But they have security cameras I assume. When I worked at target people brought their own bags in all the time, no search needed.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Lawsuit by Apple Retail Employees Over Off-the-Clock Bag Searches Dismissed
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You've never worked with retail security, I take it. Trust me, the car being on the property is considered an issue and I'm sure there have been many instances where employers or security staff have gone out and searched an employee's car. I've witnessed it a couple times myself where it was believed an employee had taken something out on their lunch break.
My point is that if you can justify searching an employee's personal property in the store, you can justify searching their car. And I have to wonder where it stops. Where do we draw the line with employee privacy and security of their property? Are employers also allowed to view the contents of your phone, see your text exchanges and make sure you weren't planning any thefts with other employees? I mean, you phone came into the building. It's fair game, right?
Last edited:
Whether I worked retail or not is irrelevant. I know what your point is, and I disagreed with it based on the reason I've already stated. If you disagree, then state why the difference I already stated doesn't matter. And the phone? Also irrelevant, as it can't smuggle merchandise in it.
Not with that, but with those that take unreasonable amount of time. Surely what you witnessed doesn't necessarily represent all cases all the time, right? So if there are enough that take much longer than reasonable then some people might be urged to want to do something about them, right?
The line is and has been drawn at the point of entry/exit.
Last edited by a moderator:
While that may sound frivolous, if you are shaving minutes like that off a time card, company management has a big problem with their margins. That is the problem and not what is counted as time. Also been told that Apple stores have some of the smallest "shrink" in the retail business.
I understand both sides of the fence (time = money) but at the end of the day, for me, it comes down to: being grateful to have a job. Those demanding money to stand around while they wait for their bags to be checked is a symptom of the entitlement era that we now live in.
Do I expect my employer to pay for my vehicle's gas or repairs so that I can get to work each day? No. That would be unreasonable, yet my employer expects that I'm there.
Do I understand correctly that these bag checks no longer happen, or do they still? What is the latest policy on that? I'm honestly not sure how I'd feel about a manager rummaging through my bag. I'd feel much better that there is a trust relationship. These people suing Apple should direct their energy towards the reason *why* Apple has/had a bag-check in place.... the dishonest people. Apple is not the bad guy in the grand scheme. They are just protecting the interests of their business and customers.
Not necessarily. IMO this could be a totally opportunistic lawsuit started by a law firm looking for clients to fit the plantiff profile. So called "lawsuit fishing" is considered unethical by most Bars but is hard to prove when you find a client after the fact. This requires further investigation if anyone bothers.
There are a lot of parallels in management style between Steve Jobs and Henry Ford. Both were very anti-union, drove their employees hard and long, never accepted the status quo, critical of anyone "just getting by" in their business and most of all, rewarded those great performers so well, they could not find a better job elsewhere.
Of course in SF. SMH. There are more important things that need to be in the court system them this.
Too bad if you weren't a GREAT performer though, although you'd think it would be a lead pipe cinch to be a great worker.
Apple could say that employees aren't allowed to bring and store bags at work. They don't. They just say that if you bring one it has to be checked on the way out on your own time. Seems reasonable. Would those of you advocating that the searches are paid also think that travel time to and from work should be paid? Would you expect lunch to be paid just because people do need to eat during the day? Should they be compensated if there is a long line at the time clock when they get there? Of course not. Having their bag checked is part of the job they are paid for, that doesn't mean that it can't be required.
So if there was one time clock and it took 20 minutes to sign on, you'd be okay with that. Oh and another 20 minutes to sign off, oh and another 20 minutes to sign off for a meal break etc.
There is a "tyranny of the majority" in many corporate and blue collar environments that discourage outstanding performance for fear to disrupting the status quo or -- the worst mindset -- "making others look bad."
If management does not know how to handle this type of bullying upon high achieving workers, the company as a whole suffers. I have seen some very talented people intentionally downgraded in their reviews so their manager keeps their job and continues the mortgage payments.
The most extreme I saw was a manager who was going after a very talented software developer accusing him of a mental illness to justify a bypass of a promotion. This got an outside attorney involved where the manager was arraigned for improper practicing as a mental health professional without certification. No charges were filed but the manager was dismissed over it.
If investigated properly, you often find a hidden standard for promotion that does not follow individual merit. Many of these high achieving people break out on their own starting their own company or become consultants to bypass this career compromise.
No but I do expect that if I'm told I have to stay there while I am waiting on my bag to be checked then I should stay on the clock. You are suggesting that if I work thru my lunch it should not be paid as well, if I take a lunch I agree it's not on the clock but if I don't I should not have to give the employer that time either.
But your manager WILL talk to you if you spend too much time in the bathroom. You WILL lose your job if this keeps happening. So Employers SHOULD be willing to compensate if it takes extra time to do bag searches. They could restrict bags and merchandise to opposite sides of a wall so that they only had to search people, not backpacks. Screen the doorway like mad, and those searches go much faster. For all the solutions about how people are free to find a better job, Apple is free to hire more honest employees - or to make the job nice enough to not encourage theft, or to design the back of the store to make it more difficult, or to expedite searches, hire more searchers, and zillions of other solutions. Its not like Apple is strapped for cash.
Also, if you require people not to go to the bathroom, you will end up paying for more janitors as employees pee on the floor. This would not bode well in a retail establishment. Will you pay the off-duty Apple Genius who answers a quick question just to be nice? What about one that posts in the forums to help out? Nickel and diming can go both ways.
Look, what if the "search" to 15 YEARS instead of minutes? Would you agree that that is an unreasonable amount of unpaid time to stand in line? I thought so. Ok, now that you understand the principle, we are down to negotiating time. 15 months? Days? Hours? Exactly how long does the company own your time after they stop paying you?
If you cant trust your workers, hire better. If you aren't attracting good talent, offer more (supply and demand thing, remember? That is your excuse when you let people go).
Yeah, real smart. Quit based on not getting paid for a 30 second period of time (about 12 cents). If you prioritize 12 cents over all the other Apple retail perks, well.... that's just strange.
(or keep your '12 cents' by not bringing in backpacks to work)
I worked at an outfit where you could park a vehicle on their property. They could legally search it, and of course any 'bag', entering or exiting the property.
Inevitably, things were slow at times exiting. Since I voluntarily worked there (they hadn't repeatedly kidnapped me) I planned accordingly for the expected delays. I was 'off the clock' for this, of course. I knew of the policy before I was hired and it was more strictly enforced as time went by.
It was irritating at times but it was their property that I entered willfully. I never had a notion that being employed there conferred ownership to me. My property rights are dear to me. I assume it's the same for others, thus grant them the respect they deserve.
I hope the Apple employees who choose to remain employed there, or as long as a position exists for them, take a closer look at the ramifications to themselves when/if employers lose their property rights. The next ox gored could be them. If the conditions of employment don't satisfy you, work your tail off doing your job and try to effect change. If you think change isn't probable or worthwhile to even attempt to achieve, work hard or move on.
Perhaps it's time to sell your services to a different, willing buyer.
Inevitably, things were slow at times exiting. Since I voluntarily worked there (they hadn't repeatedly kidnapped me) I planned accordingly for the expected delays. I was 'off the clock' for this, of course. I knew of the policy before I was hired and it was more strictly enforced as time went by.
It was irritating at times but it was their property that I entered willfully. I never had a notion that being employed there conferred ownership to me. My property rights are dear to me. I assume it's the same for others, thus grant them the respect they deserve.
I hope the Apple employees who choose to remain employed there, or as long as a position exists for them, take a closer look at the ramifications to themselves when/if employers lose their property rights. The next ox gored could be them. If the conditions of employment don't satisfy you, work your tail off doing your job and try to effect change. If you think change isn't probable or worthwhile to even attempt to achieve, work hard or move on.
Perhaps it's time to sell your services to a different, willing buyer.
Well, quitting to make a change won't work unless a huge enough number of people do it, which isn't realistic in a case like this. That said, this really isn't about 30 second checks.
Jesus. Some retail employees are really annoying. Every single damn retail store in every single damn developed country checks bags of employees without paying them for that. Those searches take 30 seconds AT MOST. And I know because I'm in retail business. Every single damn store does it. It's perfectly legal and employees are NEVER reimbursed for those checks because they are NOT working. So to those complaining about the lawsuit being thrown out, go do your homework because you have class tomorrow and let adults talk.
Quitting in spite only works if, 1) you create a loss at the company, or 2) there is a publicity that hurts the company over your departure. In this case, an Apple retail employee quits, they are replaced almost that day. Apple is a master of PR spin where the products are more valued than the rank and file employees.
It is not like a strip club where a house favorite quits over a management dispute and her regulars follow her to another club. Yes, I have a classmate that paid her whole tuition this way and lost count of the Sugar Daddy offers.
Touché
All checks take 30 seconds or less all the time in all stores everywhere? (Not sure if more absolutes can fit in that.)
Last edited by a moderator:
I think some of the bag lovers here should check out the story on Apple Insider. A few more details there including:
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge William Alsop said plaintiffs could have effectively bypassed Apple's searches by not bringing a bag to work. The class pursued compensation based on a scenario in which personal effects were taken to work willfully and for personal convenience, judge Alsop writes. Further, no members asserted special needs scenarios when given the opportunity to do so.
So let's stop all the BS about Apple hassling diabetics not being able to have insulin, or people unable to take their medications, etc. The class members were basically all losers who were taking personal effects to work - probably games and magazines - and using their personal effects on company time. I guess they felt "entitled" to do that. Yet those same employees expected to get paid for spending a few minutes of non-productive time walk out the door. Perhaps they should consider that time compensation back to the company for using those personal effects on company time, no?
My guess is they aren't finished yet! I am sure they have two new targets in their sight: the senior citizen Walmart greeters and COSTCO senior citizens checking receipts for items with no bag. How dare they infringe on the customers personal time by slowing down their exit from the store? Making them seem like criminals by checking their receipts? Oh the humanity...
(yes, the last para was sarcasm. lighten up folks, this argument isn't worth a WWE Cage Death Match... People in other countries fall down LTAO at Americans like these plaintiffs.)
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge William Alsop said plaintiffs could have effectively bypassed Apple's searches by not bringing a bag to work. The class pursued compensation based on a scenario in which personal effects were taken to work willfully and for personal convenience, judge Alsop writes. Further, no members asserted special needs scenarios when given the opportunity to do so.
So let's stop all the BS about Apple hassling diabetics not being able to have insulin, or people unable to take their medications, etc. The class members were basically all losers who were taking personal effects to work - probably games and magazines - and using their personal effects on company time. I guess they felt "entitled" to do that. Yet those same employees expected to get paid for spending a few minutes of non-productive time walk out the door. Perhaps they should consider that time compensation back to the company for using those personal effects on company time, no?
My guess is they aren't finished yet! I am sure they have two new targets in their sight: the senior citizen Walmart greeters and COSTCO senior citizens checking receipts for items with no bag. How dare they infringe on the customers personal time by slowing down their exit from the store? Making them seem like criminals by checking their receipts? Oh the humanity...
(yes, the last para was sarcasm. lighten up folks, this argument isn't worth a WWE Cage Death Match... People in other countries fall down LTAO at Americans like these plaintiffs.)
You seem like a nice person, to you anyone who dares to bring a bag to work is a loser, you know it's people like you who have bought about the need for unions and standard hours.
So if it takes 20-30 minutes a day to get a manager or whoever checks the employees bags before they leave that is ok, what if the person has several bags to check and your there longer that is ok as well? If it's only a matter of a minute or two I agree but if indeed that is the case why not just do it before the employee clocks out? Why is it a big deal to check the bags at the time clock before the employee clocks out if it only takes a minimal amount of time? I would be interested to know just how much time the employee is losing waiting for their bags to be checked.