I don't think the compensation for hourly employees is a valid consideration. If they employee is keeping your employee on site then you should compensate them for that time. The facile argument has been posited that the employee didn't have to bring anything to work, so it's the employee's fault and therefore the employer can hold them indefinitely, off the clock, until such time as they see fit to release them. So what if the employee makes a mistake at work that requires a talking to or some retraining? Since that's also the fault of the employee, does that mean the employer tells the employee to clock out, before having this discussion or having the employee go through training? I sure hope not
It is an understanding that IF they brought personal items THEN they may have to wait (not indefinitely -- but reasonable) to have the bag checked (if there is a lineup). If there is a change now and they want to be paid for that time -- then the employer has every right to tell the employee that they are not allowed to bring any personal belongings to work.... The employer has no obligation to allow individuals to bring personal belongings to work.
Yeah, AI linked to it. That guy was an idiot. I ran the numbers, and he was very foolish to ruin his career for such a little payout. I'm not saying that he should have done it for a bigger cut, only that for the risk he was taking he was being extra-stupid… but such is the way with those being caught making bad life choices.
It is an understanding that IF they brought personal items THEN they may have to wait (not indefinitely -- but reasonable) to have the bag checked (if there is a lineup). If there is a change now and they want to be paid for that time -- then the employer has every right to tell the employee that they are not allowed to bring any personal belongings to work.... The employer has no obligation to allow individuals to bring personal belongings to work.
So if x-minutes pass they are allowed to leave without a bag check? I highly doubt that's been written into their guidelines, so, yes, it be an indefinite amount of time.
Where do you draw the line... I mean if you believe they should be queuing up and submitting to bag searches, then they should be submitting to full body back scatter scans. How about body cavity searches?
Your slippery slope is slippery indeed. No one in their right mind expects to be paid for their commute or to have a body cavity search at work.
However if you have a job that requires you to drive your personal car AFTER you have arrived at work you can very much deduct the gas, wear and tear on the mileage you put on your vehicle. It's something like $0.42 a mile these days, I am not sure I haven't looked recently. But it adds up when paying your taxes.
You draw the line where the FLSA and Portal to Portal Act places it. What it states is that an employer does not have to compensate an employee that is off the clock, when that employee is not performing the work that he/she was hired to do. Even if what the employee is doing is required for the job.
For instance, in an auto plant, the employer does not have to pay for the time it takes an employee to walk the length of a football field to clock in at the location of where he works and to walk out of the plant after clocking out. This could amount to 20 minutes every work day. In other words, an employer is not required to place the time clock at the plant's entrance and pay the employee to walk the length of a football field to begin the workday. Traveling to a time clock and punching in and traveling out of the plant afar clocking out are requirements for your job, but it's not what you were hired to do. But any time spent walking from one location to another is compensatable after clocking in and before clocking out.
The line is not drawn at whether what you're doing off the clock is required by your employer for your job, but whether what you're doing is what your employer hired you for or an integral part of of it. Waiting for security search is not part of the job that an employee was hired to do. Even though it's required for the job. Thus, under FLSA and the Portal to Portal Act, an employer do not have to compensate an employee for the time it takes for security searches. This has been ruled on many times. What's required for the job and the job you were hired to do are not necessarily the same under FLSA. You may think otherwise, but the Supreme Court uses the FLSA to make their rulings.
If you're required to drive your own personal vehicle during work hours (for the benefit of your employer), your employer needs to compensate you the $.57 a mile. And that compensation is not taxable as it is not income. Tax deducting the $.57 a mile only saves you the taxes on that amount. I can only see tax deducting compensation for milage if you did it for a charity.
So if x-minutes pass they are allowed to leave without a bag check? I highly doubt that's been written into their guidelines, so, yes, it be an indefinite amount of time.
The portal-to-portal act of 1947 exempts from remuneration time spent on incidental activities before or after the employee's principal activities - which includes the searches. If the amount of time is excessive and not reasonable then it would not be covered by that law (which is a clarification of earlier laws). Like all laws it leaves some discretionary / reasonability because it may vary day to day because of the size of the lineup etc. It is not as though the manager (who probably is also leaving) is going to keep you there just because they can.... they are probably just as anxious to get out the door as the rank and file employees are.
It is an understanding that IF they brought personal items THEN they may have to wait (not indefinitely -- but reasonable) to have the bag checked (if there is a lineup). If there is a change now and they want to be paid for that time -- then the employer has every right to tell the employee that they are not allowed to bring any personal belongings to work.... The employer has no obligation to allow individuals to bring personal belongings to work.
They may have the right, but it doesn't mean it IS right.
You honestly think Apple needs to pinch pennies with the poorest of their employees, workers who helped make Apple the richest company on the planet so they can compensate their execs at some of the highest rates in the industry? Sounds like typical rich get richer while poor get poorer.
Apple would present itself as "different". That doesn't sound so different from any other rich employer. I wonder how far 1% of executive compensation would go towards paying those Apple Store employees for their required wait times? As a bonus it would set a good example for other wealthy techs for how the least of their employees should be treated.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. The law doesn't tell Apple not to pay them.
The portal-to-portal act of 1947 exempts from remuneration time spent on incidental activities before or after the employee's principal activities - which includes the searches. If the amount of time is excessive and not reasonable then it would not be covered by that law (which is a clarification of earlier laws). Like all laws it leaves some discretionary / reasonability because it may vary day to day because of the size of the lineup etc. It is not as though the manager (who probably is also leaving) is going to keep you there just because they can.... they are probably just as anxious to get out the door as the rank and file employees are.
I consider the times specified in the lawsuit as unreasonable.
This was the correct decision. You can bet a group sleaze bag lawyers are crying because they were having wet dreams of the fees they would collect from Apple and the extent to which they would get money out of the plaintiffs'/class action settlement if the action was successful. Even if they had won, plaintiffs are unlikely to have seen more than a dime. Two bits at most.
No one will get fired over participating in the lawsuit. I doubt they will be in line for Angle whatshername's job when Cook fires her, but Apple isn't stupid. They will just let said employees languish until they quit or give them solid reason to be terminated.
I understand that argument, I just disagree with it. As I stated, I would compensate my employees for having to wait before they can leave, just as I would expect my employees to be working when their workday starts (not just waking up and hanging out in the break room). If this was a major problem, like NYC in the winter time, I would have considered a "DMZ" where employee lockers are in an area that would keep their personal belongings away from the store's more pocketable merchandise to prevent this from happening… providing I had run the numbers and paying each employees 5–15 minutes more for waiting to be checked out over a duration for a giving store would make the cost feasible; although, this decision should include the psychological aspect of never really trusting your employees, making them aware of that every time they leave, and the privacy aspect of management repeatedly looking into your belongings.
Now the question is where would you draw the line? Suppose you have 50 employees and they all start bringing unnecessary backpacks to work because they know that it would mean quitting their work duties 30 minutes early and getting pay to stand in the long line waiting for their bags to be searched before clocking out. That's a lot of lost productivity time. And would you spend the money to hire more security checkers to speed up the process if it start running into overtime for some employees? Retail space can get pretty expensive for installing a locker room before the entrance. The obvious solution would be to ban all the unnecessary backpacks or have it so all searches will be done off the clock if the backpack was not necessary.
It's Apple's/stockholders business. They can, within the law, treat a class of employees as they wish. Employee theft drops dramatically as you move up the ladder.
Considering the cost of the products vs cost of say Walmart crap, it doesn't take too many thefts to create a real problem. As a business owner and Apple stockholder, If I catch you stealing from me, you will be arrested and charged. I don't care if it's $1 or $1000. You are dishonest and a thief. Dishonesty of not determined by the $ value of what you steal.
Sure it does. Employees that don't work at that location don't have that same rule. If you work at a store where driving is the most common scenario then you can tell employees to leave bags in their car, but if it's not feasible for your employee to drive then it becomes an issue that will cause lengthy, unpaid time that is enforced by the company.
Groan. That's a real stretch. Unlike those who work in Apple a Retail, employees who work in1 Infinite Loop have no bag rules, I am sure. So what?
Sorry to inform you, but Apple does not operating under the banner of socialism. While employees should be protected from abuse, they have the right to quit and find a better working environment if they dislike the conditions/work rules. Apple is not breaking any laws and is quite socially responsible when compared to most large corporations. You seem to be quick to give away other people's money.
They may have the right, but it doesn't mean it IS right.
You honestly think Apple needs to pinch pennies with the poorest of their employees, workers who helped make Apple the richest company on the planet so they can compensate their execs at some of the highest rates in the industry? Sounds like typical rich get richer while poor get poorer.
Apple would present itself as "different". That doesn't sound so different from any other rich employer. I wonder how far 1% of executive compensation would go towards paying those Apple Store employees for their required wait times? As a bonus it would set a good example for other wealthy techs for how the least of their employees should be treated.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. The law doesn't tell Apple not to pay them.
C'mon, a court agreed that Apple IS right.
I am honestly puzzled that people are making such a big class warfare deal out of it.
But a smaller container, just for them, would mean mere seconds of search and solve the problem. A container too small for any item that can be stolen would eliminate the problem entirely.
From what I understand from the lawsuit is that the plaintiffs claim that in some instances employees wait 15+ minutes for a manager to be available for the check even when that employee is first/only one in line. A smaller container would alleviate nothing from that perspective.
A smaller container for any item that can be stolen is a container too small for almost anything worth carrying. Ever see a micro SD card? You could hide one of those inside your ear canal.
No one will get fired over participating in the lawsuit. I doubt they will be in line for Angle whatshername's job when Cook fires her, but Apple isn't stupid. They will just let said employees languish until they quit or give them solid reason to be terminated.
Um... Really? "Angle whatshername"? Are you truly that lazy that you could not take a moment to look it up, or are you trying to be snide?
Comments
I don't think the compensation for hourly employees is a valid consideration. If they employee is keeping your employee on site then you should compensate them for that time. The facile argument has been posited that the employee didn't have to bring anything to work, so it's the employee's fault and therefore the employer can hold them indefinitely, off the clock, until such time as they see fit to release them. So what if the employee makes a mistake at work that requires a talking to or some retraining? Since that's also the fault of the employee, does that mean the employer tells the employee to clock out, before having this discussion or having the employee go through training? I sure hope not
It is an understanding that IF they brought personal items THEN they may have to wait (not indefinitely -- but reasonable) to have the bag checked (if there is a lineup). If there is a change now and they want to be paid for that time -- then the employer has every right to tell the employee that they are not allowed to bring any personal belongings to work.... The employer has no obligation to allow individuals to bring personal belongings to work.
Yeah, AI linked to it. That guy was an idiot. I ran the numbers, and he was very foolish to ruin his career for such a little payout. I'm not saying that he should have done it for a bigger cut, only that for the risk he was taking he was being extra-stupid… but such is the way with those being caught making bad life choices.
[VIDEO]
So if x-minutes pass they are allowed to leave without a bag check? I highly doubt that's been written into their guidelines, so, yes, it be an indefinite amount of time.
Where do you draw the line... I mean if you believe they should be queuing up and submitting to bag searches, then they should be submitting to full body back scatter scans. How about body cavity searches?
Your slippery slope is slippery indeed. No one in their right mind expects to be paid for their commute or to have a body cavity search at work.
However if you have a job that requires you to drive your personal car AFTER you have arrived at work you can very much deduct the gas, wear and tear on the mileage you put on your vehicle. It's something like $0.42 a mile these days, I am not sure I haven't looked recently. But it adds up when paying your taxes.
You draw the line where the FLSA and Portal to Portal Act places it. What it states is that an employer does not have to compensate an employee that is off the clock, when that employee is not performing the work that he/she was hired to do. Even if what the employee is doing is required for the job.
For instance, in an auto plant, the employer does not have to pay for the time it takes an employee to walk the length of a football field to clock in at the location of where he works and to walk out of the plant after clocking out. This could amount to 20 minutes every work day. In other words, an employer is not required to place the time clock at the plant's entrance and pay the employee to walk the length of a football field to begin the workday. Traveling to a time clock and punching in and traveling out of the plant afar clocking out are requirements for your job, but it's not what you were hired to do. But any time spent walking from one location to another is compensatable after clocking in and before clocking out.
The line is not drawn at whether what you're doing off the clock is required by your employer for your job, but whether what you're doing is what your employer hired you for or an integral part of of it. Waiting for security search is not part of the job that an employee was hired to do. Even though it's required for the job. Thus, under FLSA and the Portal to Portal Act, an employer do not have to compensate an employee for the time it takes for security searches. This has been ruled on many times. What's required for the job and the job you were hired to do are not necessarily the same under FLSA. You may think otherwise, but the Supreme Court uses the FLSA to make their rulings.
If you're required to drive your own personal vehicle during work hours (for the benefit of your employer), your employer needs to compensate you the $.57 a mile. And that compensation is not taxable as it is not income. Tax deducting the $.57 a mile only saves you the taxes on that amount. I can only see tax deducting compensation for milage if you did it for a charity.
So if x-minutes pass they are allowed to leave without a bag check? I highly doubt that's been written into their guidelines, so, yes, it be an indefinite amount of time.
The portal-to-portal act of 1947 exempts from remuneration time spent on incidental activities before or after the employee's principal activities - which includes the searches. If the amount of time is excessive and not reasonable then it would not be covered by that law (which is a clarification of earlier laws). Like all laws it leaves some discretionary / reasonability because it may vary day to day because of the size of the lineup etc. It is not as though the manager (who probably is also leaving) is going to keep you there just because they can.... they are probably just as anxious to get out the door as the rank and file employees are.
You honestly think Apple needs to pinch pennies with the poorest of their employees, workers who helped make Apple the richest company on the planet so they can compensate their execs at some of the highest rates in the industry? Sounds like typical rich get richer while poor get poorer.
Apple would present itself as "different". That doesn't sound so different from any other rich employer. I wonder how far 1% of executive compensation would go towards paying those Apple Store employees for their required wait times? As a bonus it would set a good example for other wealthy techs for how the least of their employees should be treated.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. The law doesn't tell Apple not to pay them.
I consider the times specified in the lawsuit as unreasonable.
No one will get fired over participating in the lawsuit. I doubt they will be in line for Angle whatshername's job when Cook fires her, but Apple isn't stupid. They will just let said employees languish until they quit or give them solid reason to be terminated.
Agreed.
Angela Ahrendts? Why would Cook fire her?
I understand that argument, I just disagree with it. As I stated, I would compensate my employees for having to wait before they can leave, just as I would expect my employees to be working when their workday starts (not just waking up and hanging out in the break room). If this was a major problem, like NYC in the winter time, I would have considered a "DMZ" where employee lockers are in an area that would keep their personal belongings away from the store's more pocketable merchandise to prevent this from happening… providing I had run the numbers and paying each employees 5–15 minutes more for waiting to be checked out over a duration for a giving store would make the cost feasible; although, this decision should include the psychological aspect of never really trusting your employees, making them aware of that every time they leave, and the privacy aspect of management repeatedly looking into your belongings.
Now the question is where would you draw the line? Suppose you have 50 employees and they all start bringing unnecessary backpacks to work because they know that it would mean quitting their work duties 30 minutes early and getting pay to stand in the long line waiting for their bags to be searched before clocking out. That's a lot of lost productivity time. And would you spend the money to hire more security checkers to speed up the process if it start running into overtime for some employees? Retail space can get pretty expensive for installing a locker room before the entrance. The obvious solution would be to ban all the unnecessary backpacks or have it so all searches will be done off the clock if the backpack was not necessary.
It's Apple's/stockholders business. They can, within the law, treat a class of employees as they wish. Employee theft drops dramatically as you move up the ladder.
Considering the cost of the products vs cost of say Walmart crap, it doesn't take too many thefts to create a real problem. As a business owner and Apple stockholder, If I catch you stealing from me, you will be arrested and charged. I don't care if it's $1 or $1000. You are dishonest and a thief. Dishonesty of not determined by the $ value of what you steal.
Just making a joke (admittedly a poor one) based on some of the rumors floating around in the tech news.
Groan. That's a real stretch. Unlike those who work in Apple a Retail, employees who work in1 Infinite Loop have no bag rules, I am sure. So what?
Sorry to inform you, but Apple does not operating under the banner of socialism. While employees should be protected from abuse, they have the right to quit and find a better working environment if they dislike the conditions/work rules. Apple is not breaking any laws and is quite socially responsible when compared to most large corporations. You seem to be quick to give away other people's money.
C'mon, a court agreed that Apple IS right.
I am honestly puzzled that people are making such a big class warfare deal out of it.
It's a real stretch to think that employees in the NYC stores are likely taking public transportation? :???:
Oh, well if the court says so¡
Sorry to inform you, but you are not quoting any comments in your replies.
But a smaller container, just for them, would mean mere seconds of search and solve the problem. A container too small for any item that can be stolen would eliminate the problem entirely.
From what I understand from the lawsuit is that the plaintiffs claim that in some instances employees wait 15+ minutes for a manager to be available for the check even when that employee is first/only one in line. A smaller container would alleviate nothing from that perspective.
A smaller container for any item that can be stolen is a container too small for almost anything worth carrying. Ever see a micro SD card? You could hide one of those inside your ear canal.
Um... Really? "Angle whatshername"? Are you truly that lazy that you could not take a moment to look it up, or are you trying to be snide?
Let me try again....
That's a real stretch.