Seems like an open and shut case. Apple didn't have permission, therefore Apple broke the law.
Uh, not so fast. This law applies to “manual workers.” It is not stated that Apple Store employees actually are manual workers. As stated in the article, that is one of the claims of the suit, that they should have been classified as such. So this is not an open and shut case. The very pivotal question of whether they are actually manual workers needs to be answered. If Apple was not considering them manual workers then they wouldn’t have asked for permission.
Seems like an open and shut case. Apple didn't have permission, therefore Apple broke the law.
Uh, no. Apple didn't consider them manual laborers under the law, which was quoted above. It's actually a potentially very complicated issue. A court will decide whether the suit can even go forward. They may have to prove that Apple knew their interpretation was questionable, or deliberately manipulated the system. The court will have to decide what the intent of the law was. Was it really to protect retail sales people because they open boxes sometimes? I imagine past practice and the length of time they paid bi-weekly without complaint or warning will factor in. The damages also seem extremely overstated. A $5,000,000 judgement would mean (before lawyers' fees) would be $50K per claimant. All because they didn't have use of the money every week instead of every week? On what is that based...checking account average interest? My gut tells me this goes nowhere.
Of course the damages are overstated. They always are so that can be negotiated down.
Well, obviously. No response to the other substantive parts? Do you still think it's open and shut?
I don't know the exact details of the law, but in spirit it seem open and shut. Not sure why the law is particular to manual workers instead of just low wage workers. In any case, Apple would be best served by not being dickholes and just paying them weekly.
Whatever the outcome, Apple are nickel and diming at the expense of their own employees. Just pay your low wage workers weekly ffs.
Dumbest take in all this.
How is Apple “nickel and diming”? Employees are paid their full wages.
Imagine filing a lawsuit that states you want to pay your “insert monthly bill here” weekly, instead of monthly, because paying a large amount once a month is strenuous and you want to break it up into weekly payments, even though the dollar amount remains the same.
It is said Ramos is injured by the failure to pay wages weekly because "she was temporarily deprived of money owed to her," and that she "lost the time value of that money."
Fuck off with this bullshit. What are you, a world-class day trader that earns massive dividends on every dollar you make? You’re missing out on that big deal because you had to wait an extra week for your ‘full’ paycheque?
Put another way, bills are due every month. By hanging on to money for a month you’re depriving the company you owe money of the time & value of that money by waiting an entire month to pay them.
Not all bills are monthly, genius.
Have you never heard of living paycheck to paycheck, and the scourge of payday loans? Apple should support their most vulnerable workers instead of doing whatever is convenient to Apple.
Unless there’s a record of Apple applying for a “manual labor” exemption for their sales staff and being rejected I’d view this as a reach. Making change and handing someone a boxed iPhone you got from storage is as far from the laws apparent intent as it gets. I’ve dug holes for power poles and pulled wire, that’s “manual labor”.
NY legislature wants to cover sales people? Write the legislation.
ETA: I’d have thought the first action in this would have been going to the labor department with a complaint. It’s their regulation, so they’re the ones that enforce it right?
Apple retail stores have been open for over twenty years.
This person worked for 8 years and didn’t quit or file a suit while working? For 8 years the biweekly pay schedule worked somehow?
There are 11 Apple stores in NYC alone operating for over 15 years, has the state not noticed what frequency Apple pays thousands of employees?
I get the idea that someone wants their earnings as soon as possible, but the money is the same amount it would be either way, it’s how it’s managed between pay checks.
Not sure of the merit of this case.
The merit of the case seems to be that - per the article - every other retailer in NYC complies with the law except Apple.
That’s not to say that’ll be the outcome of the case. That’s for the court to decide. But it’s the merit of the case.
Whatever the outcome, Apple are nickel and diming at the expense of their own employees. Just pay your low wage workers weekly ffs.
Your shortsighted and anti-Apple troll commentary here on a consistent basis is all the justification this site needs for a downvote function in the comments.
Better still, you should just be kicked out to spare us your diatribe.
Or, you can click their username and then click Ignore. There, job done. You don’t have to see their “diatribe” anymore, and the rest of us who do want to see their posts are not disadvantaged just because you think you speak for everyone.
We can be critical of Apple's possible, though somewhat far-fetched IMO (but that's for a court to decide), failure to comply with the law, and also ridicule a person who spent 8 years without complaining about that failure, both at the same time.
Yes because people employed as sales associates, cashiers, waiters, dishwashers, and cooks generally hold law school degrees and have several years experience in NY labor law.
It seems likely that there's an actual lawyer or two involved as well.
Why ‘biweekly’? Doesn’t that mean twice in a week?
What’s wrong with ‘fortnight’ - a term that has been about for a long time and with a clear meaning.
Biweekly can mean either. In general to avoid confusion, it's used for once every two weeks and semiweekly is used for twice a week.
Fortnight is rather archaic and most Americans have no idea what it means.
Fortnight is not archaic, it's in very common usage in Britain and Australia, and is unambiguous. Fortnight, fourteen nights.
Biweekly is best avoided, as is bimonthly and biannually. I've never heard semiweekly before, very clumsy.
In the United States where, coincidentally, this lawsuit was instigated, bi-weekly is most commonly understood to be every two weeks and is the usage employed by every major payroll company in the US. Semi-weekly is exceedingly rare, and I don't know of any payroll company (having worked for and with a couple of the major US players in the field) that uses it.
Seems like an open and shut case. Apple didn't have permission, therefore Apple broke the law.
Uh, no. Apple didn't consider them manual laborers under the law, which was quoted above. It's actually a potentially very complicated issue. A court will decide whether the suit can even go forward. They may have to prove that Apple knew their interpretation was questionable, or deliberately manipulated the system. The court will have to decide what the intent of the law was. Was it really to protect retail sales people because they open boxes sometimes? I imagine past practice and the length of time they paid bi-weekly without complaint or warning will factor in. The damages also seem extremely overstated. A $5,000,000 judgement would mean (before lawyers' fees) would be $50K per claimant. All because they didn't have use of the money every week instead of every week? On what is that based...checking account average interest? My gut tells me this goes nowhere.
I just hope the lawyers will be able to articulate the situation as well as you did here on AI
Seems like an open and shut case. Apple didn't have permission, therefore Apple broke the law.
"It is believed that Apple did not receive this authorization for its store staff, and that it paid wages every other week instead of weekly. The suit proposes that its store staff should be covered under the law, and therefore Apple was breaking it."
I know that you are dealing g with the Queen's English over there. but even then, how does "it is believed that Apple ....." equate to an "open and shut case" and you saying that Apple didn't have permission, as though it's a fact?
Judging by most of your comments, about that only thing "open and shut" is you believing the Apple is always wrong, when it comes to them dealing with their workers or their competitors.
Seems like an open and shut case. Apple didn't have permission, therefore Apple broke the law.
"It is believed that Apple did not receive this authorization for its store staff, and that it paid wages every other week instead of weekly. The suit proposes that its store staff should be covered under the law, and therefore Apple was breaking it."
I know that you are dealing g with the Queen's English over there. but even then, how does "it is believed that Apple ....." equate to an "open and shut case" and you saying that Apple didn't have permission, as though it's a fact?
Judging by most of your comments, about that only thing "open and shut" is you believing the Apple is always wrong, when it comes to them dealing with their workers or their competitors.
Yeah, pretty much. And it seems to get borne out most of the time from what I see.
A lot of people round here put Apple on a pedestal; that because they make good products they must be the good guys. I agree that they make good products, but in many ways they're just another big company, stuffed to the gills with assholes and policies designed to put profit before people. They love to talk the talk, but very often are found lacking when it comes to walking the walk.
Have Apple or anyone else claimed they did have authorization? Weird that you'd pick up on that when no such claim is being made anywhere. If it turns out that they did I will revise my opinion, though I would question why the award was made. But I doubt it will in any case.
Whatever the outcome, Apple are nickel and diming at the expense of their own employees. Just pay your low wage workers weekly ffs.
Your shortsighted and anti-Apple troll commentary here on a consistent basis is all the justification this site needs for a downvote function in the comments.
Better still, you should just be kicked out to spare us your diatribe.
Seems like an open and shut case. Apple didn't have permission, therefore Apple broke the law.
Not so open and shut. From the article: “The lawsuit reckons that approximately 25% of the job responsibilities Ramos had would be classifiable as manual labor.“. Later in the article it says the laws requires that more than 25% of the work must be manual so the plaintiff has a couple of hurdles. They need to prove that more than 25% of the work was manual not that “approximately 25%” and that the work claimed was manual. It is debatable that chatting with customers is considered manual labor.
It's actually a higher hurdle than that. It's 25% of the work performed in an average work week, must be "physical labor", as defined by NYC labor law. Not 25% of a workers responsibility.
"Department that individuals who spend more than 25% of working time engaged in “physical labor” fit within the meaning of the term “manual worker.” .
90% of your work responsibility might be considered "physical labor" but if you only spend 10% of your work time doing them, your job is not considered "manual worker". However, if even just 5% of your job responsibility was considered "physical labor" and you spent more than 25% of your work hours performing them, then your job would be considered "manual worker".
And I'm pretty sure, but not certain, that the spirit of the law is meant to when one performs "physical labor" on a some what continuous basic as to be tiring or monotonous over time, for over 25% of your day or week. Not performing "physical labor" a little at time along with your regular job description.
Like adding up the 2 minute you spent walking to the supply room, the 2 minute it took you find the item, the 2 minute to took to carry back the item to the counter and the 1 minute it took you to use a razor blade to open the package as 7 minutes of "physical work" and this adds up with other "physical work", like the 30 seconds it took you to walk to the end of the counter to take a telephone call (an hour later), and the 1 minute it took you to bag 20 purchases in the day plus the occasional 5 minutes it took you to help a customer carry a purchase to a car.
Now if your job was to go to the supply room and fetch inventory for all the sales people when needed, help customers carry their purchases to a car and kept inventory and stocking the supply room the rest of the time and this is what to do most of your work hours, then that can be considered a "manual worker" job.
We can be critical of Apple's possible, though somewhat far-fetched IMO (but that's for a court to decide), failure to comply with the law, and also ridicule a person who spent 8 years without complaining about that failure, both at the same time.
Yes because people employed as sales associates, cashiers, waiters, dishwashers, and cooks generally hold law school degrees and have several years experience in NY labor law.
In the 8 to 10 years that Apple having been doing this in NYC, all it would have taken was just 1 Apple employee to question this practice. Just 1 employee that might be still attending college for accounting, business or a law degree. Just 1 employee whose parent might be union person or union rep. Just 1 employee who has aspiration of unionizing the Apple Store employees. Just 1 employee that was getting paid weekly at another company and question why Apple was paying bi-weekly.
I don't hold a law degree (like most of my co-workers) and yet we knew FLSA and the CA labor laws that our employer had to go by.
Unless MacPro and iMac is selling like hotcakes in NY, I don’t see how can taking a few iPhones from back to customer is manual labour work. Unless the lawyer also count the weight of the employee.
Any employer required hire employee need to sign by employment agreed paper that explained wage payment term and benefit and other agreements.
Unless MYC does not require sign by employee for working agreement, all employees agreed and signed that paper biweekly payment by Apple. This is not matter with NYC labor law. This is between employer and employee agreement. Unless Apple did not pay them agreed pay term then what law they broke?
Are they really think Apple will skip the payment?
Soon all bs lawsuit requires payback whatever cost opponent spending.
Comments
Have you never heard of living paycheck to paycheck, and the scourge of payday loans? Apple should support their most vulnerable workers instead of doing whatever is convenient to Apple.
Biweekly is best avoided, as is bimonthly and biannually. I've never heard semiweekly before, very clumsy.
It seems likely that there's an actual lawyer or two involved as well.
In the United States where, coincidentally, this lawsuit was instigated, bi-weekly is most commonly understood to be every two weeks and is the usage employed by every major payroll company in the US. Semi-weekly is exceedingly rare, and I don't know of any payroll company (having worked for and with a couple of the major US players in the field) that uses it.
I know that you are dealing g with the Queen's English over there. but even then, how does "it is believed that Apple ....." equate to an "open and shut case" and you saying that Apple didn't have permission, as though it's a fact?
Judging by most of your comments, about that only thing "open and shut" is you believing the Apple is always wrong, when it comes to them dealing with their workers or their competitors.
A lot of people round here put Apple on a pedestal; that because they make good products they must be the good guys. I agree that they make good products, but in many ways they're just another big company, stuffed to the gills with assholes and policies designed to put profit before people. They love to talk the talk, but very often are found lacking when it comes to walking the walk.
Have Apple or anyone else claimed they did have authorization? Weird that you'd pick up on that when no such claim is being made anywhere. If it turns out that they did I will revise my opinion, though I would question why the award was made. But I doubt it will in any case.
One click is all it takes. I won't miss you.
It's actually a higher hurdle than that. It's 25% of the work performed in an average work week, must be "physical labor", as defined by NYC labor law. Not 25% of a workers responsibility.
"Department that individuals who spend more than 25% of working time engaged in “physical labor” fit within the meaning of the term “manual worker.” .
90% of your work responsibility might be considered "physical labor" but if you only spend 10% of your work time doing them, your job is not considered "manual worker". However, if even just 5% of your job responsibility was considered "physical labor" and you spent more than 25% of your work hours performing them, then your job would be considered "manual worker".
And I'm pretty sure, but not certain, that the spirit of the law is meant to when one performs "physical labor" on a some what continuous basic as to be tiring or monotonous over time, for over 25% of your day or week. Not performing "physical labor" a little at time along with your regular job description.
Like adding up the 2 minute you spent walking to the supply room, the 2 minute it took you find the item, the 2 minute to took to carry back the item to the counter and the 1 minute it took you to use a razor blade to open the package as 7 minutes of "physical work" and this adds up with other "physical work", like the 30 seconds it took you to walk to the end of the counter to take a telephone call (an hour later), and the 1 minute it took you to bag 20 purchases in the day plus the occasional 5 minutes it took you to help a customer carry a purchase to a car.
Now if your job was to go to the supply room and fetch inventory for all the sales people when needed, help customers carry their purchases to a car and kept inventory and stocking the supply room the rest of the time and this is what to do most of your work hours, then that can be considered a "manual worker" job.
I don't hold a law degree (like most of my co-workers) and yet we knew FLSA and the CA labor laws that our employer had to go by.
Unless MYC does not require sign by employee for working agreement, all employees agreed and signed that paper biweekly payment by Apple.
This is not matter with NYC labor law.
This is between employer and employee agreement. Unless Apple did not pay them agreed pay term then what law they broke?
Are they really think Apple will skip the payment?
Soon all bs lawsuit requires payback whatever cost opponent spending.