Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple store workers should be paid for time waiting to be searched, court rules

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 359 posts

Re: Apple store workers should be paid for time waiting to be searched, court rules

#141

Post by drivers99 »

jrockway wrote: post #15

> Employees are supposed to find a manager or security officer to do the searches after they clock out. Employees estimate that waiting for and undergoing the searches can take five to 20 minutes, or, on busiest days, up to 45 minutes. This also seems to be their process for picking up orders at the store. It's pure chaos, and I find it at least somewhat amusing that at least Apple treats their employees and customer…

Interesting. They gave me like 20% (maybe 15%) off AirPods unasked and unexpectedly just because I had to wait a few minutes for them to get them for me.

Re: Apple store workers should be paid for time waiting to be searched, court rules

#142

Post by antris »

pmiller2 wrote: post #111
angry_octet wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole notion of employing off duty police as security is antithetical to the proper administration of justice and highlights systematic malaise. As well as the fear of robbery for such a low value and traceable item. Edit because I can't reply: Just off duty police. Police have significant powers, even off duty. In addition, if you pay them well they might do favors for you when on duty. Like looking for someone…

I wouldn’t call $50k a “low value” item. What item does the average person own that’s worth $50k besides a house or a car?

Watches, jewellery etc.

Low value is relative. $50k is a lot to many people, but compared to human life, $50k isn't worth the risk.

Re: Apple store workers should be paid for time waiting to be searched, court rules

#144

Post by amiga_500 »

jrockway wrote: post #15

> Employees are supposed to find a manager or security officer to do the searches after they clock out. Employees estimate that waiting for and undergoing the searches can take five to 20 minutes, or, on busiest days, up to 45 minutes. This also seems to be their process for picking up orders at the store. It's pure chaos, and I find it at least somewhat amusing that at least Apple treats their employees and customer…

But the customers deserve it. Why overpay for apple! Why!

Re: Apple store workers should be paid for time waiting to be searched, court rules

#145

Post by danans »

Seems like Apple was probably selected for the class action suit due to being a prominent and hugely wealthy company (just like Google and Amazon with respective labor related activities targeting them). And that was a good strategy, because here we are discussing it.

As a society with high and growing inequality the US is structured in a way that incentivizes retail theft, so the frequency of this kind of theft isn't going down anytime soon.

The question is who should bear the cost of it.

This has always been framed as an issue of immorality of retail workers, so the cost has borne by them in the form of lost time/wages or maltreatment by police or security services. This is of course a false and incomplete framing, because it's arguably more immoral for a company to steal time / wages from all workers in this case when the product theft is only committed by a few.

What is the loss due to theft of a smartphone vs. the cost to the worker who will now double pay in lost wages and the time for extra child care caused by the delay in leaving work?

Framed economically instead it's just the cost of doing business in our society, just as with credit card fraud.

Going forward, it looks like it will be borne by the retailers and ultimately, their customers, which is far better than it being borne by workers.

Re: Apple store workers should be paid for time waiting to be searched, court rules

#146

Post by tzs »

mzs wrote: post #18
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #7

Note this is in California. At the US, level, 5 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Amazon did not have to pay its workers for the time spent waiting for screening. Excerpt from the NY Times article about that decision: WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled unanimously that a temp agency was not required to pay workers at Amazon warehouses for the time they spent waiting to go through a security screeni…

more context >…The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case is now pending, asked the California Supreme Court to clarify whether state law requires compensation. … >A federal district court judge ruled in favor of Apple, deciding that workers had to prove they not only were restrained from leaving but that there was no way to avoid having personal items searched. >Apple said it could prohibit employees from…

> >Apple said it could prohibit employees from bringing any bags or personal Apple devices into its stores altogether but gave them that benefit. The California Supreme Court said a ban on any personal items would be “draconian.”

The article might leave one with the impression that the Court was saying that Apple could not impose such a ban. That doesn't seem to be the case. It's more that they are saying that Apple has not ever done so and it seems far-fetched that Apple would ever do so, and so Apple's claim that not doing so was done as some sort of benefit is not justified.

Here's that paragraph from the Court's decision:

> Apple acknowledges that the exit searches promote its interest in loss prevention, but nevertheless urges this court to view the searches as part of a broader policy that benefits its employees. Apple argues, in this regard, that it could have totally prohibited its employees from bringing any bags or personal Apple devices into its stores altogether, and thus employees who bring such items to work may reasonably be characterized as having chosen to exercise an optional benefit. However, Apple has not imposed such draconian restrictions on its employees’ ability to bring commonplace personal belongings to work. Under the circumstances of this case and the realities of ordinary, 21st century life, we find far-fetched and untenable Apple’s claim that its bag-search policy can be justified as providing a benefit to its employees.5

and here is footnote 5:

> However, it is uncontroverted that Apple may impose reasonable restrictions on the size, shape, or number of bags that its employees may bring to work, and that it may require employees to store their personal belongings in offsite locations, such as lockers or break rooms. We also take no issue with Apple’s policy prohibiting employees from shipping personal packages to its stores.

Re: Apple store workers should be paid for time waiting to be searched, court rules

#147

Post by ganoushoreilly »

torgian wrote: post #82
tqkxzugoaupvwqr wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you get it delivered directly to your home/business? Might be a solution.

and get it tossed out of the UPS truck as it does a slow drive-by your address.

The irony here being that UPS / Fedex ship to the stores.

Re: Apple store workers should be paid for time waiting to be searched, court rules

#148

Post by ivalm »

debt wrote: post #134
ivalm wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens if someone moves while at the job ? What happens if there is a traffic jam? What happens if the worker typically doesn't drive home directly after work (or doesn't come to work from home)? Etc....

The executive team can trim a few million off their annual bonuses so the very low number of workers that commute far distances can be compensated for that time sitting in the car. Alas they can but they won’t and they’ll fight you in court so they don’t have to.

Average commute looks roughly like ~1 hour/day [0]. For a company like Apple there are 137k employees [1] and ~250 work days/year so that's ~34M hours. Assuming hourly rate of $20/hour (since well paid employees like SWE are salaried and won't get extra pay) we get ~$680M/year extra payroll... Eh, I guess they could afford it, although my questions still stand.

[0] - https://www.visualcapitalist.com/average-commute-u-s-states-... [1] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/273439/number-of-employe...

Re: Apple store workers should be paid for time waiting to be searched, court rules

#149

Post by ganoushoreilly »

danans wrote: post #145

Seems like Apple was probably selected for the class action suit due to being a prominent and hugely wealthy company (just like Google and Amazon with respective labor related activities targeting them). And that was a good strategy, because here we are discussing it. As a society with high and growing inequality the US is structured in a way that incentivizes retail theft, so the frequency of this kind of theft isn'…

This isn't new though. In the late 90's I worked for Best Buy and somewhere in early 2k's I got a check for $1500 to compensate for hours lost due to these kinds of loss prevention processes. I'm surprised it took this long for this to happen.

Re: Apple store workers should be paid for time waiting to be searched, court rules

#150

Post by tomatotomato37 »

debt wrote: post #134
ivalm wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens if someone moves while at the job ? What happens if there is a traffic jam? What happens if the worker typically doesn't drive home directly after work (or doesn't come to work from home)? Etc....

The executive team can trim a few million off their annual bonuses so the very low number of workers that commute far distances can be compensated for that time sitting in the car. Alas they can but they won’t and they’ll fight you in court so they don’t have to.

So we will be limiting this new regulation to businesses that actually can actually make a few million in profit instead of just pasting it across the whole commercial space, right?
Post reply on HN