Why is there law requiring manual laborers to be paid weekly, in stead of every two weeks? Not that there's a right or wrong with such a law, but I'm wondering NYC's reasoning. I imagine it's easier for a company do to every two weeks. It delays a pay check for a new hire to their third week.
Irrespective of the merit of this suit, what would the damages Apple might owe? How would the possibly be computed? "If I had been paid every week, I could have invested that check in _______ and my quality of life would have been much better"? This goes back to NYC's rationale in enacting this law. There are any number of wild ass guesses some will offer, but knowing the actual reason(s) would be interesting.
If Apple didn't have authorization for an exemption and the court finds for the plaintiff(s), then forcing Apple to pay NYC Apple Store employees every week seems like that could be the final result, with no remuneration.
The suit obviously (?) turns on whether the jobs would fall under “manual labor” and therefore be subject to the NY law.
Is this a novel question of legal interpretation of the law? I’d be surprised. It seems like an obvious question which would have been answered long ago.
Seems like an open and shut case. Apple didn't have permission, therefore Apple broke the law.
Sorry, but that is idiotic. Retail is not manual labor. I mean if emptying cash registers and opening boxes (at the sales desk) is considered manual labor... then typing as a programmer/software developer, or picking up a pen and writing is manual labor... absolutely idiotic position and it demeans those that are actually really manual laborers. This lawsuit is frivolous. You don't need permission, if you are not breaking the law in the first place.
Seems like an open and shut case. Apple didn't have permission, therefore Apple broke the law.
Sorry, but that is idiotic. Retail is not manual labor. I mean if emptying cash registers and opening boxes (at the sales desk) is considered manual labor... then typing as a programmer/software developer, or picking up a pen and writing is manual labor... absolutely idiotic position and it demeans those that are actually really manual laborers. This lawsuit is frivolous. You don't need permission, if you are not breaking the law in the first place.
Slow down, slowpoke. The law, and court decisions interpreting the law will determine whether the specific work this person claims falls under the "manual labor" category. The law also requires that greater than 25% of the particular job be "manual labor". The plaintiff here has prove both elements first.
At one point, I saw retail job positions which required the ability to lift 50 lbs. I don't see such positions on Apple's site now. However, such positions make sense in that Apple stores do get product deliveries and I wouldn't be surprised if some products come in on pallets.
And how much does that MacPro weigh in it's box? There are a few heavy items in the Apple product line. I would think very few of those go through a retail store....
I don’t know about the US, but in Canada you need to file in a reasonable time if you feel any condition of your employment is unjust (like your employer changing the terms of your contract or salary).
If you don’t raise the issue within this “reasonable time” then you are said to have implicitly accepted the terms of your employment.
How can someone work for 8 years decide almost 4 years after they leave a company that they weren’t happy with the terms of their employment?
Do you work for Apple? Then why are you defending it?
Seems like an open and shut case. Apple didn't have permission, therefore Apple broke the law.
Except it is not. It depends on the how courts interpret "manual labor". As other have pointed out, opening a box and emptying a cash register are things that have been done by retail employees for centuries without being classified as manual labor. That almost seems like a administrative soldier applying for a Purple Heart commendation for a paper cut.
I don’t know about the US, but in Canada you need to file in a reasonable time if you feel any condition of your employment is unjust (like your employer changing the terms of your contract or salary).
If you don’t raise the issue within this “reasonable time” then you are said to have implicitly accepted the terms of your employment.
How can someone work for 8 years decide almost 4 years after they leave a company that they weren’t happy with the terms of their employment?
Do you work for Apple? Then why are you defending it?
Do you work for a competitor? Then why are you attacking it?
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.
Are you referring to this sentence from the article… “ Throughout that period, Apple only paid wages every other week, and not weekly -- like nearly every other retail establishment in the United States.”?
If so, then I parse and interpret its meaning the other way… that Apple’s policy of paying every other week (and not weekly) is like every other retail establishment in the United States.
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.
My hunch is that Apple is just using their nationwide payroll system. You paint it like they sat down and said, “let’s be dickholes”. They possibly didn’t see this suit coming. I’d like to see the list of retail companies operating in New York that pay weekly. Perhaps Apple will need to change their payroll system there… we shall see.
All in all, it’s a tempest in a teapot. Something to make Apple haters and Apple lovers jump up and argue over something which is no big deal in the grand scheme of things.
When I lived just within my means, I was smart enough to follow a budget and get into a position where I was prepared to cover all expenditures at the time they were due. It made no difference whether I was paid X dollars every Y weeks or (X * N / Y) dollars every N weeks. I simply didn’t overspend at moments when the balance was a little higher than other moments through the month. There is a natural ebb and flow. It’s called being a responsible adult.
Suing 4 years later for a ton of dough smells like a money grab to me… by the lawyers especially.
Comments
Irrespective of the merit of this suit, what would the damages Apple might owe? How would the possibly be computed? "If I had been paid every week, I could have invested that check in _______ and my quality of life would have been much better"? This goes back to NYC's rationale in enacting this law. There are any number of wild ass guesses some will offer, but knowing the actual reason(s) would be interesting.
If Apple didn't have authorization for an exemption and the court finds for the plaintiff(s), then forcing Apple to pay NYC Apple Store employees every week seems like that could be the final result, with no remuneration.
Sorry, but that is idiotic. Retail is not manual labor. I mean if emptying cash registers and opening boxes (at the sales desk) is considered manual labor... then typing as a programmer/software developer, or picking up a pen and writing is manual labor... absolutely idiotic position and it demeans those that are actually really manual laborers. This lawsuit is frivolous. You don't need permission, if you are not breaking the law in the first place.
At one point, I saw retail job positions which required the ability to lift 50 lbs. I don't see such positions on Apple's site now. However, such positions make sense in that Apple stores do get product deliveries and I wouldn't be surprised if some products come in on pallets.
If so, then I parse and interpret its meaning the other way… that Apple’s policy of paying every other week (and not weekly) is like every other retail establishment in the United States.
All in all, it’s a tempest in a teapot. Something to make Apple haters and Apple lovers jump up and argue over something which is no big deal in the grand scheme of things.
When I lived just within my means, I was smart enough to follow a budget and get into a position where I was prepared to cover all expenditures at the time they were due. It made no difference whether I was paid X dollars every Y weeks or (X * N / Y) dollars every N weeks. I simply didn’t overspend at moments when the balance was a little higher than other moments through the month. There is a natural ebb and flow. It’s called being a responsible adult.
Suing 4 years later for a ton of dough smells like a money grab to me… by the lawyers especially.