This is quite a stimulating discussion, best I have seen in a while.
It would absolutely be proper to charge employees to use corporate property for personal use. i.e. Storage fee.
You're referring to employee lockers? Yes it would be legal. In general IMHO it would not be proper, tho there's probably some specific scenarios where it might be.
Let me ask you again (and hope @SolipsismY does not again take up the cudgels on your behalf), if something is legal why would it be incorrect to assume -- by default -- that it wouldn't be 'proper'? For example, would it be proper to charge employees for parking spots? If so, what is different about lockers?
And what specific scenarios did you have in mind where it might, indeed, be proper?
If the times are exaggerated then it would cost Apple an even tinier pittance to pay for them.
I think the larger point you may be missing is, what else next becomes up for grabs in terms of employee behavior that Apple must pay for? And what about the aggregate costs when the equivalent of Apple's is multiplied by millions of businesses?
... if something is legal why would it be incorrect to assume -- by default -- that it wouldn't be 'proper'?
I'll give you an example. Annie is your company's janitor. Her mother died and the funeral is tomorrow. Your company says she cannot have the day off to attend and if she does she'll be fired. Legal? for an at-will employee yes it is. Proper? No, not in my opinion. What about yours?
For example, would it be proper to charge employees for parking spots? If so, what is different about lockers?
And what specific scenarios did you have in mind where it might, indeed, be proper?
If a company requires you to put all personal belongings in a locker before entering the workplace then charging for those lockers would not be proper in my view. Reminds me of coal company owner tactics back in the day. If the lockers were installed at the request of employees who wished to have a secure storage area for personal effects as a convenience then charging seems perfectly proper if that's what the company wishes. In between those two there's doubtless hundreds of scenarios where what the "right thing" to do may vary.
You're referring to employee lockers? Yes it would be legal. In general IMHO it would not be proper, tho there's probably some specific scenarios where it might be.
Why would it not be proper. The company is going to have to go out and rent extra property (sometimes in very expensive malls), buy lockers, pay for upkeep -- all so the employee has a place to store their personal (i.e. not corporate) property. Then of course if you do not provide security they will be targets for thieves... so you are going to have to pay someone to monitor the area. All of that so that people who feel inconvenienced at having to be searched if they bring personal property to work..... If they are going to haggle over a dollar, why should the company be any more generous than it has to?
I'll give you an example. Annie is your company's janitor. Her mother died and the funeral is tomorrow. Your company says she cannot have the day off to attend and if she does she'll be fired. Legal? for an at-will employee yes it is. Proper? No, not in my opinion. What about yours?
If a company requires you to put all personal belongings in a locker before entering the workplace then charging for those lockers would not be proper in my view. Reminds me of coal company owner tactics back in the day. If the lockers were installed at the request of employees who wished to have a secure storage area for personal effects as a convenience then charging seems perfectly proper if that's what the company wishes. In between those two there's doubtless hundreds of scenarios where what the "right thing" to do may vary.
The company does not require you to put all your personal belongings in there - they require you NOT to bring them to work because bringing them to work increases the companies liability and labour costs.
As far as deaths etc. most companies actually provide up to 3 or 4 days in PAID leave.... although they are not required. The rest of the companies offer unpaid leave. Never heard of a company refusing to give unpaid leave for a death in the family - maybe you can give a real life example so we have something to base that discussion on?
I think the larger point you may be missing is, what else next becomes up for grabs in terms of employee behavior that Apple must pay for? And what about the aggregate costs when the equivalent of Apple's is multiplied by millions of businesses?
I'm not missing that. The only thing under discussion is pay for a required wait.
Let's assume your employer requires that all bags, containers and pocket contents be checked before leaving, and only by the manager on duty. It's 4:00, and you have an appointment set for 4:30. Since it doesn't cost the company anything if you're delayed for a few minutes your manager sees no pressing need to interrupt her phone call. She feels whatever she's doing is more important. So you wait. . .
20 minutes later she gets around to it. You're late, appointment missed, hope there's' not a fee. Legal? Absolutely. Proper? Again nope. Not to me.
I'll give you an example. Annie is your company's janitor. Her mother died and the funeral is tomorrow. Your company says she cannot have the day off to attend and if she does she'll be fired. Legal? for an at-will employee yes it is. Proper? No, not in my opinion. What about yours?
If a company requires you to put all personal belongings in a locker before entering the workplace then charging for those lockers would not be proper in my view. Reminds me of coal company owner tactics back in the day. If the lockers were installed at the request of employees who wished to have a secure storage area for personal effects as a convenience then charging seems perfectly proper if that's what the company wishes. In between those two there's doubtless hundreds of scenarios where what the "right thing" to do may vary.
Your example is not a good one. Most companies like Apple have specific allowances for employee sick days, leave days, maternity days, family emergency days, etc., so it's somewhat moot. But if Apple's management fired Annie (I don't know what being a janitor has to do with it) for attending her mother's funeral, I'd say they were a bunch of a$$holes.
OTOH, if Annie had gone over all her available paid dates of all kinds (leave, sick, family etc) to take off and was docked the day's pay -- which Apple would be justified in doing -- it's a little more complicated. I'd be disappointed in Apple's management, and would consider it cheap and chintzy. In fact, the negative perceptions it would create about the company would worry me as an investor, more than anything else. I would hope that her boss will let her take the day off and cover for her.
An example of what would be proper from my standpoint? Gosh, what do you think we've been talking about in this thread? It would entirely proper for Apple Retail to expect employees to incur the inconvenience of a few minutes of bag checks to trade off against the convenience of their being allowed to bring bags to work, as long as it was specified in the employment contract up front. Losses from retail theft are huge, and I would expect my managers to not only care about it, but also strictly enforce that rule.
If the company requires you to put all your belongings in a locker, then, of course, in my personal view it would not be nice for them to charge for it. Although, even there, I am not sure I would blame a company for doing so. And, consistent with what I've been saying, I assume it applies to all belongings of all employees, so it's not some particular sub-group of people it's catering to.
I'm not missing that. The only thing under discussion is pay for a required wait.
Let's assume your employer requires that all bags, containers and pocket contents be checked before leaving, and only by the manager on duty. It's 4:00, and you have an appointment set for 4:30. Since it doesn't cost the company anything if you're delayed for a few minutes your manager sees no pressing need to interrupt her phone call. She feels whatever she's doing is more important. So you wait. . .
20 minutes later she gets around to it. You're late, appointment missed, hope there's' not a fee. Legal? Absolutely. Proper? Again nope. Not to me.
Legal and proper. To me.
Stuff happens. The manager might have been dealing with an emergency. OTOH, if the manager is the type that takes pleasure in making employees wait needlessly, that sounds like a terrible manager, one who's bad for employee morale, and should be fired outright. Again, I doubt that many Apple Retail (or many retail) managers behave that way.
As far as deaths etc. most companies actually provide up to 3 or 4 days in PAID leave.... although they are not required. The rest of the companies offer unpaid leave. Never heard of a company refusing to give unpaid leave for a death in the family - maybe you can give a real life example so we have something to base that discussion on?
Stuff happens. The manager might have been dealing with an emergency. OTOH, if the manager is the type that takes pleasure in making employees wait needlessly, that sounds like a terrible manager, one who's bad for employee morale, and should be fired outright. Again, I doubt that many Apple Retail (or many retail) managers behave that way.
Sounds like a screwed up company (or branch).... unless of course it was it was the third or fourth time that year - and your mother in-laws second time to die.
Your example is not a good one. Most companies like Apple have specific allowances for employee sick days, leave days, maternity days, family emergency days, etc., so it's somewhat moot.
Most companies are nowhere near as large as Apple. In fact most companies are small businesses with relatively few employees, many of them with no formal policy on bereavement, emergencies, or even sick leave, so it's far from a moot point. That a smallish business would deny even unpaid bereavement or family emergency leave should not be a total surprise. But it would be legal.
Well there ya go. Sounds likely we've come up from different financial backgrounds.
I see little chance of harm to a company (and certainly not Apple) from paying for mandated wait times, minimally for at least inordinately long ones, while a much greater chance of undue hardship on the hourly employees. Without a financial incentive to see they're done efficiently and quickly they are at the mercy of an employer with other things they may find more important to the business than some hourly employee being able to leave on time.
Most companies are nowhere near as large as Apple. In fact most companies are small businesses with relatively few employees, many of them with no formal policy on bereavement, emergencies, or even sick leave, so it's far from a moot point. That a smallish business would deny even unpaid bereavement or family emergency leave should not be a total surprise. But it would be legal.
I prefer to deal with the subject of the thread, which is Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
The point wasn't about Apple. It was that there's a whole lotta companies out there that are not Apple,
You mentioned only Apple. I prefer to deal with the subject of the thread, which is Apple. Now it appears you're shifting positions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Well there ya go. Sound likely we've come up from different financial backgrounds
You have zero clue about the financial background from which I come. (Unless, of course, you're saying you come from a wealthy financial background.)
In any event, that is such a lame/silly point. Some of the most influential spokespeople and change-agents for the poor and the voiceless throughout history have come from very well-off "financial backgrounds."
The point wasn't about Apple. It was that there's a whole lotta companies out there that are not Apple,
I don't believe the lawsuit would have been taken up unless the lawyers saw a big payday - which Apple provided it. The practice is not new in retail, but was not seen as a big payday by lawyers with other companies.... so saying it wasn't about Apple.... I take with a grain of salt.
The lawsuit was brought by two ex-employees (the ones that have standing, they were already ex-employees when the suit was launched). The claim was that they were forced to undergo screenings for 5 to 10 minutes each day (I cannot see individuals figuring out that it would be worth their while for that amount of money so my suspicion still is that a lawyer broached the subject, then turned around and tried to turn it into a big payday through class-action status). I could see the employees seeking out representation for wrongful dismissal (I don't know if they were dismissed -- so I don't know the likelihood of that) -- but without a lawyer pushing it who in their right mind thinks.... hey I am going to sue my former employee for 5 or 10 minutes a day ($1)? Who would take on that risk? A lawyer took it up on their behalf and was expecting to squeeze big bucks out of Apple while compensating employees a few bucks here and there. They were not only seeking hourly time but OVERTIME for those 5 to 10 minutes. They were employees for a couple of years (yeah suing a major corporation over maybe $500).
200 days at 10 minutes a day @ $14 hr = $466 / year (minus legal fees) ... at most $500.
I prefer to deal with the subject of the thread, which is Apple.
You mentioned only Apple. I prefer to deal with the subject of the thread, which is Apple. Now it appears you're shifting positions.
Not one whit. That comment as you well know concerned the possibility of Apple employing "terrible manager(s), ...bad for employee morale, and should be fired outright. " That has nothing to do with paying those retail employees for the time needed to complete the mandated checks.
I hope you're not sneaking towards misstating my points in order to "win". There is no win, just what is right and what isn't, nevermind that it might be legal.
Comments
This is quite a stimulating discussion, best I have seen in a while.
It would absolutely be proper to charge employees to use corporate property for personal use. i.e. Storage fee.
You're referring to employee lockers? Yes it would be legal. In general IMHO it would not be proper, tho there's probably some specific scenarios where it might be.
Let me ask you again (and hope @SolipsismY does not again take up the cudgels on your behalf), if something is legal why would it be incorrect to assume -- by default -- that it wouldn't be 'proper'? For example, would it be proper to charge employees for parking spots? If so, what is different about lockers?
And what specific scenarios did you have in mind where it might, indeed, be proper?
If the times are exaggerated then it would cost Apple an even tinier pittance to pay for them.
I think the larger point you may be missing is, what else next becomes up for grabs in terms of employee behavior that Apple must pay for? And what about the aggregate costs when the equivalent of Apple's is multiplied by millions of businesses?
If a company requires you to put all personal belongings in a locker before entering the workplace then charging for those lockers would not be proper in my view. Reminds me of coal company owner tactics back in the day. If the lockers were installed at the request of employees who wished to have a secure storage area for personal effects as a convenience then charging seems perfectly proper if that's what the company wishes. In between those two there's doubtless hundreds of scenarios where what the "right thing" to do may vary.
You're referring to employee lockers? Yes it would be legal. In general IMHO it would not be proper, tho there's probably some specific scenarios where it might be.
Why would it not be proper. The company is going to have to go out and rent extra property (sometimes in very expensive malls), buy lockers, pay for upkeep -- all so the employee has a place to store their personal (i.e. not corporate) property. Then of course if you do not provide security they will be targets for thieves... so you are going to have to pay someone to monitor the area. All of that so that people who feel inconvenienced at having to be searched if they bring personal property to work..... If they are going to haggle over a dollar, why should the company be any more generous than it has to?
I'll give you an example. Annie is your company's janitor. Her mother died and the funeral is tomorrow. Your company says she cannot have the day off to attend and if she does she'll be fired. Legal? for an at-will employee yes it is. Proper? No, not in my opinion. What about yours?
If a company requires you to put all personal belongings in a locker before entering the workplace then charging for those lockers would not be proper in my view. Reminds me of coal company owner tactics back in the day. If the lockers were installed at the request of employees who wished to have a secure storage area for personal effects as a convenience then charging seems perfectly proper if that's what the company wishes. In between those two there's doubtless hundreds of scenarios where what the "right thing" to do may vary.
The company does not require you to put all your personal belongings in there - they require you NOT to bring them to work because bringing them to work increases the companies liability and labour costs.
As far as deaths etc. most companies actually provide up to 3 or 4 days in PAID leave.... although they are not required. The rest of the companies offer unpaid leave. Never heard of a company refusing to give unpaid leave for a death in the family - maybe you can give a real life example so we have something to base that discussion on?
Let's assume your employer requires that all bags, containers and pocket contents be checked before leaving, and only by the manager on duty. It's 4:00, and you have an appointment set for 4:30. Since it doesn't cost the company anything if you're delayed for a few minutes your manager sees no pressing need to interrupt her phone call. She feels whatever she's doing is more important. So you wait. . .
20 minutes later she gets around to it. You're late, appointment missed, hope there's' not a fee. Legal? Absolutely. Proper? Again nope. Not to me.
Not in my example.
Not in my example.
So in your example the company requires you to bring personal belongings to work.... interesting...
I'll give you an example. Annie is your company's janitor. Her mother died and the funeral is tomorrow. Your company says she cannot have the day off to attend and if she does she'll be fired. Legal? for an at-will employee yes it is. Proper? No, not in my opinion. What about yours?
If a company requires you to put all personal belongings in a locker before entering the workplace then charging for those lockers would not be proper in my view. Reminds me of coal company owner tactics back in the day. If the lockers were installed at the request of employees who wished to have a secure storage area for personal effects as a convenience then charging seems perfectly proper if that's what the company wishes. In between those two there's doubtless hundreds of scenarios where what the "right thing" to do may vary.
Your example is not a good one. Most companies like Apple have specific allowances for employee sick days, leave days, maternity days, family emergency days, etc., so it's somewhat moot. But if Apple's management fired Annie (I don't know what being a janitor has to do with it) for attending her mother's funeral, I'd say they were a bunch of a$$holes.
OTOH, if Annie had gone over all her available paid dates of all kinds (leave, sick, family etc) to take off and was docked the day's pay -- which Apple would be justified in doing -- it's a little more complicated. I'd be disappointed in Apple's management, and would consider it cheap and chintzy. In fact, the negative perceptions it would create about the company would worry me as an investor, more than anything else. I would hope that her boss will let her take the day off and cover for her.
An example of what would be proper from my standpoint? Gosh, what do you think we've been talking about in this thread? It would entirely proper for Apple Retail to expect employees to incur the inconvenience of a few minutes of bag checks to trade off against the convenience of their being allowed to bring bags to work, as long as it was specified in the employment contract up front. Losses from retail theft are huge, and I would expect my managers to not only care about it, but also strictly enforce that rule.
If the company requires you to put all your belongings in a locker, then, of course, in my personal view it would not be nice for them to charge for it. Although, even there, I am not sure I would blame a company for doing so. And, consistent with what I've been saying, I assume it applies to all belongings of all employees, so it's not some particular sub-group of people it's catering to.
I'm not missing that. The only thing under discussion is pay for a required wait.
Let's assume your employer requires that all bags, containers and pocket contents be checked before leaving, and only by the manager on duty. It's 4:00, and you have an appointment set for 4:30. Since it doesn't cost the company anything if you're delayed for a few minutes your manager sees no pressing need to interrupt her phone call. She feels whatever she's doing is more important. So you wait. . .
20 minutes later she gets around to it. You're late, appointment missed, hope there's' not a fee. Legal? Absolutely. Proper? Again nope. Not to me.
Legal and proper. To me.
Stuff happens. The manager might have been dealing with an emergency. OTOH, if the manager is the type that takes pleasure in making employees wait needlessly, that sounds like a terrible manager, one who's bad for employee morale, and should be fired outright. Again, I doubt that many Apple Retail (or many retail) managers behave that way.
http://supercuts.pissedconsumer.com/supercuts-fired-me-for-attending-my-grandfathers-funeral-20100501180497.html
http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/hiring-firing-wrongful-termination/68384-fired-missing-time-mother-law-death.html
http://supercuts.pissedconsumer.com/supercuts-fired-me-for-attending-my-grandfathers-funeral-20100501180497.html
Sounds like a screwed up company (or branch).... unless of course it was it was the third or fourth time that year - and your mother in-laws second time to die.
Apple may not.
Anything is possible. But I don't think it's probable.
It doesn't surprise me one whit that you(!!) think that Apple may not. I would have been quite surprised if you thought otherwise.
I see little chance of harm to a company (and certainly not Apple) from paying for mandated wait times, minimally for at least inordinately long ones, while a much greater chance of undue hardship on the hourly employees. Without a financial incentive to see they're done efficiently and quickly they are at the mercy of an employer with other things they may find more important to the business than some hourly employee being able to leave on time.
Most companies are nowhere near as large as Apple. In fact most companies are small businesses with relatively few employees, many of them with no formal policy on bereavement, emergencies, or even sick leave, so it's far from a moot point. That a smallish business would deny even unpaid bereavement or family emergency leave should not be a total surprise. But it would be legal.
I prefer to deal with the subject of the thread, which is Apple.
The point wasn't about Apple. It was that there's a whole lotta companies out there that are not Apple,
You mentioned only Apple. I prefer to deal with the subject of the thread, which is Apple. Now it appears you're shifting positions.
Well there ya go. Sound likely we've come up from different financial backgrounds
You have zero clue about the financial background from which I come. (Unless, of course, you're saying you come from a wealthy financial background.)
In any event, that is such a lame/silly point. Some of the most influential spokespeople and change-agents for the poor and the voiceless throughout history have come from very well-off "financial backgrounds."
The point wasn't about Apple. It was that there's a whole lotta companies out there that are not Apple,
I don't believe the lawsuit would have been taken up unless the lawyers saw a big payday - which Apple provided it. The practice is not new in retail, but was not seen as a big payday by lawyers with other companies.... so saying it wasn't about Apple.... I take with a grain of salt.
The lawsuit was brought by two ex-employees (the ones that have standing, they were already ex-employees when the suit was launched). The claim was that they were forced to undergo screenings for 5 to 10 minutes each day (I cannot see individuals figuring out that it would be worth their while for that amount of money so my suspicion still is that a lawyer broached the subject, then turned around and tried to turn it into a big payday through class-action status). I could see the employees seeking out representation for wrongful dismissal (I don't know if they were dismissed -- so I don't know the likelihood of that) -- but without a lawyer pushing it who in their right mind thinks.... hey I am going to sue my former employee for 5 or 10 minutes a day ($1)? Who would take on that risk? A lawyer took it up on their behalf and was expecting to squeeze big bucks out of Apple while compensating employees a few bucks here and there. They were not only seeking hourly time but OVERTIME for those 5 to 10 minutes. They were employees for a couple of years (yeah suing a major corporation over maybe $500).
200 days at 10 minutes a day @ $14 hr = $466 / year (minus legal fees) ... at most $500.
I hope you're not sneaking towards misstating my points in order to "win". There is no win, just what is right and what isn't, nevermind that it might be legal.