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

[apolloa]

Reading the comments its clear who have not read the story at all, and who are thinking from a manager and business level ignoring human rights.

If you think it's fine to give 36 hours of your life a year queing without pay for your employer to perform a work related action, then you are on the corporate ladder.
I work for a giant corporation and its disgraceful what they 'try' to get away with, unfortunately the law favours the corporations because the governments live in their pockets. But a lot of the time managers also rely on your lack of employment law to get away with things.

We all need jobs, because its a fact money and nothing else makes the world go round. But a bag check should take 3 mins ONCE per day max, not the 20 mins being discussed here and the bag checks during break times.

It's clear this is a case of discrimination too in my eyes, the bloomberg report claims if you do not have a bag you will not be searched, so your coat pockets are not checked? I'm pretty sure an iPhone or iPod will happily hide in a coat pocket.
So if Apple are not searching coat pockets but only bags, that's discrimination as they are claiming those with coats never steal but those with bags do:

Workers were free to choose to avoid searches by not bringing bags with them, U.S. District Judge William Alsup said in the ruling. “It is undisputed that some employees did not bring bags to work and thereby did not have to be searched when they left the store,” he said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ssal-of-suit-over-retail-workers-bag-searches

 

[gixxerfool]

When we go to Walt Disney World we avoid the long bag check line by not bringing a bag. The people that have to, stand in the line and wait even though they paid to go in, perhaps they should sue Disney for lost time in line they didn't get to spend in the park. Add to that, every time I go into an Apple Store with an appointment, I constantly see specialists standing around with iPads, most acknowledge me but do not approach me, instead I stand there waiting in line for the one specialist who is taking appointment check ins. I somehow doubt they are complaining that they are getting paid to stand around and say hello to people. This is at several different stores at different times of the year.

 

[MikhailT]

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.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the employees are not required to bring a personal bag with them. They chose to bring a bag into the store with the condition knowing that they'll be searched when they leave the store. It is not a vital nor is it a part of the employee's official job, therefore they're not entitled to be paid while getting their bag checks. It is very simple and both the Supreme Court and this Cali court has agreed.

If the courts ruled otherwise, than everyone will bring a bag with them with the intention to get more money and cause the lines to pipe up, causing the company to lose a lot of money.

Apple is also legally allowed by Cali laws to prevent the personal bags from entering the stores but they didn't do that, they let people in as long as they agree to getting the bags checked out but on their own time, not Apple's time.

 

[Rogifan]

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.

Not really. I'm sure 99.99% of the public doesn't know/care about this.

 

[MikhailT]

Also, more content from the Reuters article:

In the ruling, Alsup said Apple workers can choose not to bring a bag to work, and thus would not be subjected to the delays of a search. No Apple employee filed court papers asserting a special need to bring a bag, Alsup wrote.

"Rather than prohibiting employees from bringing bags and personal Apple devices into the store altogether," Alsup wrote, "Apple took a milder approach to theft prevention and offered its employees the option to bring bags and personal Apple devices into a store subject to the condition that such items must be searched when they leave the store."

 

[macfoxpro]

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.

Compare Apples to oranges much?

 

[apolloa]

When we go to Walt Disney World we avoid the long bag check line by not bringing a bag. The people that have to, stand in the line and wait even though they paid to go in, perhaps they should sue Disney for lost time in line they didn't get to spend in the park. Add to that, every time I go into an Apple Store with an appointment, I constantly see specialists standing around with iPads, most acknowledge me but do not approach me, instead I stand there waiting in line for the one specialist who is taking appointment check ins. I somehow doubt they are complaining that they are getting paid to stand around and say hello to people. This is at several different stores at different times of the year.

Your confusing the safety of your family and the public from bombs and guns with employee vs employer rights.
If we didn't live in a world of terrorism because the west is bombing some country, and you didn't have crazy gunman in certain countries, I'm sure you wouldn't have your bags checked at Disney World.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

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.

Well, I could choose to not have a job and apply for welfare and be a tax burden to everyone else by your logic and argument (i.e. it's MY choice to do something different and quit working for Apple). You've convinced me. I quit my job, applied for welfare and now you can pay for my time instead!

 

[PS4DailyLove]

US of A....a sue-happy country!

You should be sued for saying that!

 

[pdqgp]

nothing wrong with citing laws but thinking they are absolute, perfect and cannot be amended is irrational.

They have been amended already to further supports this decision.

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.

They should have mentioned labor laws since that's what decisions like this are based on. How employees arrive at work are on them and not part of any labor laws.

maybe not legally but that is an obvious flaw in the system.

laws are what the system operates around.

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.

so long as you're good with the costs incurred being passed on through rise in product prices. that's ultimately what's going to happen.

 

[kupkakez]

When I worked at Macy's through college it was pretty rare to have a bag search upon leaving. Once in awhile they'd have a check but it maybe took all of a minute to do and it was off the clock.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

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.

And exactly what law are you referring to that allows a company to detain an employee for an hour without compensation?

Now if a law needed changed, your argument might hold water except that "your" government is 100% corrupt as the SCOTUS ruling on unlimited corporate money has proven to everyone that can comprehend what that ruling means. Suggesting that a common citizen has ANY power to fix a corrupt system where only the top 1% has any ability to affect change is about as useful as telling those people they can survive by prayer alone. It MIGHT happen but then I might crap out gold doubloons too after eating a Hershey chocolate bar. There's that one in two quadrillion zillion chance the atoms could reassemble themselves by sheer quantum teleportation plus entropy, butt it's not bloody likely.

 

[hudson1]

Missing in this whole debate are real facts about the perceived problem. Are employees (in aggregate across California since I think this was a class action suit) detained more than five minutes more than say 10% of their work days? I think most reasonable people would not call this a true problem instead of just whining unless it's prevalent and persistent. I've yet to see anything stated that it is.

 

[winston1236]

Interesting ruling since the workers technically are still at work while being searched but the US labor laws heavily favor employer over employees. Also given SCOTUS has already ruled against it in theory there's no point in an appeal.

 

[hudson1]

And exactly what law are you referring to that allows a company to detain an employee for an hour without compensation?

Now if a law needed changed, your argument might hold water except that "your" government is 100% corrupt as the SCOTUS ruling on unlimited corporate money has proven to everyone that can comprehend what that ruling means. Suggesting that a common citizen has ANY power to fix a corrupt system where only the top 1% has any ability to affect change is about as useful as telling those people they can survive by prayer alone. It MIGHT happen but then I might crap out gold doubloons too after eating a Hershey chocolate bar. There's that one in two quadrillion zillion chance the atoms could reassemble themselves by sheer quantum teleportation plus entropy, butt it's not bloody likely.

Explain to us how you think individuals often manage to win multi-million dollar judgments from evil corporations through the corrupt judicial system.

 

[numlock]

They have been amended already to further supports this decision.



They should have mentioned labor laws since that's what decisions like this are based on. How employees arrive at work are on them and not part of any labor laws.



laws are what the system operates around.



so long as you're good with the costs incurred being passed on through rise in product prices. that's ultimately what's going to happen.

i am not talking about them i am talking about your post, what you said and what i replied to. neither labour laws nor the supreme courts views on the amazon case were mentioned there.

which would be a beautiful thing if money were not around to influence them as it is today.

sorry what extra costs are you referring to? and this fear mongering kind of thinking is illogical. if apple (or anyone else) thought they could get customers to pay more (for whatever reason) they would increase the price in a millisecond.

btw for some reason you clipped the first part of my last point.

 

[newtestleper]

It just wor...

They just steal.

 

[happydude]

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.


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.


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

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.

yep, i worked in australia after college on a work visa at a retail store. that was in 2003 and we were subject to bag searches - which were on the clock. most "developed" countries outside the u.s. respect workers more than we do here. in the u.s. if it hurts the companies bottom line, nothing else matters - workers or consumers rights out the window.

 

[numlock]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the employees are not required to bring a personal bag with them. They chose to bring a bag into the store with the condition knowing that they'll be searched when they leave the store. It is not a vital nor is it a part of the employee's official job, therefore they're not entitled to be paid while getting their bag checks. It is very simple and both the Supreme Court and this Cali court has agreed.

If the courts ruled otherwise, than everyone will bring a bag with them with the intention to get more money and cause the lines to pipe up, causing the company to lose a lot of money.

Apple is also legally allowed by Cali laws to prevent the personal bags from entering the stores but they didn't do that, they let people in as long as they agree to getting the bags checked out but on their own time, not Apple's time.

yes that is exactly what would happen. jeez

employees may not be required to bring a bag but it may however be a necessity for them.

Compare Apples to oranges much?

i think thats kinda the point. comparing apples to oranges situations ie the judge or judges (if you include the supreme court) cannot and do not understand the situation for the employees.

 

[diipii]

This is an Apple-typical Dickensian attitude to creating good staff morale. The more money they make the more they want. Stuff people, it's all about the cash.

 

[2010mini]

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

Please. All employers have policies in place to accommodate medical necessities.

Well, I could choose to not have a job and apply for welfare and be a tax burden to everyone else by your logic and argument (i.e. it's MY choice to do something different and quit working for Apple). You've convinced me. I quit my job, applied for welfare and now you can pay for my time instead!

Didn't realize Apple was the only employer where you live. That there is absolutely no other industry there. Food, utilities, clothing, public service, banking..... Must all happen by fairy dust for your community. Yup just ONE single store that sells electronics.

I worked for Macy's for years. Their treatment of employees sucked. I leveraged my employment at Macy's to get a better retail job with better pay and better employee policies.

Great thing about a 1st world country like this one: you have choices. Stop whining.

 

[eebrown]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the employees are not required to bring a personal bag with them. They chose to bring a bag into the store with the condition knowing that they'll be searched when they leave the store. It is not a vital nor is it a part of the employee's official job, therefore they're not entitled to be paid while getting their bag checks. It is very simple and both the Supreme Court and this Cali court has agreed.

If the courts ruled otherwise, than everyone will bring a bag with them with the intention to get more money and cause the lines to pipe up, causing the company to lose a lot of money.

Apple is also legally allowed by Cali laws to prevent the personal bags from entering the stores but they didn't do that, they let people in as long as they agree to getting the bags checked out but on their own time, not Apple's time.

No not ignoring that fact, but when they hire a person and it is not part of conditions for employment that they can't bring a bag to work then Apple bares the cost of ditching that bag. I don't think they should be able to make it a requirment of an hourly employee to pay for their security concerns. Maybe as other suggested that part of the hiring requirements should be not allowing to bring to work any personnel that would required to be checked.

 

[pdqgp]

i am not talking about them i am talking about your post, what you said and what i replied to. neither labour laws nor the supreme courts views on the amazon case were mentioned there.

so you're here to debate wording? stay on topic please.

sorry what extra costs are you referring to? and this fear mongering kind of thinking is illogical. if apple (or anyone else) thought they could get customers to pay more (for whatever reason) they would increase the price in a millisecond.

who do you think is going to cover the cost of Apple's legal issues? You must be young and not work in business to understand. legal costs aren't free and they won't be incurred by companies. The costs to defend these dumb arguments in court will eventually be passed onto consumers.

 

[gixxerfool]

Your confusing the safety of your family and the public from bombs and guns with employee vs employer rights.
If we didn't live in a world of terrorism because the west is bombing some country, and you didn't have crazy gunman in certain countries, I'm sure you wouldn't have your bags checked at Disney World.

No. I'm comparing the fact that you can get around the bag check simply by not bringing one. If safety was my concern, I wouldn't fly to Florida or go to the park. Weapons and bombs can be brought in by other means.

 

[pdqgp]

No not ignoring that fact, but when they hire a person and it is not part of conditions for employment that they can't bring a bag to work then Apple bares the cost of ditching that bag. I don't think they should be able to make it a requirment of an hourly employee to pay for their security concerns. Maybe as other suggested that part of the hiring requirements should be not allowing to bring to work any personnel that would required to be checked.

§ 785.24 Principles noted in Portal-to-Portal Bulletin.

Paraphrased for sake of length.

If the employees belongings are not required for their “principal activities" and activities involving them are not ncluded as an integral part of a principal activity are those closely related activities which are indispensable to its performance, then the employer doesn't have to cover the time.

Activities such as checking in and out and waiting in line to do so are not regarded as integral parts of the principal activity or activities.