No, no it's not. An extended drive to get to work after you've gotten onto the company's facility is unique, which is why other employees working at different building on other locations for the power company won't have that same rule.
I am honestly puzzled that people are making such a big class warfare deal out of it.
He always puts the "Apple is always wrong" spin on things. Witness the intellectual dishonesty at work here as he twists the meaning of "Apple would present itself as different" to mean Apple can't do bag searches like every other "rich employer." He can't seriously be implying that "Think Different" = tolerate or condone theft by employees. Nor does being a "rich employer" mean Apple should permit theft and absorb the losses. It's just dishonest naysaying without thinking it through.
No, no it's not. An extended drive to get to work after you've gotten onto the company's facility is unique, which is why other employees working at different building on other locations for the power company won't have that same rule.
You see, that's why I had included a second part to my post (about employees in 1 Infinite Loop compared to retail) which you chose not to include in your reply to me.
It was addressing precisely this issue you're bringing up, in the firm of an analogy.
You see, that's why I had included a second part to my post (about employees in 1 Infinite Loop compared to retail) which you chose not to include in your reply to me.
It was addressing precisely this issue you're bringing up, in the firm of an analogy.
I don't get the 1 Infinite Loop example. You know it's not really an infinite distance from the public road to where you park, right?
The whole "don't bring a bag" blow-off is yet another example of the utter lack of realism and empathy for others shown by corporations and apparently federal judges (who are probably not being searched, and are paid well, as opposed to the employees whose case they tossed out). "Doesn't impact me, so I've no problem with it". Fail. People aren't uniform or machines.
People carry belongings for various legitimate reasons.
The bag check isn't the real problem. The lost time not being paid for being searched IS the problem.
15' bag checking is not a problem, people resisting to bag checks is the problem. You want it quick, don't bring 50 fucking things in there. I lived through in Macys. A few items in a bag took only 5 seconds to check per person. The real problem is 90% stolen goods are committed by employees not customers.
The link lists 13 decisions. Leaving aside the fact that more than half of them pre-date an era when women could not vote, civil rights laws did not exist, there was o social security or medicare or medicaid, and 70 million Europeans were busy butchering each other (i.e., the fact that law evolves), and leaving aside the fact that #9, #10, #11, #12, and #13 are all rulings about which reasonable people could disagree, 13 decisions out of how many?
And who is Findlaw to make this judgment? Are they an impartial group? Some type of ombudsman group? (I am asking because I don't know).
Goodwill and an office are no different from an Apple Store. You can steal thousands of dollars worth of stuff at both.
The bag check thing was stupid. Doesn't Apple keep inventory and security cameras around?
Anyone who works at a corner store or bank knows how this works.
camera is intended for sale floors only, not in areas that employees are working. If cameras are on employees, you deal with other lawsuits for privacy violations. You know America is the land of lawsuit. Your neighbors can even sue you for you snoring to loud at night...yup.
The link lists 13 decisions. Leaving aside the fact that more than half of them pre-date an era when women could not vote, civil rights laws did not exist, there was o social security or medicare or medicaid, and 70 million Europeans were busy butchering each other (i.e., the fact that law evolves), and leaving aside the fact that #9, #10, #11, #12, and #13 are all rulings about which reasonable people could disagree, 13 decisions out of how many?
And who is Findlaw to make this judgment? Are they an impartial group? Some type of ombudsman group? (I am asking because I don't know).
Oh, so your argument is that all court decisions are inherently above reproach today? :no:
camera is intended for sale floors only, not in areas that employees are working. If cameras are on employees, you deal with other lawsuits for privacy violations. You know America is the land of lawsuit. Your neighbors can even sue you for you snoring to loud at night...yup.
I don't see a problem withl cameras in a public place, like where you store personal belongings providing it's not a bathroom, as violating privacy. Most retail locations seem to have cameras pointed directly at the register. Now you could argue that's in case some non-employee tried to steal money from the till, but that's the secondary reason.
Not really, they have a choice to bring in no bag, or a clear one. If they choose differently then that is there problem not apples. Also, Apple employees get a lot of free perks, not unheard of for the store to occasionally by lunch, reward employee for a job well done etc etc.
Oh, so your argument is that all court decisions are inherently above reproach today?
Where did I imply that?
I am guessing -- super conservatively -- that the SCOTUS has decided well over 10,000 (perhaps even as many as 15,000) cases in its history.* Thirteen poor decisions (leaving aside the fact that you chose to ignore my difficulties with some of those 13) is 0.13%. I am willing to grant that a ridiculously small percentage of cases are not above reproach. But the probability then, you'll have to admit, based on on your list (with a sarcasm tag appended), is quite substantially in my favor. I am happy to settle for 99.87%.
I am really having a lot of trouble following your logic today. Or perhaps it's just me, getting distracted by football...
*There are 576 volumes of cases of decided by SCOTUS; a random sampling of just a few show that the smallest number in a volume is 25 cases (it runs two or three times that number in some of the volumes!). So even conservatively assuming 20 cases per volume, that's 576*20 = 11,520.
From what I understand almost very store short of perhaps the Flagships has moved to remote break rooms and locker bays and doesn't have to bother with bag checks cause there's little to no way someone could actually drop something into a bag to walk out with it without being caught by a dozen cameras.
So basically this is moot. As for the staff members that were at the front of the lawsuit, who knows if they even work there anymore.
I am guessing -- super conservatively -- that the SCOTUS has decided well over 10,000 (perhaps even as many as 15,000) cases in its history.* Thirteen poor decisions (leaving aside the fact that you chose to ignore my difficulties with some of those 13) is 0.13%. I am willing to grant that a ridiculously small percentage of cases are not above reproach. But the probability then, you'll have to admit, based on on your list (with a sarcasm tag appended), is quite substantially in my favor. I am happy to settle for 99.87%.
I am really having a lot of trouble following your logic today. Or perhaps it's just me, getting distracted by football...
*There are 576 volumes of cases of decided by SCOTUS; a random sampling of just a few show that the smallest number in a volume is 25 cases (it runs two or three times that number in some of the volumes!). So even conservatively assuming 20 cases per volume, that's 576*20 = 11,520.
1) You implied that by i) suggesting that the court decision can't be questioned nor disagreed with and ii) stating it can't be a serious response to link to a list of high profile decisions that the author deemed wrong.
2) Now you're claiming the 13 are all the wrong decisions ever made by a court because the author limited it that many? I guess that means the 10 stupid criminals caught on tape that I linked are the only 10 on record¡
3) If I were listing poor decisions made my courts I would not list this one with Apple simply because it's such a minor issue compared to larger civil right violations.
I love how people compare this to the airport security stuff... which has itself been a huge fail for "freedom" in the USA.
The way you kill freedom is by getting people to agree to lose it, one step at a time, and not telling people when and what they've already lost while they weren't obsessively paying attention to court cases, laws, acts, etc, because they were too busy trying to live their crappy wage slave existence, struggle to get their insurance companies to do the thing they claim to be all about, and get healthcare from a different insurance company that has the audacity to make decisions for doctors and patients about what is or isn't covered as "necessary health care"...
I guess that statement about getting the government you deserve ... the society you deserve... is sort of true. There are plenty of sour grape workers that would rather screw other workers than risk not receiving what they think is special treatment (because it doesn't apply to them). There are also plenty of people that worship the sacred cow of capitalism despite the repeat evidence of that system destroying the democratic republic of their nation. There are plenty of people who would rather brown-nose the rich and promote corporate "freedom" (which seems close to being somehow equal to or greater than actual human freedom) hoping to get some of that trickle-down effect. Thrn there are the amoral antipathetic hard liners that think everyone but themselves has a problem with entitlement, while defending the self-entitlement of corporations... It goes on and on.
Problem is, not all of us are consenting. Not all of us voted for this crap. In fact, most of us probably didn't, and the ones that support this crap are the ones with the biggest mouths and most actual entitlement issues. The level of hate for empathy itself is disgusting. All these people who just feel content to rubber stamp all "letter of the law" regardless of whether it defeats the spirit of the law... refusal to even consider the POV and experiences of other human beings ... "It's not my problem..."
And the corporatism ... It's getting to be where I expect some corporations to just start demanding a tax on civilians just... "because capitalism and social Darwinism!!" Companies like telecoms think they're in the business of selling contracts, rather than providing a service in exchange for compensation.
I'm so very off on a rant here. But I'm utterly disgusted by my fellow citizens for their vocal support of conditions leading to a failing society, especially when it's haughty, arrogant, and glib, making utterly unreasonable comments and bullying dissenters (and having the chuztpa to then say the dissenters are bullying! Because the yeah, weak are well known to bully the strong!! Those poor corporations with enough "speech" to buy and kill laws!!)
Where was i? Consent! A plutocratic oligarchy doesn't abide by the processes that are supposedly encoded in the nation's establishment for measuring that consent. The will of the people has perverted into being out-shouted by the will of the corporations (money = speech).
And to intercept the inevitable "if you don't like it, leave!" BS response: this is my country, I was born here, I vote (my conscience, not to play the game), and civilian dissent against corruption and unjust governance is a patriotic act.
To sensible readers, my apologies for the horribly written sloppy rant.
Agreed! Now that they have sued Apple and lost, can Apple fire the ones who are still employed by Apple? Or, is there a law that prevents Apple from doing that's?
As much as I hate snide comments, I'll explain this one. It's a class action suit, meaning that most of these people didn't explicitly opt in. They would have to opt out. You have probably received something in the mail at some point in your life which stated that you were added to such a suit. Most of these people had nothing to do with the suit itself.
If Apple's HR team wants to, it can fire any number of people without cause in many states, including California. I don't know whether it would be legal to fire employees for filing suit, but without cause is perfectly legal in any state with "at will" employment.
...wait 15+ minutes for a manager to be available for the check...
Oh, is that the complaint? I thought the act of checking itself was the problem.
Ever see a micro SD card?
Apple doesn’t sell them, though.
The search, I thought, was to prevent theft of product. An SD card, brought in... inside a camera, could carry out photos of unreleased products, but those always get out, anyway. An SD card with Apple’s diagnostic software, shipping manifests, or individual sales data ripped to it is a possibility, of course, but I don’t think the latter two have ever been leaked.
What everyone seems to have missed, is that these bag searches are a direct result of [I]actual[/I] theft, stock shrinkage or whatever euphemism companies use and it's often the last of a long list of failed measures to combat the problem. No company wants to impose a total surveillance policy. I am assuming some clocking_off_time_smoothing is applied. Short of outside storage lockers - once commonplace, which most malls /shopping centres abhor for security concerns and banning bags altogether, I'm sure Apple would be glad of constructive suggestions. I sympathise with the workers but realise also that the vast majority of their fellow staff probably understand the reasons and get on with their lives.
Comments
No, no it's not. An extended drive to get to work after you've gotten onto the company's facility is unique, which is why other employees working at different building on other locations for the power company won't have that same rule.
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.
He always puts the "Apple is always wrong" spin on things. Witness the intellectual dishonesty at work here as he twists the meaning of "Apple would present itself as different" to mean Apple can't do bag searches like every other "rich employer." He can't seriously be implying that "Think Different" = tolerate or condone theft by employees. Nor does being a "rich employer" mean Apple should permit theft and absorb the losses. It's just dishonest naysaying without thinking it through.
You see, that's why I had included a second part to my post (about employees in 1 Infinite Loop compared to retail) which you chose not to include in your reply to me.
It was addressing precisely this issue you're bringing up, in the firm of an analogy.
I don't get the 1 Infinite Loop example. You know it's not really an infinite distance from the public road to where you park, right?
I don't get the 1 Infinite Loop example. You know it's not really an infinite distance from the public road to where you park, right?
Right.
C'mon, a court agreed that Apple IS right.
Oh, well if the court says so¡
I honestly ask, is that even serious response?
The link lists 13 decisions. Leaving aside the fact that more than half of them pre-date an era when women could not vote, civil rights laws did not exist, there was o social security or medicare or medicaid, and 70 million Europeans were busy butchering each other (i.e., the fact that law evolves), and leaving aside the fact that #9, #10, #11, #12, and #13 are all rulings about which reasonable people could disagree, 13 decisions out of how many?
And who is Findlaw to make this judgment? Are they an impartial group? Some type of ombudsman group? (I am asking because I don't know).
Oh, so your argument is that all court decisions are inherently above reproach today? :no:
I don't see a problem withl cameras in a public place, like where you store personal belongings providing it's not a bathroom, as violating privacy. Most retail locations seem to have cameras pointed directly at the register. Now you could argue that's in case some non-employee tried to steal money from the till, but that's the secondary reason.
Not really, they have a choice to bring in no bag, or a clear one. If they choose differently then that is there problem not apples. Also, Apple employees get a lot of free perks, not unheard of for the store to occasionally by lunch, reward employee for a job well done etc etc.
Oh, so your argument is that all court decisions are inherently above reproach today?
Where did I imply that?
I am guessing -- super conservatively -- that the SCOTUS has decided well over 10,000 (perhaps even as many as 15,000) cases in its history.* Thirteen poor decisions (leaving aside the fact that you chose to ignore my difficulties with some of those 13) is 0.13%. I am willing to grant that a ridiculously small percentage of cases are not above reproach. But the probability then, you'll have to admit, based on on your list (with a sarcasm tag appended), is quite substantially in my favor. I am happy to settle for 99.87%.
I am really having a lot of trouble following your logic today. Or perhaps it's just me, getting distracted by football...
*There are 576 volumes of cases of decided by SCOTUS; a random sampling of just a few show that the smallest number in a volume is 25 cases (it runs two or three times that number in some of the volumes!). So even conservatively assuming 20 cases per volume, that's 576*20 = 11,520.
So basically this is moot. As for the staff members that were at the front of the lawsuit, who knows if they even work there anymore.
1) You implied that by i) suggesting that the court decision can't be questioned nor disagreed with and ii) stating it can't be a serious response to link to a list of high profile decisions that the author deemed wrong.
2) Now you're claiming the 13 are all the wrong decisions ever made by a court because the author limited it that many? I guess that means the 10 stupid criminals caught on tape that I linked are the only 10 on record¡
3) If I were listing poor decisions made my courts I would not list this one with Apple simply because it's such a minor issue compared to larger civil right violations.
The way you kill freedom is by getting people to agree to lose it, one step at a time, and not telling people when and what they've already lost while they weren't obsessively paying attention to court cases, laws, acts, etc, because they were too busy trying to live their crappy wage slave existence, struggle to get their insurance companies to do the thing they claim to be all about, and get healthcare from a different insurance company that has the audacity to make decisions for doctors and patients about what is or isn't covered as "necessary health care"...
I guess that statement about getting the government you deserve ... the society you deserve... is sort of true. There are plenty of sour grape workers that would rather screw other workers than risk not receiving what they think is special treatment (because it doesn't apply to them). There are also plenty of people that worship the sacred cow of capitalism despite the repeat evidence of that system destroying the democratic republic of their nation. There are plenty of people who would rather brown-nose the rich and promote corporate "freedom" (which seems close to being somehow equal to or greater than actual human freedom) hoping to get some of that trickle-down effect. Thrn there are the amoral antipathetic hard liners that think everyone but themselves has a problem with entitlement, while defending the self-entitlement of corporations... It goes on and on.
Problem is, not all of us are consenting. Not all of us voted for this crap. In fact, most of us probably didn't, and the ones that support this crap are the ones with the biggest mouths and most actual entitlement issues. The level of hate for empathy itself is disgusting. All these people who just feel content to rubber stamp all "letter of the law" regardless of whether it defeats the spirit of the law... refusal to even consider the POV and experiences of other human beings ... "It's not my problem..."
And the corporatism ... It's getting to be where I expect some corporations to just start demanding a tax on civilians just... "because capitalism and social Darwinism!!" Companies like telecoms think they're in the business of selling contracts, rather than providing a service in exchange for compensation.
I'm so very off on a rant here. But I'm utterly disgusted by my fellow citizens for their vocal support of conditions leading to a failing society, especially when it's haughty, arrogant, and glib, making utterly unreasonable comments and bullying dissenters (and having the chuztpa to then say the dissenters are bullying! Because the yeah, weak are well known to bully the strong!! Those poor corporations with enough "speech" to buy and kill laws!!)
Where was i? Consent! A plutocratic oligarchy doesn't abide by the processes that are supposedly encoded in the nation's establishment for measuring that consent. The will of the people has perverted into being out-shouted by the will of the corporations (money = speech).
And to intercept the inevitable "if you don't like it, leave!" BS response: this is my country, I was born here, I vote (my conscience, not to play the game), and civilian dissent against corruption and unjust governance is a patriotic act.
To sensible readers, my apologies for the horribly written sloppy rant.
Apple is not The only company to do bag searches after
Employees check out. (emphasis added)
Well, instead of "don't bring a bag", why isn't the solution, "search them before they clock out"?
Just like donning a uniform, this should be a job-related task the company pays for, while the employees
are actually "in a contract situation" with the employer, not on their personal time.
One thing you can be certain of: the search process would go a heck of a lot more quickly in that scenario...
Apple should pay people for the few minutes it takes to search their bags.
To compensate for the extra money they have to pay out, they can do the following:
- Cancel the ability to purchase stock options at a price several times lower than market value.
- Take away health benefits for part-time workers and only keep them for full-time workers.
- Remove the 25% discount you get on Apple products like computers, iPads or iPods.
- Remove the free $500 every 3 years you can use to purchase a computer (on top of your existing 25%).
- Cancel the 50% discount given if you wanted to purchase an Apple Watch.
- Cancel the "friends and family" discount that allows you to purchase 3 computers, 3 iPads or 10 iPods per year for friends/family at 15% off.
Or they can go work in some other retail outlets, which I'm sure will be a breath of fresh air compared to the hellhole it is in Apple Retail.
Agreed! Now that they have sued Apple and lost, can Apple fire the ones who are still employed by Apple? Or, is there a law that prevents Apple from doing that's?
As much as I hate snide comments, I'll explain this one. It's a class action suit, meaning that most of these people didn't explicitly opt in. They would have to opt out. You have probably received something in the mail at some point in your life which stated that you were added to such a suit. Most of these people had nothing to do with the suit itself.
If Apple's HR team wants to, it can fire any number of people without cause in many states, including California. I don't know whether it would be legal to fire employees for filing suit, but without cause is perfectly legal in any state with "at will" employment.
Oh, is that the complaint? I thought the act of checking itself was the problem.
Apple doesn’t sell them, though.
The search, I thought, was to prevent theft of product. An SD card, brought in... inside a camera, could carry out photos of unreleased products, but those always get out, anyway. An SD card with Apple’s diagnostic software, shipping manifests, or individual sales data ripped to it is a possibility, of course, but I don’t think the latter two have ever been leaked.
Short of outside storage lockers - once commonplace, which most malls /shopping centres abhor for security concerns and banning bags altogether, I'm sure Apple would be glad of constructive suggestions.
I sympathise with the workers but realise also that the vast majority of their fellow staff probably understand the reasons and get on with their lives.