5 ms·

I'm conflicted about the decision for a few reasons: 1. The "off-the-clock" mandates came from individual managers, not from Apple corporate so Apple corporate

I'm conflicted about the decision for a few reasons: 1. The "off-the-clock" mandates came from individual managers, not from Apple corporate so Apple corporate should have addressed that immediately. Unless that's been changed recently, this could have been nipped in the bud from the start. 2. The store policies do outline that personal bags must be inspected before employees leave the store but it doesn't mention anything about whether that needs to be done after they've clocked out. I used to work with/in an Apple Store and even we were required to do this but it was always done before we clocked out for the day. I know the article says that employees were required to clock out prior to the bag check but that was not my experience. 3. Retail employees should absolutely have been paid by those managers if they were mandating this and it should never have gone to court in the first place. The decision is right but I feel like most of the costs are going to go to lawyers and that rubs me the wrong way. 4. Policies also spelled this out before employees came into the stores. If I knew I wasn't getting paid for this, I feel like I'd be less inclined to bring a bag with me. Not sure if that's right but it feels like there should have been some pushback from employees to higher-level people. It sounds like an HR issue from the get-go.

pmiller2 6y ago
Managers are generally considered to be agents of the company, so, their actions can legally incur liability on the company. I don't find it that hard to believe that individual store managers might do this, but that word of the practice might not make it up to corporate. This explanation is simple and plausible enough to me that I'm inclined to think it's probably exactly what had been happening.
- quesera 6y ago
  That's likely how things started. Retail management was hired from other stores (e.g. Burberry), and followed their preexisting understanding of appropriate legal policy. But at some point the issue went up the food chain. Corporate had many opportunities to step in and make things right before the suit reached the 9th Circuit.
- dkonofalski 6y ago
  >their actions can legally incur liability on the company Of course. I agree 100% on this point. I'm just skeptical when articles like this frame the issue as this being some evil plan by Apple to not pay their employees. Apple treats their employees better than 99% of the companies out there (Gravity Payments is an obvious exclusion for me) and, while they're not perfect, it's obvious to me that this article is just banking on anti-Apple sentiment. The reality is far more boring and I feel like this went to a class-action suit too quickly. If higher-ups at Apple had been notified that this was happening, I feel like they would have made it right (at least based on my experience).
quesera 6y ago
Right. I can absolutely imagine how midlevel management created this issue, under complicated circumstances (employee variability, store level theft issues, time clocks, performance measurements, standard retail practices, etc) And sure, not being paid for screening time does disincentivize the bringing of bags (although in a somewhat gender-discriminatory way -- males would have fewer issues than females). Reducing the number of bags to screen reduces the workload of the screener, and reduces the chance that something will be missed, which is clearly a benefit to the company. But at some point, someone at the CxO level has to step in and do the right thing for employees and for the company. Apple's brand is damaged by this practice, and by this lawsuit, regardless of the decision.
- dkonofalski 6y ago
  >Apple's brand is damaged by this practice, and by this lawsuit, regardless of the decision. Agreed, if it's determined that they didn't act appropriately. The fact that they were already absolved once, though, makes me feel like there are details being left out. To me, it just comes off as overzealous managers trying to prevent theft by ensuring that employees aren't heading back to the back to room after their bags get checked.
  - quesera 6y ago
    If Apple was previously absolved by the legal interpretation that an employer is only responsible for paying employees for productive work, then I do not consider their actions appropriate. But it's also quite true that lawyers salivate at the prospect of a suit getting to class status, and make no earnest effort to settle for damages and policy changes on behalf of their putative clients. And of course, Apple is a juicy target. If Apple attempted the former legal defense in response to the latter vampiric offense, then its pigs and mud all the way down.
Analemma_ 6y ago
> The decision is right but I feel like most of the costs are going to go to lawyers and that rubs me the wrong way. Please be aware that this attitude is being deliberately nurtured by big businesses to erode support for class-action lawsuits (much like the McDonald's hot coffee controversy was deliberately and loudly misrepresented to make people cynical towards perfectly-justified personal injury suits). Class-action suits are not supposed to make injured parties whole, that has never been the point; they are supposed to function as an expensive deterrent to bad behavior. But businesses would rather they go away entirely, so they want to make people angry at "those wily lawyers getting rich instead of the little guy". It's just as disingenuous and disgusting as attacking defense attorneys for "sticking up for bad guys".
- Karunamon 6y ago
  Reasonable people can reasonably disagree on the merits of the hot coffee case. I've read extensively on it and my personal read is that it's an absurd judgement, mostly emotionally-driven, due to a sympathetic plaintiff and an unsympathetic defendant. tl;dr writeup I did here the last time this came up on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23482931 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23482931 That aside, you're absolutely right on the purpose of class actions. Generally the cause of action for individual case members is prohibitively small anyways. It's to form big legal sticks to beat misbehaving companies with, not to make the injured parties (whose injuries are usually pretty small in your average class action) whole.
- dkonofalski 6y ago
  >this attitude is being deliberately nurtured by big businesses to erode support for class-action lawsuits While this may be true that's not my issue with this. I know that class-action suits are not meant to make injured parties whole but that's exactly what I take issue with. The fact that a company can essentially pay away its mistakes, when most are knowingly made, is a direct result of the lawyers. I can't help but think of Fight Club - if the cost to change the offending process/product is more than the cost of potential lawsuits, the change isn't made. While that's good business, it's immoral and wrong.
  - 6y ago

pmiller2 6y ago

Managers are generally considered to be agents of the company, so, their actions can legally incur liability on the company. I don't find it that hard to believe that individual store managers might do this, but that word of the practice might not make it up to corporate. This explanation is simple and plausible enough to me that I'm inclined to think it's probably exactly what had been happening.

quesera 6y ago
That's likely how things started. Retail management was hired from other stores (e.g. Burberry), and followed their preexisting understanding of appropriate legal policy. But at some point the issue went up the food chain. Corporate had many opportunities to step in and make things right before the suit reached the 9th Circuit.
dkonofalski 6y ago
>their actions can legally incur liability on the company Of course. I agree 100% on this point. I'm just skeptical when articles like this frame the issue as this being some evil plan by Apple to not pay their employees. Apple treats their employees better than 99% of the companies out there (Gravity Payments is an obvious exclusion for me) and, while they're not perfect, it's obvious to me that this article is just banking on anti-Apple sentiment. The reality is far more boring and I feel like this went to a class-action suit too quickly. If higher-ups at Apple had been notified that this was happening, I feel like they would have made it right (at least based on my experience).

quesera 6y ago

Right. I can absolutely imagine how midlevel management created this issue, under complicated circumstances (employee variability, store level theft issues, time clocks, performance measurements, standard retail practices, etc) And sure, not being paid for screening time does disincentivize the bringing of bags (although in a somewhat gender-discriminatory way -- males would have fewer issues than females). Reducing the number of bags to screen reduces the workload of the screener, and reduces the chance that something will be missed, which is clearly a benefit to the company. But at some point, someone at the CxO level has to step in and do the right thing for employees and for the company. Apple's brand is damaged by this practice, and by this lawsuit, regardless of the decision.

dkonofalski 6y ago
>Apple's brand is damaged by this practice, and by this lawsuit, regardless of the decision. Agreed, if it's determined that they didn't act appropriately. The fact that they were already absolved once, though, makes me feel like there are details being left out. To me, it just comes off as overzealous managers trying to prevent theft by ensuring that employees aren't heading back to the back to room after their bags get checked.
- quesera 6y ago
  If Apple was previously absolved by the legal interpretation that an employer is only responsible for paying employees for productive work, then I do not consider their actions appropriate. But it's also quite true that lawyers salivate at the prospect of a suit getting to class status, and make no earnest effort to settle for damages and policy changes on behalf of their putative clients. And of course, Apple is a juicy target. If Apple attempted the former legal defense in response to the latter vampiric offense, then its pigs and mud all the way down.

Analemma_ 6y ago

> The decision is right but I feel like most of the costs are going to go to lawyers and that rubs me the wrong way. Please be aware that this attitude is being deliberately nurtured by big businesses to erode support for class-action lawsuits (much like the McDonald's hot coffee controversy was deliberately and loudly misrepresented to make people cynical towards perfectly-justified personal injury suits). Class-action suits are not supposed to make injured parties whole, that has never been the point; they are supposed to function as an expensive deterrent to bad behavior. But businesses would rather they go away entirely, so they want to make people angry at "those wily lawyers getting rich instead of the little guy". It's just as disingenuous and disgusting as attacking defense attorneys for "sticking up for bad guys".

Karunamon 6y ago
Reasonable people can reasonably disagree on the merits of the hot coffee case. I've read extensively on it and my personal read is that it's an absurd judgement, mostly emotionally-driven, due to a sympathetic plaintiff and an unsympathetic defendant. tl;dr writeup I did here the last time this came up on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23482931 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23482931 That aside, you're absolutely right on the purpose of class actions. Generally the cause of action for individual case members is prohibitively small anyways. It's to form big legal sticks to beat misbehaving companies with, not to make the injured parties (whose injuries are usually pretty small in your average class action) whole.
dkonofalski 6y ago
>this attitude is being deliberately nurtured by big businesses to erode support for class-action lawsuits While this may be true that's not my issue with this. I know that class-action suits are not meant to make injured parties whole but that's exactly what I take issue with. The fact that a company can essentially pay away its mistakes, when most are knowingly made, is a direct result of the lawyers. I can't help but think of Fight Club - if the cost to change the offending process/product is more than the cost of potential lawsuits, the change isn't made. While that's good business, it's immoral and wrong.
- 6y ago