3 ms·
Apple argues that it's not required because you aren't required to be searched, it's only if an employee freely chooses to use the ~~~privilege~~~ of taking you
by michaelhoffman 7y ago
Apple argues that it's not required because you aren't required to be searched, it's only if an employee freely chooses to use the ~~~privilege~~~ of taking your personal items to work that they are searched. You can always come to work with nothing and not be searched.
I think this argument is BS and it looks like so did the California Supreme Court. Apple argues that this choice is of benefit only to the employees but without it I think they'd have a much harder time keeping employees.
- JohnFen 7y agoAs you say, Apple's argument is ludicrous on its face (as the court pointed out) because Apple also requires employees to wear special clothing at work, and are forbidden from wearing that clothing off-premises. So employees must carry that clothing to work with them. I suppose that doesn't mean that they have to put it in a container, but that's a real stretch of an argument that the court also rejected.
- sjwright 7y agoAnd that really hinges on who is responsible for laundering said uniforms. If the employee is responsible for laundering, it is ridiculous for Apple to expect employees to not bring a personal bag to work.
- EdwardDiego 7y agoI love how they call it a privilege. This is indeed a boring dystopia.