assume you're either a business owner, a manager (albeit misguided), or lack any compassion for your fellow human beings. Because I care for the welfare of those less fortunate than myself we're never going to see eye to eye.

I live in the U.S. and an employer can fire you for any reason at any time. I do not have a chip on my shoulder, but your posts have been on the arrogant side, including this one trying to argue against my point telling me I'm wrong. I'm not surprised though...

 

[HenryDJP]

Well, it's not always the case everywhere that they can just fire you for any reason.

In the U.S. an employer can fire you for any reason at any time, outside of blatant discriminatory reasons. But if that was the case they wouldn't hire that person in the first place.

 

[C DM]

I live in the U.S. and an employer can fire you for any reason at any time. I do not have a chip on my shoulder, but your posts have been a bit on the arrogant side, including this one trying to argue against my point telling me I'm wrong. I'm not surprised though...

I'm not sure that's the case in all the states. Furthermore, there are cases where the reasoning can be discriminatory and thus against the law even in states where it's possible.

 

[HenryDJP]

I'm not sure that's the case in all the states. Furthermore, there are cases where the reasoning can be discriminatory and thus against the law even in states where it's possible.

I replied you with that same information.

 

[C DM]

I replied you with that same information.

In the U.S. an employer can fire you for any reason at any time, outside of blatant discriminatory reasons. But if that was the case they wouldn't hire that person in the first place.

Again pretty certain that laws differ on that from state to state. Furthermore it's not a simplistic thing to say that discrimination wouldn't happen most likely because they wouldn't get hired to begin with--certainly in some cases that's the case (in which case that's basically illegal as well), but in quite a few cases people get hired and then get let go for discriminatory reasons too.

 

[HenryDJP]

Again pretty certain that laws differ on that from state to state. Furthermore it's not a simplistic thing to say that discrimination wouldn't happen most likely because they wouldn't get hired to begin with--certainly in some cases that's the case (in which case that's basically illegal as well), but in quite a few cases people get hired and then get let go for discriminatory reasons too.

That's fine. Thanks. It just sounds like you and the other person are desperate to find anything in my post to tell me I'm wrong. You're not even showing any proof of other states that don't uphold to this law. You're just saying, "I'm pretty certain that laws differ from state to state." While that may be true, rather than tell me I'm wrong, please post proof of that. Good Lord, MR is such a chore to have a decent discussion with anyone as some people's egos are so desperate to call people out for being wrong, even if they are not "certain".
The odd thing is I generally LIKE most, if not all of your posts.

 

[C DM]

That's fine. Thanks. It just sounds like you and the other person are desperate to find anything in my post to tell me I'm wrong. You're not even showing any proof of other states that don't uphold to this law. You're just saying, "I'm pretty certain that laws differ from state to state." While that may be true, rather than tell me I'm wrong, please post proof of that. Good Lord, MR is such a chore to have a decent discussion with anyone as some people's egos are so desperate to call people out for being wrong, even if they are not "certain".
The odd thing is I generally LIKE most, if not all of your posts.

Technically speaking you made the claims that in US anyone can be fired for any reason first. You provided no backup for that aside from just saying it. That's really no different than what you suddenly seem to be accusing me of, and is perhaps worse in a sense as you are not even qualifying it by saying that you just believe that's the case and simply stating it to essentially present it as a given fact (without anything to back it up).

I simply pointed out that I don't believe that what you are saying is as absolute and essentially as simplistic as your statements seem to make it out to be. Nothing more, nothing less. The reason I qualified my statements instead of just stating them as given facts is that I recalled there being various differences and exceptions, but didn't recall the details. (But, again, technically speaking, the burden should be on you really to back up what you initially brought up.)

I guess MR would somehow be a "better" place if people would just state whatever they feel like in a way that makes it appear as fact and everyone should just accept it and not even challenge it if they think it might not be quite right (or perhaps right at at all)? Somehow that seems opposite of better. It's got nothing to do with liking someone or their posts or whatnot, or anything related to egos--it's not personal or anything of the sort.

That said, I'll just put this out there: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment. Having spent some
time refreshing myself on it now--instead of just throwing it back at you to wait for your supporting information--while US is certainly much more of an "at will" country, there are exceptions beyond just discrimination. (And worldwide the "at will" piece of it appears to be more of an exception than the rule given that most countries don't operate that way.)

 

[Belmont31R]

Frys and some other companies (i think best buy) search their customers on the way out. I don't think their is much of a case here.
Apple should maybe do the searches in the back instead of in the front for all to see.

Those are actually optional. Only membership clubs like Costco where you agree to a receipt check can do so as a condition of shopping there. I have walked past Fry's receipt checkers and they cannot do anything about it.

 

[Juicy Box]

I'm not sure that's the case in all the states. Furthermore, there are cases where the reasoning can be discriminatory and thus against the law even in states where it's possible.

It depends on the states' laws. C DM is correct about firing an employee without cause or reason in Maryland. It is called "at will" employment.

But it works the other way to, an employee can terminate his employment at any time for any reason without any legal ramifications from their employer.

Look it up.

 

[Juicy Box]

Those are actually optional. Only membership clubs like Costco where you agree to a receipt check can do so as a condition of shopping there. I have walked past Fry's receipt checkers and they cannot do anything about it.

Yup, he is right. At non-membership retailers you voluntarily show your receipt if asked, it is because it was your choice. They can't stop you without cause. If they do stop and detain you, and you are not stealing, this can be very litigious for retailers.

But membership places like Costco are different.

 

[s2mikey]

Regarding the state of employment in the USA and the rules: In the good old days, employers and employees used to "have each other's backs" and the relationship went beyond simply paying you for your time and that's it. Companies took care of people. People didn't mind working a little extra or going the extra mile. Companies didn't mind raises, providing health care, etc, etc. Yeah. Imagine that? Companies actually taking monies from their precious profits to make their employees lives better. It was beautiful. You didn't even need any laws since everyone played nice without rules. It was the right thing to do. The employee gave their employer an honest, hard days work and the employer took care of them on the other end. Period.

Now? It's all about satisfying investor thugs and Wall Street mouth breathers. Profit, profit, profit. Slave labor and outsourcing? Too bad. Hiding income from taxes? Yep, too bad. Squeezing benefits for more profit? Yep, sorry. Sucking the Wall Street knob at all costs? Yes siree.

Both employees and employers are almost enemies now, simply enduring one another with zero respect towards each other. I realize there are still some good places to work and whatever but the corporate employment landscape has changed dramatically over the last 20 years. Trust me, I've been in the trenches and know what I'm talking about.

So sad.

 

[ptb42]

They can't sack everyone. Stand together or fall alone.

Actually, they can.

The store would take a short term impact, but in today's job market there would be many people waiting for the opportunity work for Apple.

 

[ptb42]

Both employees and employers are almost enemies now, simply enduring one another with zero respect towards each other. I realize there are still some good places to work and whatever but the corporate employment landscape has changed dramatically over the last 20 years. Trust me, I've been in the trenches and know what I'm talking about.

I think you should find a new employer. Or maybe you just need an attitude adjustment.

I'm approaching 40 years of employment. I've always been treated with respect by my employer(s), and they've done many things expressly to keep me as an employee. They do it because I take my job seriously, and do it well.

It hasn't been "perfect", but I don't expect that. There have been changes that I didn't like, but they are primarily driven by external factors (like regulations and taxes) that my employer can't control.

If you don't like your situation, you should change to a better one. There's always risk in taking a new job, and it may require other changes to your life. But, the alternative is to just complain and/or do the minimum to get by, which will guarantee you'll be treated with less respect.

 

[Juicy Box]

Actually, they can.

The store would take a short term impact, but in today's job market there would be many people waiting for the opportunity work for Apple.

So true, although it may not be that short term if they fire everyone.

In an economy that job security is almost nonexistent, they could fire everyone, but not before the employees have to train their replacements.

Its already happening with jobs that require higher technical skills that most Apple store positions. Tech giants like Google and MS are replacing their current employees with cheaper foreign skilled workers using the H-1B visa program.

So it is not unthinkable for them to just fire a whole store if it came to that. Although, I think Apple would be destroyed in the media for it while others get a pass.

 

[ptb42]

Those are actually optional. Only membership clubs like Costco where you agree to a receipt check can do so as a condition of shopping there. I have walked past Fry's receipt checkers and they cannot do anything about it.

It's optional at Fry's because they don't provide prior notice that you will be subject to a receipt check when you exit.

If they were to put a large sign at the entrance (or at the "turnstile" they have in our stores just inside the entrance) stating you would be subject to a search of your purchase and receipt check, you may be effectively agreeing to it by entering and making a purchase.

This may vary, depending on your state and/or country. It hinges on whether the sign is sufficient notice, and whether your action implies consent.

 

[Zxxv]

Actually, they can.

The store would take a short term impact, but in today's job market there would be many people waiting for the opportunity work for Apple.

everybody means everybody, not in one shop but every shop

 

[Mr617]

From http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2013/10/amazon-sued-over-employee-security-checks.html:

"In the Amazon lawsuit, the class action plaintiffs allege they were never compensated during the bag searches or while waiting in line for the screenings (in a sea of about 100 employees), adding up to 10 to 20 minutes of uncompensated time per worker, according to WCAU-TV."

Source for your five-to-ten-seconds?

As you can see it says in the article you posted that the employees waited in a "sea of about 100 employees". What Apple store do you know of that has 100 employees working at the same time? Or even 20? Lets use a little common sense here shall we?

 

[C DM]

As you can see it says in the article you posted that the employees waited in a "sea of about 100 employees". What Apple store do you know of that has 100 employees working at the same time? Or even 20? Lets use a little common sense here shall we?

Reading through the thread can answer that, and that it's not as much about waiting because of many people (although that can be part of it), but about waiting for someone to actually do it:

I worked for apple back when the first iPhone came out till the 3rd generation came out.

Bag checks may take 10-15 seconds...... when they do them.
Waiting for them to check your bags can take as long as 15 - 30 min.
Not only do you have to wait for a Manager to be available.
You also have to wait your turn, you are not the only one that needs their bags checked. (and at times, the bag checks were stopped when the manager was needed on the floor).

As far as it being embarrassing, I never thought it was. Then again, I didn't carry tampons and other needs woman have and need. You had managers stick their hand in there, and take stuff out, this searches weren't in private everyone can see what you had and then comments came.

Bag searches in my opinion should be on the clock.
If I was hired to be there from 7am to 3pm, why do I have to be there any later then 3pm?

To those who ask why then bring a bag to work if its a pain, lets see since I wasn't given a parking pass (since I wasn't a full time worker - yet I worked upwards of 35 hours per week) I had to park almost a mile away to try and save a little money since I was going to school. So I carried my rain coat as it often rains were I live, and a sweater in-case it got cold.

Former Apple Store employee here. Loving all these comments from people who are making wild guesses as to how Apple stores work.

I worked at the largest Apple Store in the country- the 5th Avenue store in NYC- a couple of years ago. We were subjected to bag checks any time we left the premises. What's interesting to me is that this lawsuit claims that managers were performing bag checks. At my store, plainclothes security guards performed the checks and they were indeed sometimes in front of customers- sometimes in front of customers you had just helped which was a little embarrassing (the employee exit was next to the bathrooms so there were many customers hanging out there).

For employees at smaller stores I'm sure these bag checks don't take more than a minute but at my store, with well over 800 employees at the time of my employment, you had anywhere from 20 to 30 people getting off a shift at the same time. Everyone was eager to get out of there so the bag check line would get backed up consistently. Oftentimes I would be waiting for the 10-15 minutes as the lawsuit claims.

The other issue was that the guard performing the checks was also in charge of manning the entrance into the restricted employee-only areas. He could get preoccupied very easily, letting other employees or deliverymen in through the doors or directing customers where to go. This would just add on to our wait times creating a very frustrating situation. To top it all off, these guards would just glance in your bag, barely looking for anything. So you'd have to wait for ten minutes sometimes just to have a guy peer into your bag for a split-second.

To top it all off, 5th Ave employees had to exit via the main entrance in the middle of the store. For those of you who don't know, the 5th Avenue store is one of the busiest stores in the world and getting in and out of it at peak times is an absolute nightmare. Employees argued constantly with managers to open up a special employee entrance/exit so we could easily get in and out but for whatever reason it never happened while I was there. Maybe it's changed now since this was a few years back. I hope it has.

TL;DR- Bag checks are a big problem at the larger, busier Apple Stores.

 

[Hustler1337]

It depends on the states' laws. C DM is correct about firing an employee without cause or reason in Maryland. It is called "at will" employment.

But it works the other way to, an employee can terminate his employment at any time for any reason without any legal ramifications from their employer.

Look it up.

Wow, I'd hate to work in Maryland if this is true. I wouldn't feel comfortable working at a place knowing that my job isn't secure because I can be dismissed without reason.

 

[Hustler1337]

As you can see it says in the article you posted that the employees waited in a "sea of about 100 employees". What Apple store do you know of that has 100 employees working at the same time? Or even 20? Lets use a little common sense here shall we?

Don't forget the cumulative effect of searches on each individual employee, minutes can easily add up.

 

[BoxerGT2.5]

"the bag searches that did happen took so little time that compensation was not necessary"

That might be one of the worst legal arguments I've ever read. I hope Apple loses this case, this policy stops, and these hard working people get properly compensated.

Class action lawsuits make lawyers a ton of money. The employees will likely qualify for a check in the amount of $13.57 while the law firm rakes in millions.

 

[C DM]

Class action lawsuits make lawyers a ton of money. The employees will likely qualify for a check in the amount of $13.57 while the law firm rakes in millions.

And probably some sort of a change in the policy that created the issue to begin with.