4 ms·

Right. I can absolutely imagine how midlevel management created this issue, under complicated circumstances (employee variability, store level theft issues, tim

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.

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.