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

[SkydiveGuy]

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.

Last I checked, malls only make profits during the holiday season. That's the entire meaning of the phrase "Black Fridy" as in ey are in the red the rest of the calendar year until the XMas shopping season starts.

 

[grobik]

how about just add 10-15 minutes onto the time card for everyone everyday. that way if you bring something or not, everyone get's "bag check reimbursement".

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

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.

You've now changed the topic. Apple never said they couldn't bring a sack lunch with them. They did say they would need to search their bag, though and they could get in the back of the line to wait to be searched and they would not be compensated for wasting their time on a pointless search of a sack lunch. If Apple wants the search, they should do it on the clock. If they don't want their employees to bring lunch, they should provide one for them (insulin as well for those that need it since they might have to bring that with them as well).

 

[numlock]

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.



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.

see it all comes down the word choice which you dont seem to know what means.

no multinational corporations are the ones winning here.

again the word choice seems to pose issues for you.

 

[SkydiveGuy]

You've now changed the topic. Apple never said they couldn't bring a sack lunch with them. They did say they would need to search their bag, though and they could get in the back of the line to wait to be searched and they would not be compensated for wasting their time on a pointless search of a sack lunch. If Apple wants the search, they should do it on the clock. If they don't want their employees to bring lunch, they should provide one for them.

My point is that what constitutes a need to me is not a need to everyone.

 

[pdqgp]

see it all comes down the word choice which you dont seem to know what means. no multinational corporations are the ones winning here. again the word choice seems to pose issues for you.

I know what choice means. I know what personal responsibility means too. In this case employees are responsible for how they get to work. Choice in how they do that is up to them. Again, they know the rules and if they don't like them they are free to CHOOSE another employer.

 

[SkydiveGuy]

ITT: Apple sucks for being in business to make money, but I'm not going to stop buying their things, or using their things to post complaints against them online.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

My point is that what constitutes a need to me is not a need to everyone.

And my point is that the world's richest tech company who regularly sticks their nose in other people's business (courtesy of the Tim Cook parade) can afford to a do a quick bag search on the clock. They could even stagger start/end times to minimize the impact. Why should every situation always benefit only the employer in 2015? Back in 1815, they thought they could just hire kids and and throw employees into situations where a few thousand casualties (e.g. building a bridge) was "normal" and perfectly acceptable. The problem in this country is the loss of unions and the corruption of government by corporations through financing political campaigns where they expect to be "paid back" by getting what they want and lobbying (glorified bribery).

 

[numlock]

I know what choice means. I know what personal responsibility means too. In this case employees are responsible for how they get to work. Choice in how they do that is up to them. Again, they know the rules and if they don't like them they are free to CHOOSE another employer.

actually you seem to think choice means having 1 option.

and here it comes. it took a few posts though.

i ask you the same question that i asked another poster. how far does this line of thinking go? what should employees accept to be subjected to? to me it seems you can give your type of response to every situation.

 

[hudson1]

Getting your bag checked before you leave is part of the job, i.e. a task. If management doesn't want to make time for you to complete your task, that doesn't magically mean you should be off the clock our not compensated. You're technically working to complete said task, even if you're standing around picking your nose. It's beyond your control.

Not quite. It's not "part of your job" to bring a bag that must be searched upon exiting.

 

[numlock]

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.

or they could pay their staff an amount that reflects what they expect from their staff. engaging the staff to be more involved as opposed to suspects is another option as well

 

[Hendu98]

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.

This; extra smoke breaks, water cooler talk, calling your doctor, taking a call from your kids school, dropping deuces, etc etc. Its all technically time clock theft, but most employers look the other way when it's not in excess. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a bag search.

Making someone wait a long while is not appropriate, but if I bring a bag and policy dictates a search (which some of our data centers do), I wouldn't argue it. If it takes 20 minutes every day, then I'd stop bringing a bag or device.

 

[SkydiveGuy]

actually you seem to think choice means having 1 option.

and here it comes. it took a few posts though.

i ask you the same question that i asked another poster. how far does this line of thinking go? what should employees accept to be subjected to? to me it seems you can give your type of response to every situation.

No, they also have the choice of staying at Apple as an employee. You are trying to twist his words against him.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

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

There's a difference between YOU choosing where YOU work and where YOU live and the EMPLOYER CHOOSING to do a security search of you or your property. The difference is who is choosing what. The judge suggests you could choose not to bring that bag with you. But I'm suggesting that bringing a lunch or insulin or whatever isn't the type of choice judges should be robbing citizens of (eating or taking a drug that could keep you from dying).

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.

Well, if they paid me for that time, I'd be under their rules walking through the parking lot, etc. As it is, I would be free to tell everyone I meet in the parking lot to buy a Windows machine instead because I'm not on their clock. (and no I don't work for Apple)

Clearly, this is a labor law issue and not one that should be decided on a judge's "whim" of what they think you should or should not bring to work (well you could have chosen to not eat or take your medication....)

I mean what if Apple decides NEXT that they need to do a body cavity search when you leave work? You might be hiding ram chips up your bung hole, after all. So what if it takes 15 minutes and you have to strip, be violated and get dressed again on your own dime? You didn't need to take that job, after all! You could have chosen to work somewhere else! You could have chosen to die on the street ultimately rather than get a job where they might require strip searches!

 

[numlock]

No, they also have the choice of staying at Apple as an employee. You are trying to twist his words against him.

no i am asking him to stand by his words.

so your option is be subjected to what many deem to be unfair and demeaning or possibly face the consequences that having no job brings? you seriously consider that to be 2 choices?

 

[iPadCary]

HOW TO NOT GET PUNCHED IN THE FACE
Don't have a face.

 

[pdqgp]

actually you seem to think choice means having 1 option.

let me be clear, if I haven't already, the number of choices is irrrelivant. HOW an employee arrives at work, whether they have 1 option or 10 has ZERO bearing on Apple and their policy. Clear? Do you need me to cite case law as I'm prepared to do so. Goes back quite a ways too. These two employees aren't the first to challenge this ruling or the matter overall.

what should employees accept to be subjected to? to me it seems you can give your type of response to every situation.

I'll gladly answer it. what the employees choose to accept is completely up to them. Their choice. They don't have to accept anything. They can find another employer. That choice is up to them.

 

[snowmoon]

extra smoke breaks, water cooler talk, calling your doctor, taking a call from your kids school, dropping deuces, etc etc. Its all technically time clock theft,

No, they are not.

Rest periods of short duration, usually 20 minutes or less, are common in industry (and promote the efficiency of the employee) and are customarily paid for as working time. These short periods must be counted as hours worked.

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

Bathroom breaks are also a consideration under OSHA.

 

[pdqgp]

or they could pay their staff an amount that reflects what they expect from their staff. engaging the staff to be more involved as opposed to suspects is another option as well

except that the courts have already ruled on this saying that employers do not have to.

 

[Mtmspa]

Go work at McDonald's you whiners. Glad these BS law suits get over ruled. Good job Apple.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

let me be clear, if I haven't already, the number of choices is irrrelivant. HOW an employee arrives at work, whether they have 1 option or 10 has ZERO bearing on Apple and their policy. Clear?

The ONLY thing you are saying is that Apple's rights as the employer should always trump the rights of the employee. This goes back to labor laws for more than a century. The gist is this. This country is SUPPOSED to be run by its citizens who created a government that is supposed to represent the people. The citizens of this country have rights. The corporations (until the Reagan administration where it started to reverse) aren't supposed to be able to just slaughter you like cattle just because they're holding the purse strings. Workers have rights too.

The right to eat a lunch or take insulin before you take it and bring that stuff in a flipping BAG isn't something a corporation should be allowed to infringe on. They SHOULD have a right to examine that bag if you are going to take it home, but why should it be on YOUR dime when they are the ones that want to search it? If they find something, then you are the one that will pay the consequences. IF they find NOTHING, then they should compensate you for basically accusing you of being a thief. If that means paying you an extra 10 cents, WTF is the big deal? Oh, it's because 10 cents adds up over time and YOUR TIME isn't important, only their time.

This from the richest tech company on Earth.... It's sad, really. Tim Cook likes to lecture others when it comes to things like gay rights (except when he deals with countries like China or Saudi Arabia where it might cost him business) or have Apple as a corporation donate money to his favorite cause (nice of him to give away the shareholders' money to his personal causes), but when it comes to treating his employees with dignity, respect and reasonable compensation, well hell, they don't need to have lunch! They don't need to bring their medications to work! We've got a business to run, dammit! Let them find employment elsewhere. We can't AFFORD to pay that extra 10 cents per day for each worker! Let the employee foot the 10 cents. Meanwhile, I, the CEO need a new Learjet! The old one is not my favorite color RED! Get me a new one and put in a better audio system! I like to listen in surround sound these days!

 

[numlock]

let me be clear, if I haven't already, the number of choices is irrrelivant. HOW an employee arrives at work, whether they have 1 option or 10 has ZERO bearing on Apple and their policy. Clear? Do you need me to cite case law as I'm prepared to do so. Goes back quite a ways too. These two employees aren't the first to challenge this ruling.

I'll gladly answer it. what the employees choose to accept is completely up to them. They don't have to accept anything. They can find another employer.

you can cite case laws. i think it would be a nice addition to this thread as well as some labour laws. however past case laws dont make it right or wrong. and i know this has been brought forward multiple times with amazon the latest high profile one.

when you say bearing i assume you mean in connection with some ruling. however common sense (which judges obviously do not possess all the time) makes it quite obvious that different methods of transportations dictate a lot of things for instance what you might need to bring with you to work.

thats not really an answer to the second point. do you oppose any labour rights? it seems to when you use the "you can leave if you want" line there is really nothing you think workers shouldnt be subjected to.

all i can think of when people defend this stuff is george dubya saying "working 2-3 jobs is uniquely american" and his little smirk inferring this was an admirable thing during an economic slump while he said it.

well you can always choose to just wither away. yay for freedom.

gotta praise these people that turn questions/issues like this on its head. except maybe in this case as he follows it up with "you get any sleep"

 

[snowmoon]

They SHOULD have a right to examine that bag if you are going to take it home, but why should it be on YOUR dime when they are the ones that want to search it?

The security check is

1. Part of the end of shift activities necessary for the work location as a matter of policy
2. The employee is not free to go about their business
3. The activity is for the sole benefit of the employer

In the case of Amazon these check are upwards of half and hour every shift and thanks to the courts they have zero incentive to minimize the time for these checks, if anything I expect companies to shift more activities to pre and post shift since the courts have given them the thumbs up.

 

[jlc1978]

I am sure on a judge's salary you can afford to eat out every day for lunch. But the low paid Apple store workers can't afford to do this and have to bring their lunch in a bag. Those overpaid judges just fail to understand this.

And before you ask, some people do not drive and use public transport to get to their job . . . or park their car in a place where it's not fiesable to run to it just to get your bag for your lunch.

Or bring their lunch in a brown bag or plastic sack that they either throw away or crumble into a small wad into their pocket? Been there, done that, problem solved.

A good judge would deliver the right verdict, not just uphold a law without thinking first to see if said law is corrupt or not. Not every law in the nation that passed parliament is in the best interests of the nation. Even in Australia we have had a few laws pass our state parmiament here in Queensland that will severely hurt the business confidence and certain industries bottom line.

True, but judges have to follow the law, not their personal option or els you have chaos and as much lack of justice as justice. It's not a perfect system but better than the alternative.

Or you use the court of appeal and hope you get a new judge who has enough sense to see the right things.

Exactly. That's what appeals courts and ultimately the Supreme Court is for and why precedent is important.

If you are paid by the hour, when you clock off you are on your time, free to go. Being forced to stay there off the clock is wrong. In Australia that kind of case would be shut down so fast it would be blinding. The employer would lose in a heartbeat. I've worked ni hospitality industries. And for me I did have a few bag checks at some places and all of them were on the clock. The only thing non on the clock was me getting dressed into my chef's whites. But I had to that at work jsut before I started as you just can not travel to work or home from work in your whites. That's just a no-no and ungygienic.

Only in the USA would employeers be able to enforce unpaid overtime on the per hour wage paid employees.

Let's see - you're forced to change into a required uniform on your own time, and complain about the US forcing unpaid overtime? Pot, meet kettle.

 

[kriista1234]

People are really confusing the issue(s) here.

No one is (reasonably) saying that they shouldn't be searched AT ALL, or even that it's a problem of the search happens immediately after they punch out.

What people are arguing against, and what this (and Amazon's) suit are about is people having to wait 30-60 minutes AFTER they have punched out. ONLY those rare cases are the issue. And that employees should, then, be compensated for THAT time.

The reason Amazon won, and now Apple won is that the amount of time is not an issue in these cases, and only the TYPE of work being done. So as a retail employee you are not being paid to "BE SEARCHED", so any time that you are being searched, falls outside of your compensation.

THAT is the single issue. Keeping employees essentially captive here.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

What I think would be interesting, is if employees just start leaving after their shift, and then get fired. As that opens up the 'type of work' argument (I'm guessing here as I'm not a lawyer at all). If you can get terminated for not engaging in a behavior, are you then being paid with expectation that that behavior takes place, hence redefining what your ROLE there is.

In the case of Amazon these check are upwards of half and hour every shift and thanks to the courts they have zero incentive to minimize the time for these checks, if anything I expect companies to shift more activities to pre and post shift since the courts have given them the thumbs up.

THIS is exactly the issue. What's to stop them now from moving just about everything to this pre/post shifts. Counting registers, cleaning stations, stocking supplies (receipt roles, and checkout bags). This is "free money" for the retailers.