Wow, a whole fucking hour per WEEK? I like how everyone, from the US gvt to Apple's own employees, are just clamoring to throw Apple under the bus because of greed and attention-whorism. Quit if you don't like the policies. There's a million other companies you can work at, and a long line of people who really wish they could get a job at Apple retail.
Are you just angry all the time? Cases come up with other companies too. You're just more likely to read them when they involve Apple or at the very least a tech company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Provided this is true, this case won't even make it past the preliminaries.
And I've seen plenty of Apple Store employees come on shift. Not one was carrying a bag.
Do you mean it will be thrown out or most likely settled out of court? I find it kind of amusing how much information people try to extrapolate from what is stated in a short article. Every time I read through one like this, then view the comments, it goes basically the same way. People have already made up their minds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I call BS.
If they were really waiting 10-15 minutes before leaving for their lunch break and 10-15 minutes when returning, they'd be suing for violation of Federal laws which require a lunch break.
You ignored the up to qualifier. It was probably during situations where a manager wasn't immediately available. This isn't a secure environment with someone dedicated to check in/check out of each individual entering or leaving the building. If it isn't a high priority for the manager, there may be situations where they wait depending on how many people are clocking in or out at that time.
[quote name="hmm" url="/t/158765/apple-retail-workers-file-class-action-suit-claiming-lost-wages-over-bag-searches/120#post_2370468"]Do you mean it will be thrown out or most likely settled out of court?[/QUOTE]
Thrown out entirely. They'll get no money and corporate policy will be changed to disallow bags of any sort brought into the store by employees. It's a lose-lose-win, with Apple winning. They should have just put up with it or, you know, not brought in bags.
Check state labor laws, in NYC companies are forced to give a 30 minute break for every 4 hours of work.
Cry me a river on that one. Yes, in Washington State an 8 hour day garners you a 1 hour break. You can break it up by 15 minute intervals, 30 minute intervals or 1 hour. Your 9 to 5 is actually 9 to 6.
Corporations are idiots if they ignore this rule. Not because they will be fined, but because productivity goes in the tank without breaks.
Thrown out entirely. They'll get no money and corporate policy will be changed to disallow bags of any sort brought into the store by employees. It's a lose-lose-win, with Apple winning. They should have just put up with it or, you know, not brought in bags.
Thanks. I was just curious what you thought. I'm not sure if that would go over well, and ultimately it matters that the employees still care, as it's difficult to fix poor work culture. You can say not to bring in bags, but women often carry necessary items in their bags rather than pockets. Anyway there's not much I can really add to this.
I suppose you might live somewhere there is no Apple Store and have not been inside one.
When was the last time you went into an apple store and saw an employee on the phone? I have NEVER seen an apple store worker on the phone on a personal call. Never.the Apple stores near me are SLAMMED from open to close. I can't imagine any time to chat or have a BS session on the phone.
Petty? Since when is $1500 petty (the stated value of owed minimum wages?
Time is Money when you work in retail.
If the company wants you to go through security it should be the first thing after clocking in and the last thing before clocking out.
A company like mine can reserve the right to search bags but here is the thing, the only time the could do so and make it legal is to do the search after you clock out. After all it is no different than shop lifting, if the store wants a shop lifting case to stick they have to grab you as you leave the store with unpaid goods. Otherwise there is always the plausible argument that the person intended to pay for the item when they leave. Since the company is effectively trying to prevent shop lifting the employee realistically has to be off the clock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Could you maybe shut up and show me where I'm wrong then? Thanks. Otherwise please just move on.
This is where you are quite possibly wrong. Wizard69 offers the BEST argument in the whole thread, IMO, but you continue to argue that a woman has no need to carry any type of bag to work. While I personally think this lawsuit is frivolous and without merit....because I, too, am an employer, you cannot possibly suggest that no one needs to carry a bag to work for any reason. That's just simply an unreasonable suggestion and a poor argument.
Okay, real quick, for those of you who haven't been in the labor force for the last 25 years. This is pretty well decided in tort law ,but it's Apple so lawyers being lawyers. Many jobs require employees to arrive early to start work and stay over a leave. It is necessary, specifically for hourly workers, to be ready to work at the time a "shift" begins.
If your work at a bank and work from 8:30am toe 3:00pm, it is expected for you to clear security, stow away your lunch get your coffee and be ready to start work at 8:30 am. I you work as a baggage handler at JFK and you start your shift @ 07:00hrs you are expected to reach the airport early , park your car, clear security , reach your assigned area and clock in @ or Before 07:00hrs,
If you work at an Oil Refinery and you are scheduled to work @ 8:00 am you have to park your car. clear security, attain transport to your jobsight, get into safety equipment and be ready to work at 08:00hrs. Doesn't matter if you clock in @ 07:15hrs. You get paid @ 08:00hrs.
I don't know what world you think you live in but Unions have been fighting for that extra 45 minutes for decades and have been rebuffed. Those same labor laws make this case a non starter. The courts basically say, "you can quit and work at another employer who will pay from the time you leave arrive at the parking lot."
Here in Germany it is not uncommon that if you work on an hourly basis that you have to clock out when you go to the bathroom or have a smoke. On the other hand, "strip seatch time" is clearly defined as workong time hete and therefore gets paid. From several previous comments it seems this is not the case in the US, or at least with Apple Retail.
Apple Employees should NEVER be allowed to bring in bags to work. Period.
Some people can't afford to eat out so they need a bag to hold their brought from home food. You can't expect the employees to always have to wear their uniform home, they need a change of clothes. How about medication, female hygiene products, snacks, fluids, change of shoes, ect. Your being silly for even suggesting this, I guess if it doesn't concern you then why not. A iPhone, iPad, Mackbook Mini, software, acessories, ect. are still very easy to remove without a bag
Are you suggesting that being they still get paid and or promoted that justifies them from stealing time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz
I have my own business.
The well spring of your attitude becomes clear now. Believing that those moments when your employees are not being dutiful little robots they are actually stealing from you is as gob-smacking as TS's apparent unfamiliarity with women's clothing and the truth that most of their apparel does not contain cargo pouches. You'd think he'd never seen a woman with a skirt or a dress or a handbag, let alone have a clue as to the sort of items they carry in them.
I am picturing your business as being a Victorian era cotton mill or perhaps a clothing factory in Bangladesh that is still quietly smouldering.
Okay, real quick, for those of you who haven't been in the labor force for the last 25 years. This is pretty well decided in tort law ,but it's Apple so lawyers being lawyers. Many jobs require employees to arrive early to start work and stay over a leave. It is necessary, specifically for hourly workers, to be ready to work at the time a "shift" begins.
If your work at a bank and work from 8:30am toe 3:00pm, it is expected for you to clear security, stow away your lunch get your coffee and be ready to start work at 8:30 am. I you work as a baggage handler at JFK and you start your shift @ 07:00hrs you are expected to reach the airport early , park your car, clear security , reach your assigned area and clock in @ or Before 07:00hrs,
If you work at an Oil Refinery and you are scheduled to work @ 8:00 am you have to park your car. clear security, attain transport to your jobsight, get into safety equipment and be ready to work at 08:00hrs. Doesn't matter if you clock in @ 07:15hrs. You get paid @ 08:00hrs.
I don't know what world you think you live in but Unions have been fighting for that extra 45 minutes for decades and have been rebuffed. Those same labor laws make this case a non starter. The courts basically say, "you can quit and work at another employer who will pay from the time you leave arrive at the parking lot."
Everything you wrote is correct. I've studied labor laws quite a bit and have had to go to court on both sides before. However, while what you wrote is correct, it's not relevant to this case.
At issue is what is called compensable time and if you check with the US Department of Labor you'll see that while employers can require employees to show up at a location, dressed and ready to work; once on the job any amount of time that the employee is required to do any activity by the employer is considered compensable. Specifically in this case, waiting to be searched is considered "engaged to wait".
This is much different from your example where the employee is scheduled for 8am, and voluntarily clocks in at 7:15. It's even different from your example where an employee would realistically need to show up much earlier to park, get to the work area, etc... A really great example of this is when I worked as an aircraft engineer. I'd have to arrive 30-45 minutes to the plant to get to my work space in order to perform my job. However, sometimes my job involved crawling into the inside of a wing all the way to the very end. This took about an hour to do. I got paid for the hour of crawling to the end of the wing, not for parking my car, walking to the work place, or suiting up with safety gear and putting whatever I had in my desk.
So the big difference here is that at the Apple Store, these employees (claim) they are clocking out, and then "engaged to wait" to be inspected. This comes up from time to time when employers ask people to finish their work, clock out, and then wait for their area to be inspected (think foodserver and sidework). Sorry, but the law says they can't do this. Worse, here is the length of time of the waiting. It adds up to real money ($1,500 a year).
Yep. Here are the main points, all in true statements.
1) People carry bags.
2) People do not have to carry bags.
3) People can carry bags into work at Apple.
4) People do not have to carry bags into work at Apple.
5) Bags are not required for work at Apple.
6) People who carry bags into work at Apple are subject to search.
7) People who do not carry bags into work at Apple are not subject to search.
8) If people do not want to be searched, they should not carry bags into work at Apple.
Any further confusion? Now for the only point of contention.
9) As bags are not required for work at Apple, the search through bags carried into work at Apple is off the clock, as the activity is not a required part of work done at Apple.
Your own posts disprove that.
Not all of those statements are fully true according to the complaint. For example, you wrote "People who carry bags into work at Apple are subject to search." That should read "Employees who carry bags into work at Apple are subject to search." Customers who carry bags into Apple are not searched according to the complaint.
There in lies the rub. It's not a requirement of the location to go through a search. It's a requirement of employees to be searched before they can leave the workplace. If they have a bag, the wait for that search is taking up to 1.5 hours per week. That's an engaged to wait situation for which they aren't be compensated... assuming the complaint is true and accurate.
Watch... Apple will settle this one and change their policies.
There are people that have medical conditions that are all but required to carry some sort of bag containing their medical supplies. If Apple has people like that suing them in this case, they are going to settle this and settle soon. It is possible, however, that Apple makes exceptions for those people and no one that fits that description will be in the case.
If this case if full of people that think they have a right to carry a bag to work for no good reason, that's ridiculous. People that were simply carrying in pocket books full of makeup should have been leaving their bags in the car if they didn't like the policy.
I am going to try and keep up with this case because I would like to hear the arguments the employees make. Whether or not this case is ridiculous or justified largely depends on what the employees claims are and what their circumstances were.
I've worked for about 5 different retailers and most of them required bag checks. I never waited 10-15 minutes and they don't take 5 minutes. You wait less time than that at airport security let alone a retail store.
Where the hell did they get the $30 per hour figure for Geniuses? They start at $15 an hour and might make it up to $20 after 7 or 8 years of service if they're lucky. Apple doesn't even pay their people peanuts. Don't believe what you read here.
100% correct, and I bet most of these employees are not productive 100% of the time while at work.
Clearly wage laws should be changed to allow employers to pay employees only for the time that they're productive, in the employer's judgment, with no right of appeal.
/s
There's a reason we have wage laws that don't allow that. If an employee is unproductive, the employer can fire him, but they still have to pay him for the hours he reported to work before being fired.
Apple will settle this suit, and change its checkout policy to pay employees for the time they wait to have their bags checked*. Those of you who think Apple should fight it are not, I hope, employers of hourly workers; but if you are you're welcome to test your theories regarding pay for productivity rather than hours and see where it gets you.
* Apple could also change its policy to refuse employees permission to bring bags to work.**
** Or require employees to bring a bag (if they bring one) that can be searched expeditiously. I shouldn't get a half hour of extra pay because I bring a bag with a thousand pockets.
[quote name="Dickprinter" url="/t/158765/apple-retail-workers-file-class-action-suit-claiming-lost-wages-over-bag-searches/120#post_2370493"]…you continue to argue that a woman has no need to carry any type of bag to work.[/QUOTE]
Correct, as long as the bag is not work-related.
[QUOTE]…you cannot possibly suggest that no one needs to carry a bag to work for any reason.[/QUOTE]
I don't recall ever doing that.
[quote name="macslut" url="/t/158765/apple-retail-workers-file-class-action-suit-claiming-lost-wages-over-bag-searches/120#post_2370532"]For example, you wrote "People who carry bags into work at Apple are subject to search." That should read "Employees who carry bags into work at Apple are subject to search." Customers who carry bags into Apple are not searched according to the complaint.[/QUOTE]
Indeed; you're correct. I'd edit it, but it's quoted so much now.
[QUOTE]It's not a requirement of the location to go through a search.[/QUOTE]
But it's a requirement of [I]employment[/I]. That's an entirely different discussion.
Clearly wage laws should be changed to allow employers to pay employees only for the time that they're productive, in the employer's judgment, with no right of appeal.
/s
There's a reason we have wage laws that don't allow that. If an employee is unproductive, the employer can fire him, but they still have to pay him for the hours he reported to work before being fired.
Apple will settle this suit, and change its checkout policy to pay employees for the time they wait to have their bags checked*. Those of you who think Apple should fight it are not, I hope, employers of hourly workers; but if you are you're welcome to test your theories regarding pay for productivity rather than hours and see where it gets you.
* Apple could also change its policy to refuse employees permission to bring bags to work.**
** Or require them to bring bags that can be searched expeditiously. Employees shouldn't get an extra half hour of pay because they bring bags with a thousand pockets.
Gah, I was trying to add the second footnote to my previous post. I don't see a way to delete this.
Comments
Could you maybe shut up and show me where I'm wrong then? Thanks. Otherwise please just move on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
Wow, a whole fucking hour per WEEK? I like how everyone, from the US gvt to Apple's own employees, are just clamoring to throw Apple under the bus because of greed and attention-whorism. Quit if you don't like the policies. There's a million other companies you can work at, and a long line of people who really wish they could get a job at Apple retail.
Are you just angry all the time? Cases come up with other companies too. You're just more likely to read them when they involve Apple or at the very least a tech company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Provided this is true, this case won't even make it past the preliminaries.
And I've seen plenty of Apple Store employees come on shift. Not one was carrying a bag.
Do you mean it will be thrown out or most likely settled out of court? I find it kind of amusing how much information people try to extrapolate from what is stated in a short article. Every time I read through one like this, then view the comments, it goes basically the same way. People have already made up their minds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I call BS.
If they were really waiting 10-15 minutes before leaving for their lunch break and 10-15 minutes when returning, they'd be suing for violation of Federal laws which require a lunch break.
You ignored the up to qualifier. It was probably during situations where a manager wasn't immediately available. This isn't a secure environment with someone dedicated to check in/check out of each individual entering or leaving the building. If it isn't a high priority for the manager, there may be situations where they wait depending on how many people are clocking in or out at that time.
Thrown out entirely. They'll get no money and corporate policy will be changed to disallow bags of any sort brought into the store by employees. It's a lose-lose-win, with Apple winning. They should have just put up with it or, you know, not brought in bags.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Check state labor laws, in NYC companies are forced to give a 30 minute break for every 4 hours of work.
Cry me a river on that one. Yes, in Washington State an 8 hour day garners you a 1 hour break. You can break it up by 15 minute intervals, 30 minute intervals or 1 hour. Your 9 to 5 is actually 9 to 6.
Corporations are idiots if they ignore this rule. Not because they will be fined, but because productivity goes in the tank without breaks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Thrown out entirely. They'll get no money and corporate policy will be changed to disallow bags of any sort brought into the store by employees. It's a lose-lose-win, with Apple winning. They should have just put up with it or, you know, not brought in bags.
Thanks. I was just curious what you thought. I'm not sure if that would go over well, and ultimately it matters that the employees still care, as it's difficult to fix poor work culture. You can say not to bring in bags, but women often carry necessary items in their bags rather than pockets. Anyway there's not much I can really add to this.
You are kidding right?
I suppose you might live somewhere there is no Apple Store and have not been inside one.
When was the last time you went into an apple store and saw an employee on the phone? I have NEVER seen an apple store worker on the phone on a personal call. Never.the Apple stores near me are SLAMMED from open to close. I can't imagine any time to chat or have a BS session on the phone.
Petty? Since when is $1500 petty (the stated value of owed minimum wages?
Time is Money when you work in retail.
If the company wants you to go through security it should be the first thing after clocking in and the last thing before clocking out.
YMF
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
(...)
A company like mine can reserve the right to search bags but here is the thing, the only time the could do so and make it legal is to do the search after you clock out. After all it is no different than shop lifting, if the store wants a shop lifting case to stick they have to grab you as you leave the store with unpaid goods. Otherwise there is always the plausible argument that the person intended to pay for the item when they leave. Since the company is effectively trying to prevent shop lifting the employee realistically has to be off the clock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Could you maybe shut up and show me where I'm wrong then? Thanks. Otherwise please just move on.
This is where you are quite possibly wrong. Wizard69 offers the BEST argument in the whole thread, IMO, but you continue to argue that a woman has no need to carry any type of bag to work. While I personally think this lawsuit is frivolous and without merit....because I, too, am an employer, you cannot possibly suggest that no one needs to carry a bag to work for any reason. That's just simply an unreasonable suggestion and a poor argument.
Okay, real quick, for those of you who haven't been in the labor force for the last 25 years. This is pretty well decided in tort law ,but it's Apple so lawyers being lawyers. Many jobs require employees to arrive early to start work and stay over a leave. It is necessary, specifically for hourly workers, to be ready to work at the time a "shift" begins.
If your work at a bank and work from 8:30am toe 3:00pm, it is expected for you to clear security, stow away your lunch get your coffee and be ready to start work at 8:30 am. I you work as a baggage handler at JFK and you start your shift @ 07:00hrs you are expected to reach the airport early , park your car, clear security , reach your assigned area and clock in @ or Before 07:00hrs,
If you work at an Oil Refinery and you are scheduled to work @ 8:00 am you have to park your car. clear security, attain transport to your jobsight, get into safety equipment and be ready to work at 08:00hrs. Doesn't matter if you clock in @ 07:15hrs. You get paid @ 08:00hrs.
I don't know what world you think you live in but Unions have been fighting for that extra 45 minutes for decades and have been rebuffed. Those same labor laws make this case a non starter. The courts basically say, "you can quit and work at another employer who will pay from the time you leave arrive at the parking lot."
Some people can't afford to eat out so they need a bag to hold their brought from home food. You can't expect the employees to always have to wear their uniform home, they need a change of clothes. How about medication, female hygiene products, snacks, fluids, change of shoes, ect. Your being silly for even suggesting this, I guess if it doesn't concern you then why not. A iPhone, iPad, Mackbook Mini, software, acessories, ect. are still very easy to remove without a bag
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz
Are you suggesting that being they still get paid and or promoted that justifies them from stealing time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz
I have my own business.
The well spring of your attitude becomes clear now. Believing that those moments when your employees are not being dutiful little robots they are actually stealing from you is as gob-smacking as TS's apparent unfamiliarity with women's clothing and the truth that most of their apparel does not contain cargo pouches. You'd think he'd never seen a woman with a skirt or a dress or a handbag, let alone have a clue as to the sort of items they carry in them.
I am picturing your business as being a Victorian era cotton mill or perhaps a clothing factory in Bangladesh that is still quietly smouldering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adre Naline
Okay, real quick, for those of you who haven't been in the labor force for the last 25 years. This is pretty well decided in tort law ,but it's Apple so lawyers being lawyers. Many jobs require employees to arrive early to start work and stay over a leave. It is necessary, specifically for hourly workers, to be ready to work at the time a "shift" begins.
If your work at a bank and work from 8:30am toe 3:00pm, it is expected for you to clear security, stow away your lunch get your coffee and be ready to start work at 8:30 am. I you work as a baggage handler at JFK and you start your shift @ 07:00hrs you are expected to reach the airport early , park your car, clear security , reach your assigned area and clock in @ or Before 07:00hrs,
If you work at an Oil Refinery and you are scheduled to work @ 8:00 am you have to park your car. clear security, attain transport to your jobsight, get into safety equipment and be ready to work at 08:00hrs. Doesn't matter if you clock in @ 07:15hrs. You get paid @ 08:00hrs.
I don't know what world you think you live in but Unions have been fighting for that extra 45 minutes for decades and have been rebuffed. Those same labor laws make this case a non starter. The courts basically say, "you can quit and work at another employer who will pay from the time you leave arrive at the parking lot."
Everything you wrote is correct. I've studied labor laws quite a bit and have had to go to court on both sides before. However, while what you wrote is correct, it's not relevant to this case.
At issue is what is called compensable time and if you check with the US Department of Labor you'll see that while employers can require employees to show up at a location, dressed and ready to work; once on the job any amount of time that the employee is required to do any activity by the employer is considered compensable. Specifically in this case, waiting to be searched is considered "engaged to wait".
This is much different from your example where the employee is scheduled for 8am, and voluntarily clocks in at 7:15. It's even different from your example where an employee would realistically need to show up much earlier to park, get to the work area, etc... A really great example of this is when I worked as an aircraft engineer. I'd have to arrive 30-45 minutes to the plant to get to my work space in order to perform my job. However, sometimes my job involved crawling into the inside of a wing all the way to the very end. This took about an hour to do. I got paid for the hour of crawling to the end of the wing, not for parking my car, walking to the work place, or suiting up with safety gear and putting whatever I had in my desk.
So the big difference here is that at the Apple Store, these employees (claim) they are clocking out, and then "engaged to wait" to be inspected. This comes up from time to time when employers ask people to finish their work, clock out, and then wait for their area to be inspected (think foodserver and sidework). Sorry, but the law says they can't do this. Worse, here is the length of time of the waiting. It adds up to real money ($1,500 a year).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yep. Here are the main points, all in true statements.
1) People carry bags.
2) People do not have to carry bags.
3) People can carry bags into work at Apple.
4) People do not have to carry bags into work at Apple.
5) Bags are not required for work at Apple.
6) People who carry bags into work at Apple are subject to search.
7) People who do not carry bags into work at Apple are not subject to search.
8) If people do not want to be searched, they should not carry bags into work at Apple.
Any further confusion? Now for the only point of contention.
9) As bags are not required for work at Apple, the search through bags carried into work at Apple is off the clock, as the activity is not a required part of work done at Apple.
Your own posts disprove that.
Not all of those statements are fully true according to the complaint. For example, you wrote "People who carry bags into work at Apple are subject to search." That should read "Employees who carry bags into work at Apple are subject to search." Customers who carry bags into Apple are not searched according to the complaint.
There in lies the rub. It's not a requirement of the location to go through a search. It's a requirement of employees to be searched before they can leave the workplace. If they have a bag, the wait for that search is taking up to 1.5 hours per week. That's an engaged to wait situation for which they aren't be compensated... assuming the complaint is true and accurate.
Watch... Apple will settle this one and change their policies.
They better or else they will lose employees with this nonsense of theirs.
I have really mixed feelings about this case.
There are people that have medical conditions that are all but required to carry some sort of bag containing their medical supplies. If Apple has people like that suing them in this case, they are going to settle this and settle soon. It is possible, however, that Apple makes exceptions for those people and no one that fits that description will be in the case.
If this case if full of people that think they have a right to carry a bag to work for no good reason, that's ridiculous. People that were simply carrying in pocket books full of makeup should have been leaving their bags in the car if they didn't like the policy.
I am going to try and keep up with this case because I would like to hear the arguments the employees make. Whether or not this case is ridiculous or justified largely depends on what the employees claims are and what their circumstances were.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz
100% correct, and I bet most of these employees are not productive 100% of the time while at work.
Clearly wage laws should be changed to allow employers to pay employees only for the time that they're productive, in the employer's judgment, with no right of appeal.
/s
There's a reason we have wage laws that don't allow that. If an employee is unproductive, the employer can fire him, but they still have to pay him for the hours he reported to work before being fired.
Apple will settle this suit, and change its checkout policy to pay employees for the time they wait to have their bags checked*. Those of you who think Apple should fight it are not, I hope, employers of hourly workers; but if you are you're welcome to test your theories regarding pay for productivity rather than hours and see where it gets you.
* Apple could also change its policy to refuse employees permission to bring bags to work.**
** Or require employees to bring a bag (if they bring one) that can be searched expeditiously. I shouldn't get a half hour of extra pay because I bring a bag with a thousand pockets.
Correct, as long as the bag is not work-related.
[QUOTE]…you cannot possibly suggest that no one needs to carry a bag to work for any reason.[/QUOTE]
I don't recall ever doing that.
[quote name="macslut" url="/t/158765/apple-retail-workers-file-class-action-suit-claiming-lost-wages-over-bag-searches/120#post_2370532"]For example, you wrote "People who carry bags into work at Apple are subject to search." That should read "Employees who carry bags into work at Apple are subject to search." Customers who carry bags into Apple are not searched according to the complaint.[/QUOTE]
Indeed; you're correct. I'd edit it, but it's quoted so much now.
[QUOTE]It's not a requirement of the location to go through a search.[/QUOTE]
But it's a requirement of [I]employment[/I]. That's an entirely different discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor
Clearly wage laws should be changed to allow employers to pay employees only for the time that they're productive, in the employer's judgment, with no right of appeal.
/s
There's a reason we have wage laws that don't allow that. If an employee is unproductive, the employer can fire him, but they still have to pay him for the hours he reported to work before being fired.
Apple will settle this suit, and change its checkout policy to pay employees for the time they wait to have their bags checked*. Those of you who think Apple should fight it are not, I hope, employers of hourly workers; but if you are you're welcome to test your theories regarding pay for productivity rather than hours and see where it gets you.
* Apple could also change its policy to refuse employees permission to bring bags to work.**
** Or require them to bring bags that can be searched expeditiously. Employees shouldn't get an extra half hour of pay because they bring bags with a thousand pockets.
Gah, I was trying to add the second footnote to my previous post. I don't see a way to delete this.