Apple liable for millions in unpaid wages after court rules retail worker bag checks illeg...

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 56
    It is interesting to note that Apple has stopped this behavior years ago after this case was filed. 

    I think they have gotten better at keeping tabs on high dollar merchandise. 

    Their bigger problem is theft by customer, or the thugs who run thru the store to steal watches and phones and sell them for parts. 
  • Reply 42 of 56
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 1,075member
    gatorguy said:
    Dogperson said:
     This is interesting because in 2014 the Supreme Court ruled against employees of an Amazon temp agency for the same leaving the plant time pay issue .
    The technical difference between Amazon and this case is that it was a third party who contracted with Amazon to supply temporary employees while Apple is the first party. Because that third party's contract with those workers did not stipulate they would be paid "for standing in lines" while at Amazon SCOTUS found it to be a contract law issue, a contract between the 3rd party and workers rather than with Amazon directly, and not strictly worker's rights and reversed the lower court. 
    The difference between the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions v Busk (2014) and the California Supreme Court’s recent finding in Frlekin v Apple is that the former involved an interpretation of federal law and the latter involved an interpretation of California state law.

    It didn’t matter in the Integrity Staffing Solutions case that they provided warehouse staff to Amazon. What mattered was whether their policies violated the FLSA as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act. The case wasn’t about interpreting a contract, it was about interpreting the FLSA.
    roundaboutnowdysamoria
  • Reply 43 of 56
    bdonovanw said:
    linkman said:
    To counter those that are saying that Apple should make most of the store employees salaried: in the US they are covered by federal labor and wage laws and because of the nature of the tasks the employees do most of them must be paid hourly. See https://www.flsa.com/coverage.html
    Nonsense. All store employees could be fired and rehired under salaried compensation.
    No. You're wrong. Re-read the information provided at the link. Most Apple Store employees do not meet the requirements to be classified as exempt.
    I live in California. The State is terrible for businesses because the progressive Leftists who control the state are all union puppets. It’s really no wonder why businesses continue to flee the state in record numbers.

    https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/news/2018/12/13/1-800-companies-left-california-in-a-year-with.html

    And if Tim and Apple are paying attention to the way the state is going they have a plan in place to move Apple out of the state also.
    You're switching gears here. This post was about FLSA coverage on salaried employees. You stated (wrongly) that Apple could simply categorize employees as salaried and not pay overtime. To do this, they would need to claim they are exempt employees, which they are not. This is not a California thing, this is a Federal thing. Unless an employee is exempt, they are paid overtime even if they are salaried. Exempt salaried employees are typically management or make over a certain threshold (and I believe they just narrowed the exempts this year). 

    So they *can* be salaried, but they would still be entitled to overtime pay if they work more than 40 hours in a week. That's Federal law.

    Of course, Apple certainly could do this the same as other companies try to dodge taxes by classifying employees as independent contractors, but Apple would clearly lose when challenged about it. It's not even a grey area like independent contractors; it's pretty cut and dry as to who can be exempt.
    Solirandominternetpersonurashiddysamoria
  • Reply 44 of 56
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 1,075member
    irnchriz said:
    Nothing wrong with being profit driven for shareholders but as they make so much money with massive margins they really could afford to actually be good guys at all levels of business. Instead they end up looking like dicks fighting this in court rather than changing their ways and coming off like a scumbag penny pinching employer.
    I’d agree that this issue probably tends to make Apple look bad to a lot of the people who are aware of it.

    But I don’t think the policy was created to save Apple money. It was likely a matter of practicality, and the amount of money involved would have been pretty small.

    Apple wants to search employee’ bags as they leave work. That makes some sense, And however hourly employees clocked out of work, that probably didn’t happen at the front of stores. Having them clock in at the front of stores might not have been practical. But that is where searches have to happen, at least in some cases. So how can employees have bags searched first and then clock out? That would mean going back into the store and then leaving again, which would defeat the purpose of the search.

    Apple’s expert testified that a high end estimate for the average time spent waiting for and undergoing exit searches was 30 seconds. That makes sense to me. The longer times mentioned were likely aberrations. In most cases, it was probably just a momentary pause as an employee exits, not adding much to the time it already took an employee to leave the store after they’d clocked out.

    Perhaps we’ll see what plaintiffs are able to prove when it comes to the average amount of time taken to do these searches. But I expect the ultimate award, if this case isn’t settled, will be pretty small.

    At any rate, this policy seems more about what was practical than what saved Apple a few bucks. If there were an easy way to track the time spent waiting for and undergoing searches, I doubt Apple would have minded paying for that time. Maybe Apple should have just added a minute to the time whenever someone clocked out?

    If anyone here has worked in Apple retail, would you want to share how clocking in and out works? Is it done at a particular spot in the back of the store? Does an employee use their own phone to do it and it can be done anywhere in the store?
    randominternetpersonthe monk
  • Reply 45 of 56
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,088member
    carnegie said:
    gatorguy said:
    Dogperson said:
     This is interesting because in 2014 the Supreme Court ruled against employees of an Amazon temp agency for the same leaving the plant time pay issue .
    The technical difference between Amazon and this case is that it was a third party who contracted with Amazon to supply temporary employees while Apple is the first party. Because that third party's contract with those workers did not stipulate they would be paid "for standing in lines" while at Amazon SCOTUS found it to be a contract law issue, a contract between the 3rd party and workers rather than with Amazon directly, and not strictly worker's rights and reversed the lower court. 
    The difference between the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions v Busk (2014) and the California Supreme Court’s recent finding in Frlekin v Apple is that the former involved an interpretation of federal law and the latter involved an interpretation of California state law.

    It didn’t matter in the Integrity Staffing Solutions case that they provided warehouse staff to Amazon. What mattered was whether their policies violated the FLSA as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act. The case wasn’t about interpreting a contract, it was about interpreting the FLSA.

    I would generally agree after reading more closely, altho it was the contract and terms between the employees and Integrity Staffing that led to the final ruling.

    The nine-page opinion in the Busk case was written by Justice Clarence Thomas.

    “If the test could be satisfied merely by the fact that an employer required an activity, it would sweep into ‘principal activities’ the very activities that the Portal-to-Portal Act was designed to address,” wrote Justice Thomas, adding that the screenings were not part and parcel of the workers duties as described under the contract they signed.

    The job descriptions for the employees per contract with Integrity Staffing involve tasks along the lines of retrieving products, packaging, and shipping to customers. Nowhere in the job descriptions for companies, in this case Amazon,  was there a mention of the employee going through security screenings.

    edited February 2020 dysamoria
  • Reply 46 of 56
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 1,075member
    gatorguy said:
    carnegie said:
    gatorguy said:
    Dogperson said:
     This is interesting because in 2014 the Supreme Court ruled against employees of an Amazon temp agency for the same leaving the plant time pay issue .
    The technical difference between Amazon and this case is that it was a third party who contracted with Amazon to supply temporary employees while Apple is the first party. Because that third party's contract with those workers did not stipulate they would be paid "for standing in lines" while at Amazon SCOTUS found it to be a contract law issue, a contract between the 3rd party and workers rather than with Amazon directly, and not strictly worker's rights and reversed the lower court. 
    The difference between the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions v Busk (2014) and the California Supreme Court’s recent finding in Frlekin v Apple is that the former involved an interpretation of federal law and the latter involved an interpretation of California state law.

    It didn’t matter in the Integrity Staffing Solutions case that they provided warehouse staff to Amazon. What mattered was whether their policies violated the FLSA as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act. The case wasn’t about interpreting a contract, it was about interpreting the FLSA.

    The nine-page opinion in the Busk case was written by Justice Clarence Thomas.

    “If the test could be satisfied merely by the fact that an employer required an activity, it would sweep into ‘principal activities’ the very activities that the Portal-to-Portal Act was designed to address,” wrote Justice Thomas, adding that the screenings were not part of the duties the workers were hired to perform.

    The job descriptions for the employees per contract with Integrity Staffing involve tasks along the lines of retrieving products, packaging, and shipping to customers. Nowhere in the job descriptions for companies, in this case Amazon,  was there a mention of the employee going through security screenings.

    That's right; I've read the opinion.

    The security screenings weren't part of the employee's duties, that's part of why ISS not paying them for that time wasn't a violation of the FLSA. More to the point of the legal consideration, those screenings weren't "integral and indespensable" to their work  duties.

    The point is, that had nothing to do with the fact that ISS was providing staff to Amazon. These could have been Amazon employees and there still wouldn't have, under the FLSA, been a legal requirement for Amazon to pay them for that time. This was about whether the employer's policies - spelled out in an employment contract or not - violated the FLSA. Just because an employment contract doesn't say that X is among an employee's work duties, that doesn't mean that under the FLSA that X isn't compensable. There's more to the consideration than whether or not an employee contract says something is an employee's duty.

    At any rate, the difference between the cases we're talking about is that they are interpreting different laws. What is required under California law is different than what is required under federal law.


    roundaboutnowrandominternetperson
  • Reply 47 of 56
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,088member
    carnegie said:
    gatorguy said:
    carnegie said:
    gatorguy said:
    Dogperson said:
     This is interesting because in 2014 the Supreme Court ruled against employees of an Amazon temp agency for the same leaving the plant time pay issue .
    The technical difference between Amazon and this case is that it was a third party who contracted with Amazon to supply temporary employees while Apple is the first party. Because that third party's contract with those workers did not stipulate they would be paid "for standing in lines" while at Amazon SCOTUS found it to be a contract law issue, a contract between the 3rd party and workers rather than with Amazon directly, and not strictly worker's rights and reversed the lower court. 
    The difference between the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions v Busk (2014) and the California Supreme Court’s recent finding in Frlekin v Apple is that the former involved an interpretation of federal law and the latter involved an interpretation of California state law.

    It didn’t matter in the Integrity Staffing Solutions case that they provided warehouse staff to Amazon. What mattered was whether their policies violated the FLSA as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act. The case wasn’t about interpreting a contract, it was about interpreting the FLSA.

    The nine-page opinion in the Busk case was written by Justice Clarence Thomas.

    “If the test could be satisfied merely by the fact that an employer required an activity, it would sweep into ‘principal activities’ the very activities that the Portal-to-Portal Act was designed to address,” wrote Justice Thomas, adding that the screenings were not part of the duties the workers were hired to perform.

    The job descriptions for the employees per contract with Integrity Staffing involve tasks along the lines of retrieving products, packaging, and shipping to customers. Nowhere in the job descriptions for companies, in this case Amazon,  was there a mention of the employee going through security screenings.

    That's right; I've read the opinion.

    The security screenings weren't part of the employee's duties, that's part of why ISS not paying them for that time wasn't a violation of the FLSA. More to the point of the legal consideration, those screenings weren't "integral and indespensable" to their work  duties.

    The point is, that had nothing to do with the fact that ISS was providing staff to Amazon. These could have been Amazon employees and there still wouldn't have, under the FLSA, been a legal requirement for Amazon to pay them for that time. This was about whether the employer's policies - spelled out in an employment contract or not - violated the FLSA. Just because an employment contract doesn't say that X is among an employee's work duties, that doesn't mean that under the FLSA that X isn't compensable. There's more to the consideration than whether or not an employee contract says something is an employee's duty.

    At any rate, the difference between the cases we're talking about is that they are interpreting different laws. What is required under California law is different than what is required under federal law.


    I'll simply accept that you are correct, that had they been direct hires by Amazon then the result would have been the same. I've not read anything that addresses it so certainly nothing that would indicate it's not true.
  • Reply 48 of 56
    Looks like they should fire half the retail staff and put everyone on salary instead of hourly. Would make the security checks go faster and there would be no overtime pay.
    That's not the way the overtime laws work.  The department of labor determines what types of job are "non-exempt" from these labor laws and that's it.  So Apple couldn't simply say that "salespeople are now salaried."
    Laws only apply to those with less lobbying influence. Unions in California call the shots. Believe me, I know.
  • Reply 49 of 56
    Aloysius said:
    bdonovanw said:
    linkman said:
    To counter those that are saying that Apple should make most of the store employees salaried: in the US they are covered by federal labor and wage laws and because of the nature of the tasks the employees do most of them must be paid hourly. See https://www.flsa.com/coverage.html
    Nonsense. All store employees could be fired and rehired under salaried compensation.
    No. You're wrong. Re-read the information provided at the link. Most Apple Store employees do not meet the requirements to be classified as exempt.
    I live in California. The State is terrible for businesses because the progressive Leftists who control the state are all union puppets. It’s really no wonder why businesses continue to flee the state in record numbers.

    https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/news/2018/12/13/1-800-companies-left-california-in-a-year-with.html

    And if Tim and Apple are paying attention to the way the state is going they have a plan in place to move Apple out of the state also.
    You're switching gears here. This post was about FLSA coverage on salaried employees. You stated (wrongly) that Apple could simply categorize employees as salaried and not pay overtime. To do this, they would need to claim they are exempt employees, which they are not. This is not a California thing, this is a Federal thing. Unless an employee is exempt, they are paid overtime even if they are salaried. Exempt salaried employees are typically management or make over a certain threshold (and I believe they just narrowed the exempts this year). 

    So they *can* be salaried, but they would still be entitled to overtime pay if they work more than 40 hours in a week. That's Federal law.

    Of course, Apple certainly could do this the same as other companies try to dodge taxes by classifying employees as independent contractors, but Apple would clearly lose when challenged about it. It's not even a grey area like independent contractors; it's pretty cut and dry as to who can be exempt.
    I was a salaried employee for nearly a decade at a California company. I wasn’t a manager. I regularly worked 60-80 hour weeks and I never expected “overtime” because I was doing the job I was hired to do at a pay rate I agreed to. The people who filed this lawsuit and those who support this are complete wimps who are incapable of negotiating their own way through life.
  • Reply 50 of 56
    linkman said:
    To counter those that are saying that Apple should make most of the store employees salaried: in the US they are covered by federal labor and wage laws and because of the nature of the tasks the employees do most of them must be paid hourly. See https://www.flsa.com/coverage.html
    Nonsense. All store employees could be fired and rehired under salaried compensation.
    "Nonsense."  As the link in the OP's note clearly shows.  Among other criteria, inside sales employees are non-exempt by definition.  That's not even including annual income requirements and duties, which could further classify them as non-exempt.
    randominternetpersondysamoria
  • Reply 51 of 56
    linkman said:
    To counter those that are saying that Apple should make most of the store employees salaried: in the US they are covered by federal labor and wage laws and because of the nature of the tasks the employees do most of them must be paid hourly. See https://www.flsa.com/coverage.html
    Nonsense. All store employees could be fired and rehired under salaried compensation.
    "Nonsense."  As the link in the OP's note clearly shows.  Among other criteria, inside sales employees are non-exempt by definition.  That's not even including annual income requirements and duties, which could further classify them as non-exempt.
    I think if Apple had the guts to do it, they could successfully challenge the FLSA as an unconstitutional law and a clear example of Federal overreach. This garbage law was enacted in 1938 (no surprise) by “President-Dictator” FDR. The law should be revisited and struck down as a clear violation of private contracts.

    The Supreme Court should revisit the unconstitutional ruling reached in West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish,300 U.S. 379 and overturn it, which would lead to the abolition of Federal Minumum Wage laws and then lead to the eradication of the FSLA.

    It was the unconstitutional actions of FDR who led to the original harm caused to private contracts and freedom of choice for workers and businesses and led to the imposition of collectivist union demands, harming American competitiveness.

    Many “institutions” created under FDR’s terms should be revisited and struck down:  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt
    edited February 2020
  • Reply 52 of 56
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 1,075member
    linkman said:
    To counter those that are saying that Apple should make most of the store employees salaried: in the US they are covered by federal labor and wage laws and because of the nature of the tasks the employees do most of them must be paid hourly. See https://www.flsa.com/coverage.html
    Nonsense. All store employees could be fired and rehired under salaried compensation.
    "Nonsense."  As the link in the OP's note clearly shows.  Among other criteria, inside sales employees are non-exempt by definition.  That's not even including annual income requirements and duties, which could further classify them as non-exempt.
    I think if Apple had the guts to do it, they could successfully challenge the FLSA as an unconstitutional law and a clear example of Federal overreach. This garbage law was enacted in 1938 (no surprise) by President-Dictator FDR. The law should be revisited and struck down as a clear violation of private contracts.

    The Supreme Court should revisit the unconstitutional ruling reached in West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish,300 U.S. 379 and overturn it, which would lead to the abolition of Federal Minumum Wage laws and then lead to the eradication of the FSLA.

    It was the unconstitutional actions of FDR who led to the original harm caused to private contracts and freedom of choice for workers and businesses and led to the imposition of collectivist union demands, harming American competitiveness.

    Many “institutions” created under FDR’s terms should be revisited and struck down:  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt
    Unfortunately, the Supreme Court hasn’t shown much respect for the right to contract - particularly in economic contexts - since that switch in time that saved nine. There isn’t much chance that Apple would succeed in a constitutional challenge to the FLSA.

    That said, the FLSA likely doesn’t require Apple to pay employees for the time spent waiting for and undergoing these searches.
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 53 of 56
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    Aloysius said:
    bdonovanw said:
    linkman said:
    To counter those that are saying that Apple should make most of the store employees salaried: in the US they are covered by federal labor and wage laws and because of the nature of the tasks the employees do most of them must be paid hourly. See https://www.flsa.com/coverage.html
    Nonsense. All store employees could be fired and rehired under salaried compensation.
    No. You're wrong. Re-read the information provided at the link. Most Apple Store employees do not meet the requirements to be classified as exempt.
    I live in California. The State is terrible for businesses because the progressive Leftists who control the state are all union puppets. It’s really no wonder why businesses continue to flee the state in record numbers.

    https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/news/2018/12/13/1-800-companies-left-california-in-a-year-with.html

    And if Tim and Apple are paying attention to the way the state is going they have a plan in place to move Apple out of the state also.
    You're switching gears here. This post was about FLSA coverage on salaried employees. You stated (wrongly) that Apple could simply categorize employees as salaried and not pay overtime. To do this, they would need to claim they are exempt employees, which they are not. This is not a California thing, this is a Federal thing. Unless an employee is exempt, they are paid overtime even if they are salaried. Exempt salaried employees are typically management or make over a certain threshold (and I believe they just narrowed the exempts this year). 

    So they *can* be salaried, but they would still be entitled to overtime pay if they work more than 40 hours in a week. That's Federal law.

    Of course, Apple certainly could do this the same as other companies try to dodge taxes by classifying employees as independent contractors, but Apple would clearly lose when challenged about it. It's not even a grey area like independent contractors; it's pretty cut and dry as to who can be exempt.
    I was a salaried employee for nearly a decade at a California company. I wasn’t a manager. I regularly worked 60-80 hour weeks and I never expected “overtime” because I was doing the job I was hired to do at a pay rate I agreed to. The people who filed this lawsuit and those who support this are complete wimps who are incapable of negotiating their own way through life.
    I wish there was a mute button on here for people with your attitude around employment and employees. YOU and your experiences are not the model by which all scenarios should be judged. Calling someone a “wimp” because they want ethical employment situations...

    You’re making the assumption that the workers didn’t attempt to negotiate first. Lawsuits generally aren’t frivolous when they involve workers. Workers have no power. Apple workers aren’t unionized (or did I miss something), and if they were, the union would be negotiating before throwing into a lawsuit. This is just so obvious, yet you feel some compulsion to slam workers. Why?

    What bad thing happened to you that didn’t go the way it ethically should have gone, and why did you decide “if it’s bad for me, then it’s fine for it to be bad for everyone else!”

    Lawsuits against employers on behalf of employees are expensive and difficult to fund. A legal team has to take it on. Such a law firm would not take the job without finding a legitimate case. It’s not something people do just because they’re bored or greedy.

    Stop passing judgment on everyone who doesn’t live by your personal specifications as to what you think “personal accountability” should be.
    edited February 2020
  • Reply 54 of 56
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    spice-boy said:

    zoetmb said:
    Looks like they should fire half the retail staff and put everyone on salary instead of hourly. Would make the security checks go faster and there would be no overtime pay.
    May be a stupid question considering who I'm writing it to, but why are you defending Apple?   Workers deserve to be compensated for their time.  It's either my time or your time.  If it's your time, you have to pay me.  

    But you're right - they could put these employees on a flat salary and if they classify them as "exempt", they wouldn't get overtime pay.   So why doesn't Apple do that?  Because Apple wants flexibility in cutting staff hours and they don't want to pay them for a full 40 hours a week.  

    It's not like these jobs pay well.   If Apple can't trust their own employees, then they should pay them for the time.   The court ruled properly, IMO.   I worked in retail when I was a student in the 1970's and I was NEVER searched or had to submit to any kind of security check.   And I actually got Into trouble for working through lunch hour, knowing that I would NOT be paid for that hour, but did so because we were short staffed (and I would still make spiffs and commissions).   

    If Apple had proper inventory control (all stock is locked in a cage and has to be checked out when sold to a customer) then such searches wouldn't be necessary because there'd be nothing to steal except for what's on the floor and that could be easily observed.  

    Security checks aren’t uncommon and I’ve never heard of anyone being compensated for waiting in a line to be checked. Don’t like it? Quit and get a job at the Post Office.
    I see you are "company man" and think being employed means giving away all your rights as a worker. The reason there are laws in place for workers is because of people who think like you. 
    +1. Thumbs up. Here here. Etc.

    Being a “company man” is not even about being part of management (referring to when he declared he wasn’t management). I never understand how any employee can be comfortable siding with abusive employers, defending their unethical policies, or verbally abusing the employees who stood up for themselves (if that’s not personal accountability, then what is?? Willful slavery??).

    It’s some type of wild mental gymnastics.

    I’m glad most of the responses to this article have been rational and ethical, instead of corporate bootlicking.
  • Reply 55 of 56
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    dysamoria said:
    spice-boy said:

    zoetmb said:
    Looks like they should fire half the retail staff and put everyone on salary instead of hourly. Would make the security checks go faster and there would be no overtime pay.
    May be a stupid question considering who I'm writing it to, but why are you defending Apple?   Workers deserve to be compensated for their time.  It's either my time or your time.  If it's your time, you have to pay me.  

    But you're right - they could put these employees on a flat salary and if they classify them as "exempt", they wouldn't get overtime pay.   So why doesn't Apple do that?  Because Apple wants flexibility in cutting staff hours and they don't want to pay them for a full 40 hours a week.  

    It's not like these jobs pay well.   If Apple can't trust their own employees, then they should pay them for the time.   The court ruled properly, IMO.   I worked in retail when I was a student in the 1970's and I was NEVER searched or had to submit to any kind of security check.   And I actually got Into trouble for working through lunch hour, knowing that I would NOT be paid for that hour, but did so because we were short staffed (and I would still make spiffs and commissions).   

    If Apple had proper inventory control (all stock is locked in a cage and has to be checked out when sold to a customer) then such searches wouldn't be necessary because there'd be nothing to steal except for what's on the floor and that could be easily observed.  

    Security checks aren’t uncommon and I’ve never heard of anyone being compensated for waiting in a line to be checked. Don’t like it? Quit and get a job at the Post Office.
    I see you are "company man" and think being employed means giving away all your rights as a worker. The reason there are laws in place for workers is because of people who think like you. 
    +1. Thumbs up. Here here. Etc.
    FYI: It's technicality "Hear! Hear!" in reference to listening to or pay attention to what is being stated. I suppose in a written form that "Here! Here!" makes more sense than a reference to the auditory awareness, but not as accurate as "↑ There! ↑ There! ↑" .
  • Reply 56 of 56
    Best Buy and Circuit City did this exact same thing (I worked for both).  It’s part of the hiring process and is agreed upon in the employee contract. It blatantly says that a search of their bags will be completed upon departing of the premises to make sure that they are not stealing. As far as searching of the devices, again signed and agreed upon hiring. Don’t like it? Find another job, there are plenty of people who would LOVE to work for Apple. 
    edited February 2020
Sign In or Register to comment.