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

[bloodycelt]

As someone that constantly deals with business forcing us to work weekends and late hours as we are salaried employees... I can understand.

I used to work in retail while in college, and this was before everything went south. A manager can hold you there indefinitely for a bag check. So, not having it on the clock can lead to abuse of something that should be under a minute.

I brought a bag in once, a backpack because my Dad was picking me up from the store after work finished. The manager had me wait in the back room and then forgot about me, but since I clocked out I wasn't allowed to leave the back room until he had checked my bag and escorted me to the door.

I think it was about an hour, and he was pissed. My dad had come in and started complaining, and since everyone but the manager thought I was already gone... it raised pandemonium.

So the manager, in front of my dad took his time checking each and every item, and then made sarcastic remarks about them. And then we were finally able to leave.

I never brought in a bag ever again.

So yes the right thing to do is put in a policy where the manager has to check said bag within a reasonable time. Since you are scheduled for specific hours, and the company shouldn't inconvenience anyone else that you have promised time for.

However, this is reality. Don't bring a bag into work. Its not fair, its not right, but guess what life isn't fair and people that have power over you will abuse that power, the only smart thing to do is to deny them the excuse.

And be prepared for it to get worse.

The only right thing anyone can do in their power now is to just not have children. Don't bring anyone into this world, because its going to be even worse for them.

 

[pdqgp]

get dressed again on your own dime?

Yes. Employees who need to change

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 wrong. and i know this has been brought forward multiple times.

then by your own words there's no need to cite anything as your second statement is already noting you won't accept the rulings. good news is the laws are in place and these two people have been told to deal with it.

when you say bearing i assume you mean in connection with some ruling.

not sure why you need to assume anything. have I not been crystal clear? How an employee arrives at work has zero bearing on the employers rules around searches. The Portal-to-Portal Act is an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (29 U.S.C. §§ 251 to 262) which clarifies that certain activities are not compensable.

different methods of transportations dictate a lot of things for instance what you might to bring with you to work.

HOW or by what means of transportation have no bearing or correlation to the above/rules employees are subject to. Arrive by whatever means you choose or can. Rules still apply.

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.

No. However, in this case, the argument by the employees has already been decided by the courts on multiple occasions. They are simply wasting everyone's time.

What's to stop them now from moving just about everything to this pre/post shifts.

Department of Labor rules or regulations.

 

[superberg]

I absolutely "love" how these discussions always seem to devolve into the exact same responses, most of which boil down to "you don't like this, but I don't care, so suck it up."

The issue in this case is not having to have a bag checked, nor is it the fact that it is unpaid time. The issue is the unreasonable length of time employees are often asked to wait to have their bags checked.

It is perfectly reasonable to be unhappy with your employer when they make you wait upwards of ten minutes to wait for a bag check. The check itself takes seconds. It's the waiting that is the issue. Ten minutes a day adds up to nearly an hour of work each week, and if a person has somewhere to be (obvious and very common examples: a student must get on a bus and go to class, a parent must pick up a child, a child must return home to take care of an ailing parent), it is a massive and largely unnecessary delay.

I say unnecessary because, as someone who worked in retail for nearly a decade -- as a manager and as a regular employee -- I have never, ever seen a bag check actually catch anyone. It's a scare tactic/deterrent, not a direct method for preventing theft. Happy, respected employees rarely steal, and the type of person who comes onto a job planning to steal doesn't do that by stuffing an iPod down their pants every day.

Most places I worked had daily category counts to verify no theft took place (ie, count everything in x category on Tuesdays, everything in y category on Wednesdays, etc.), and any retail establishment lacking proper camera placement is asking to get robbed by customers, let alone staff. Between the two, you have ample time to catch missing product and review footage. Bonus: it's on tape and ready to hand to the police.

So, knowing that bag checks are deterrents, and rarely if ever actually catch a crime in progress, why it okay to keep employees waiting?

Answer: it isn't.

OBVIOUS SOLUTION: Apple stores are heavily staffed. Entrust a few extra employees with the right to check bags before one of their coworkers leaves. Ta-da, both sides are happy and everyone can stop shoving their strawmen in my face.

(Someone will point out this makes collusion between employees possible. To that I say: and what's to stop the manager from doing the same? If you can only trust a single person per shift, you are in deep trouble.)

 

[kriista1234]

Department of Labor rules or regulations.

But in this case, it's been ruled not the case. So "bag checks" are now post-work, work.

 

[pdqgp]

But in this case, it's been ruled not the case. So "bag checks" are now post-work, work.

Read the laws around the FLSA. Perhaps then you'll understand. Sigh....

 

[C DM]

I absolutely "love" how these discussions always seem to devolve into the exact same responses, most of which boil down to "you don't like this, but I don't care, so suck it up."

The issue in this case is not having to have a bag checked, nor is it the fact that it is unpaid time. The issue is the unreasonable length of time employees are often asked to wait to have their bags checked.

It is perfectly reasonable to be unhappy with your employer when they make you wait upwards of ten minutes to wait for a bag check. The check itself takes seconds. It's the waiting that is the issue. Ten minutes a day adds up to nearly an hour of work each week, and if a person has somewhere to be (obvious and very common examples: a student must get on a bus and go to class, a parent must pick up a child, a child must return home to take care of an ailing parent), it is a massive and largely unnecessary delay.

I say unnecessary because, as someone who worked in retail for nearly a decade -- as a manager and as a regular employee -- I have never, ever seen a bag check actually catch anyone. It's a scare tactic/deterrent, not a direct method for preventing theft. Happy, respected employees rarely steal, and the type of person who comes onto a job planning to steal doesn't do that by stuffing an iPod down their pants every day.

Most places I worked had daily category counts to verify no theft took place (ie, count everything in x category on Tuesdays, everything in y category on Wednesdays, etc.), and any retail establishment lacking proper camera placement is asking to get robbed by customers, let alone staff. Between the two, you have ample time to catch missing product and review footage. Bonus: it's on tape and ready to hand to the police.

So, knowing that bag checks are deterrents, and rarely if ever actually catch a crime in progress, why it okay to keep employees waiting?

Answer: it isn't.

OBVIOUS SOLUTION: Apple stores are heavily staffed. Entrust a few extra employees with the right to check bags before one of their coworkers leaves. Ta-da, both sides are happy and everyone can stop shoving their strawmen in my face.

(Someone will point out this makes collusion between employees possible. To that I say: and what's to stop the manager from doing the same? If you can only trust a single person per shift, you are in deep trouble.)

This makes way too much sense for it to happen and for biased people to agree with it.

 

[andiwm2003]

Legally the judge was certainly right. Legally Apple did the right ting. Apple could simply not allow people to bring bags to work. Apple allowed them to bring bags and in return searched the bags on exit. It's still a dick move to make employees wait for a bag search. They article didn't give enough specifics about how long the wait times were. If we talk about less than 5 min it's ok IMHO.

But with other retailers there were regularly wait times of 30 min. There were even employers (Amazon) who made all employees go through a checkpoint everyday regardless of having a bag or not with average wait times of more than 30 min. There are also other ways employers have wasted employees free unpaid time (e.g. large factories who allow employees only to get to the exit of the site through a company bus system and have people wait for said busses for up to one hour because the employer was to cheap to have enough busses for the shift change). In civilized countries there are usually rules and laws that specify a maximum wait time allowed for such things. This gives clarity and avoids lawsuits.

 

[satcomer]

I don't see why this takes so much time! When I was a retail assistant manager in my college days I just ask the employees to leave their bags in the back (where I could see them). Then I just called them in near the end of their shift and had them go through their bag. Nine times out of ten it was a change of cloths. The other times might be other mall store bags or food they didn't eat!

 

[2010mini]

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.

Didn't realize all Apple retail workers HAVE to work for them. That they do not have a choice of employers to work at. I have worked for many retail stores. When I did not like their policies, I left.

Pure and simple. Don't like Apple Store's policy? Seek employment elsewhere and leave Apple.

 

[Izlib]

This must not have been universally enforced, or maybe I just didn't put up with it. I never presented my bag for anyone to search, and never was asked to. I just left when I was done for the day. If I was required to stop for search and no one were available theres not a chance in hell I'd just hang around and wait for someone.

I think they searched my bag the very first day I was there, during interviewing processes and before I was actually hired, which I thought was reasonable for a high traffic store.

Honestly if they did try to enforce it I'd just find a way to avoid them on the way out. I wasn't stealing anything and I had better things to do than be treated like a thief.

Maybe at the time Genius staff were a little bit more difficult to replace than the Specialist staff so we got treated like VIP's. I swear sometimes I could tell our managers anything and they'd buy it.

 

[numlock]

Yes. Employees who need to change


then by your own words there's no need to cite anything as your second statement is already noting you won't accept the rulings. good news is the laws are in place and these two people have been told to deal with it.



not sure why you need to assume anything. have I not been crystal clear? How an employee arrives at work has zero bearing on the employers rules around searches. The Portal-to-Portal Act is an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (29 U.S.C. §§ 251 to 262) which clarifies that certain activities are not compensable.

h

HOW or by what means of transportation have no bearing or correlation to the above/rules employees are subject to. Arrive by whatever means you choose or can. Rules still apply.



No. However, in this case, the argument by the employees has already been decided by the courts on multiple occasions. They are simply wasting everyone's time.

nothing wrong with citing laws but thinking they are absolute, perfect and cannot be amended is irrational. and its obvious with these ones as there dosent seem to be any upper time limit. i just find it to be a recipe for disaster where big money controls politics and politicians appoint judges.

maybe you should recall that your original post that i quoted did not in any way mention labour laws but the rules apple set and the choice the employees had which i stated where limited.

maybe not legally but that is an obvious flaw in the system. the logical connection and consequences are obvious.

obviously being treated as a suspect isnt one of those or being expected to wait up to 25 minutes (according to amazon employees) so i wonder.

as far as wasting everyones time. well it does bring to this into the national (international even) spotlight so i certainly wouldnt agree with you there.

 

[C DM]

Didn't realize all Apple retail workers HAVE to work for them. That they do not have a choice of employers to work at. I have worked for many retail stores. When I did not like their policies, I left.

Pure and simple. Don't like Apple Store's policy? Seek employment elsewhere and leave Apple.

Then why have laws and regulations at all? One company can require people to show up an hour before their shift and stay an hour later just because and not get paid and since people can choose to work somewhere else then that should be OK then? What's the point of having regulations and labor practices and any of that if people can just choose to work in other places?

 

[eebrown]

If the job requires that you go thru a bag check at the end of the day and you agreed to work there knowing this then it should be part of the job and you should be compensated for that time. It is all part of doing business for Apple and they set the requirement for employment there so they should have to pay for those conditions not the employees.

 

[asiga]

I suppose these policies were the inspiration for iCloud: They realized they could have access not only to the bags of their employees, but to the private data of all customers.

 

[C DM]

If the job requires that you go thru a bag check at the end of the day and you agreed to work there knowing this then it should be part of the job and you should be compensated for that time. It is all part of doing business for Apple and they set the requirement for employment there so they should have to pay for those conditions not the employees.

Unless that takes an unreasonable amount of time, in which case there's an issue that should be dealt with.

 

[hudson1]

This really doesn't make any sense. Just because you bring a bag to work doesn't mean the assumption that theft is there. Any interaction on a business level or a professional level between employees and managers should be done on the clock.

What's next, personal searches of cars? Your car has a trunk, so is the assumption of theft there as well?

If you drive your car into the store then they should be allowed to search it.

 

[iPadCary]

This; extra smoke breaks, water cooler talk, calling your doctor,
taking a call from your kids school, dropping deuces ....

Wait a minute, you can play cards at work & still get paid for it?!?

 

[theskog]

Absolute ********, Apple! Very disappointed in this. Makes me think Apple is a lousy employer for their retail staff.



Which isn't realistic. People lead busy lives. It's not always possible to avoid bringing personal effects with you to work. Sometimes you have things to do after work and have to bring personal effects with you.

If an employer wants to make a bag search part of the routine, then they need to make sure it's done within the parameters of the employee's shift. Outside of that, they are infringing on the employee's personal time. My daughter worked at a very large retailer (who shall remain unnamed) while going to college and they would often times keep her 15-20 minutes after work unpaid waiting for a manager to get a free minute to check her bag before leaving. Expecting that of people is reasonable, but not compensating them for their time is not.

I hope the attorneys representing the employees have other ways to attack this. It's wrong and should be corrected.

You'd be correct about apple being a ****** place to work. This whole bag check thing was crazy. They even had us filling out "technology cards" that contained the serial number of every product you owned that you brought to work, so every time you left, you had to present that card and match the serial numbers to your products before you could leave(all while off the clock.)

I worked for them for five years and I can tell you all about the level of corruption that happens, especially in the retail side.

I'm not some kid ranting about it either. I'm 31 years old with a daughter that I had while employed there, and just left to do IT consulting. I wouldn't post something like this to play f-king games.

For all that it's worth, I think they're headed in the wrong direction as a company and after all the bull*hit I went through working there, I'll probably never buy another Apple product because it supports paying people to perform dirty practices like the bag checks.

 

[MrX8503]

Apple should pay for the time spent doing bag checks. All companies should stop paying for smoke breaks.

 

[hudson1]

Amazon does this, as well; that may have been the case that precipitated the Supreme Court decision?

It's very controversial, and adds up to a lot of lost time for employees. What is the proper compensation for lost time outside the scheduled hours of your job? Why is there a disparity between salaried workers -who typically take comp time for their overage- and wage-earners who apparently are getting the shaft? The two Americas are very much in display with this decision. I'm sure the judge is very flexible with his own hours; those of us in the professional class typically have greater leeway.

I don't blame Apple -- theft by employees is staggeringly high. The products they sell are high-end, desirable items. That said, I wish they would lead by example and find a creative solution.

Salaried workers "typically" take comp time for their overage? Not in any world I've ever lived in or seen. No, we get paid to get a job done even if takes a lot longer than 40 hours per week or causes us to travel away and get home after midnight.

 

[Quu]

Not very good PR for Apple. This makes them look bad to me like a greedy employer that doesn't care about their employees. For shame.

 

[gijoeinla]

Sounds like you not only haven't worked retail for the past several decades (if at all), but also didn't pay attention when the Supreme Court addressed this very issue recently as well and UNANIMOUSLY AGREED that people aren't entitled to get paid for this time.



So Apple's a bad retailer for using the same procedures in their stores that every other retailer does?



So you want the store to pay your daughter more than the others who work there because she made plans after work which have absolutely nothing to do with the store's function or her job.

Why does your kid deserve more money because she chose to bring a personal bag into a retail workplace? Is she a princess or somehow special? Should everyone else ALSO stay on the clock and be forced to hang out to accommodate your daughter's time waiting because SHE decided that she just HAD to bring in her bag to accommodate HER plans?

Or even worse, why should your daughter basically get to stop working before the others on the shift and NOT do the work the entire time she is scheduled? Why should everyone else have to work their shifts end-to-end while your kid gets to stand in a line and NOT work for the 15-20 minutes? Oh yeah. Because it's a party or something and it's just that important.

No. You can either deal with it, or get another job. Same as everyone else in that industry. You don't need to bring that purse to work. Use your pocket, and if it's too much to handle, get a different job.

Exactly.

Searches of employees personal bags at work is no new phenomena by any stretch. Am 50 now and they were doing it at my first job 35 years ago - ugh.

There were PLENTY of "smart" people (mostly women) that made sure (duh like the judge said) to pack a very very small amount of items in their bags for searches so that not to delay those searches.

If the plaintiffs prevailed in this matter that would have opened up claims in every corner of our business sectors to sue - an utter legal nightmare -- when the judge was right.

He basically said assess the situation and PLAN accordingly and your inspection time was null and void - just like the case!

Sensibility wins!

 

[nagromme]

I know a lot of people get teary-eyed over the idea that the treatment of humans might ever take precedent over the profits of corporations. But this is a case where the corporations are just blatantly wrong. The fact that a court sided with the money is hardly a shocking development.

 

[hudson1]

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.

Actually, a far bigger problem would be courts ruling on cases based on what you think is a good idea instead of the vast library of existing laws and prior decisions under our USA/English common law judicial system. If this is really a bad law then there are means in our representative form of government to get it changed.

 

[eebrown]

If you don't like your bags being checked, don't bring them into work. It IS a COMMON PRACTICE in RETAIL to do this. Don't want your bag checked don't bring it. Simple By accepting a job where it is the policy to do the bag checks you accept the policy as well. If you don't either do not work there or do not bring a bag in. Period, Plain and simple.

Plain and simple if you think checking a employees bag is required and part of doing business then pay the employee for their time, plain and simple. Still can't understand why Apple or any other company expects the employee to pay for there security concerns. If the job requires time spent for security checks then that should be Apples responsibility to bare the cost in the form of paying the employee for time they have to be at work.