Lawsuit by Apple Retail Employees Over Off-the-Clock Bag Searches Dismissed

[balamw]

MOD NOTE: Please note that this is a News thread that is not in our Politics etc... subform.

Please keep to the immediate topic, larger political discussions should happen in their own thread in the acceptable forum.

B

 

[numlock]

Love it. "Get your facts straight". Put your thinking hat on. The question is whether a store can be sure to have only honest employees, or also employees that may be dishonest. The million dollar theft is clearly evidence that Apple has some dishonest employees.

so their hiring process is faulty.

 

[2010mini]

During my retail employment days workers avoided searches by leaving their bags in their cars. Taking out only what they needed and put it in a clear plastic handbag. At a glance security could see everything in the bag and the workers just breezed through on their way out the door.

Every retail store searches employees. Never heard of one compensating its employees for it.

 

[ScottNWDW]

During my retail employment days workers avoided searches by leaving their bags in their cars. Taking out only what they needed and put it in a clear plastic handbag. At a glance security could see everything in the bag and the workers just breezed through on their way out the door.

Every retail store searches employees. Never heard of one compensating its employees for it.

Exactly.

 

[pdqgp]

you know what. that dosent seem like it is that much of a choice for a lot of people.

again, how an employee gets to work isn't any concern of the employer.

 

[SkydiveGuy]

That's a moronic way to look at it.

I guess we should all go around in rags and not carry any iPhones or iPads. We should live in caves, not drive cars and not carry around any money in case we attract thieves or burglars.

That's not what I said at all. I was calling him out for making an arguement that's was a logical fallacy.

He was comparing a retail emoloyer searching a bag that you willingly brought to work (knowing they are going to search it) to Mugger not stopped from being a criminal just because you are carrying a bag. Completely different things.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Ah, more corporate friendly judges deciding for everyone that companies should be allowed to waste your time without compensation. Yeah, you could not bring a bag. You could not bring a lunch. You could just stay home. There's problems associated with all those options, but you COULD do them. That's the judge's logic in a nut shell. I could ask for an unbiased judge too, but I won't get one.

You could argue that it's not worth much, but based on the potential settlement Apple would have had to pay, I'd say it's worth a LOT (millions each year). How nice of the judge to give Apple free millions.

 

[Swampthing]

decent point of view. however the absurdity of comparing what you have to put up with to keep a roof over you head and not go to bed hungry as opposed to filling yourself with sugar is baffling.

Exactly right! People don't realize that many Apple employees will become homeless and beggars in the streets. Join violent criminal gangs. Start making meth at home and selling it. They might even consider becoming a super villain. All because they are forced into these bag checks of bags they didn't even need to bring to work anyway.

 

[macfacts]

So many clueless people here. The major complaint was the workers had to wait for a manager to have free time to check their bags. Next time you are at an apple store, look around and tell me how many security guards you see. Most likely zero. It isn't the security guard checking bags.

Next time you ask a worker to speak with a manager, time how long it takes. The managers are busy people. If it takes a while for a manager to come over to deal with a customer, guess how long a worker needs to wait after their shift ends.

 

[norbinhouston]

So employees are wanting compensation for the few seconds it takes to check their bags for stolen goods? Because its outside their work hours? Then Apple should deduct the few seconds that they goof off at work. And remember the article where Apple Store employees stole thousands of dollars worth of stuff? Can't blame them for wanting to check their bags.

 

[numlock]

again, how an employee gets to work isn't any concern of the employer.

see now you are moving the goalposts. you used the word choice and i argued against that. this post has nothing to do with that.

Exactly right! People don't realize that many Apple employees will become homeless and beggars in the streets. Join violent criminal gangs. Start making meth at home and selling it. They might even consider becoming a super villain. All because they are forced into these bag checks of bags they didn't even need to bring to work anyway.

i must have written along these lines with the white font. however the two situations while comparable in some aspects are incomparable in how much you actually need the job vs the soda.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Exactly right! People don't realize that many Apple employees will become homeless and beggars in the streets. Join violent criminal gangs. Start making meth at home and selling it. They might even consider becoming a super villain. All because they are forced into these bag checks of bags they didn't even need to bring to work anyway.

You didn't need to reply, but you did anyway.

Hey, I don't need to eat lunch at work. I don't need breaks. I don't need to have a safe work environment. I don't need to be paid, even. I don't need to do anything but die and pay taxes, really.

It seems to me this argument of yours and the judge's about not "needing" to bring a bag to work is just superfluous. Obviously, the employee FELT THE DAMN NEED TO BRING A BAG TO WORK FOR A FLIPPING REASON (e.g. bring lunch, whatever) and having the judge dismiss their "need" as a "you don't need to eat" kind of reply is flipping patronizing at best and being a total tool of the corporate overlords of this country at worst.

 

[SkydiveGuy]

People are going to complain no matter what you tell them at time of the interview.

"If we hire you, we check any bags you bring with you when you leave. This happens after you clock out and can sometimes take 10 mins or longer depending on how busy we are."

"Ok, yeah, whatever..... How much am I paid, home much of a discount do I get on products, what are the other things that benefit me?"

(A few months later)

"Waaaaaaa! It's not fair that I am missing out on $3 pay even though I get a nice discount on the items we sell that are never discounted anywhere they are sold!"

 

[pdqgp]

see now you are moving the goalposts. you used the word choice and i argued against that. this post has nothing to do with that.

I'm not moving anything. The choice in how an employee arrives at work that impacts this situation has ZERO Bearing on their employer. If an employee CHOOSES to come to work in a manner that doesn't permit them to store their personal belongings outside their place of employment then that's on them.

If they don't like the rules then leave.

 

[SkydiveGuy]

Obviously, the employee FELT THE DAMN NEED TO BRING A BAG TO WORK FOR A FLIPPING REASON (e.g. bring lunch, whatever) and having the judge dismiss their "need" as a "you don't need to eat" kind of reply is flipping patronizing at best and being a total tool of the corporate overlords of this country at worst.

I work in a bad area.... I personally feel the need to bring a gun with me to work.... It's a right in the USA but almost all employers have a policy against it.... Doesn't mean I can ignore my employers policy and carry a gun with me just because I FELT THE DAMN NEED. It does mean that if I want to exercise that right, I can quit my job and do it though.

 

[MacGizmo]

I love how the plaintiffs are "weighing their potential for next steps, which could include an appeal."

The US Supreme Court has already ruled on this. There is no "potential" in an appeal. They will lose. And quite frankly, I would be surprised if an appeals court even hears the case. They'll probably cite the previous case and tell the lawyers to bugger-off.

I think retail workers get treated like garbage for the most part, regardless of what company they work for. But in this case, I have to side with the retail companies. If you don't want to be delayed in leaving, don't bring anything in.

"Having things to do outside of work" as some other have stated, is not the company's problem. Theft of physical and intellectual property is. Sadly, it's the world we live in.

 

[snowmoon]

Those damn diabetics with their medical meals and insulin, they don't need those bags they should just leave them at home. /s

 

[numlock]

I'm not moving anything. The choice in how an employee arrives at work that impacts this situation has ZERO Bearing on their employer.

yes you are. if it is not a choice how employees arrive at work (might largely be due to the compensation of said workplace) then its also not a choice on what you need to bring with you to work.

but actually it does have a huge bearing on the employer. more cars means the need for more parking spaces. it means more pollution associated with that workplace. it means less cars on the roads which helps deliveries for companies like apple etc etc. a lot of companies have started supporting employees using alternative means of commuting to work for those very reasons.

 

[snowmoon]

Last I checked the local mall required employees park in the furthest spots and during holiday season they have their own lot with a shuttle. The idea that employees are only moments from their vehicles is laughable.

 

[pdqgp]

yes you are. if it is not a choice how employees arrive at work (might largely be due to the compensation of said workplace) then its also not a choice on what you need to bring with you to work.

1. Again, there's ZERO bearing on the employer if their employees don't have the finances to drive a car.
2. Supreme Court has already ruled, so good luck arguing. Lawyers are the only ones winning here.

a lot of companies have started supporting employees using alternative means of commuting to work for those very reasons.

No bearing on this matter. Still a choice on the employees part as to how they commute to work. They know the rules once at work.

 

[SkydiveGuy]

The next thing retail employees will sue for is the fact that they need to commute to and from work unpaid.

What about not being paid for the 5 minutes it took them to walk from their car to the store, let alone the 1 minute it took to walk to the timeclock to punch in.

I used to work for Home Depot and they would tell us we needed to be in our aprons and ready to work prior to punching in. This was because people would punch in and the sit in the break room for 15 minutes before starting their shifts.

Employers are forced to dumb down their policies to their worst employee.

Edit: notice I said "used to work for"?

 

[KPOM]

Instead of paying $10/hr for an 8 hour shift and not compensating for bag checks they can pay $9.70/ hr and compensate for the 15 minute bag search. #ProblemSolved.

 

[Kaibelf]

Those damn diabetics with their medical meals and insulin, they don't need those bags they should just leave them at home. /s

Couldn't think of an example with an iron lung?

 

[pdqgp]

The next thing retail employees will sue for is the fact that they need to commute to and from work unpaid.

I know you're being sarcastic but just pointing out the fact that IRS rules already exist on this. Commutes to work are not open for compensation or mileage deductions.

 

[snowmoon]

The next thing retail employees will sue for is the fact that they need to commute to and from work unpaid.

http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs22.htm

An employee who travels from home before the regular workday and returns to his/her home at the end of the workday is engaged in ordinary home to work travel, which is not work time.

Nope, FLSA does not count regular travel time as compensated and for good reason. The employee is free to go about their business without interference from the employer.