5 ms·

Like many people, I worked retail. I never got angry at the security guy trying to let me out the door, but it was frustrating to wait 5 minutes here and there

Like many people, I worked retail. I never got angry at the security guy trying to let me out the door, but it was frustrating to wait 5 minutes here and there unpaid. I agree that people should be paid for that time.. but I'm also curious where the line is drawn? I left the city to work on a small town because my commute 5 miles/day was 15-20 hours/week. I suppose you can argue many jobs pay well enough to cover that... But people also work retail in those areas. An ideal solution would be to spread out the cities -- encourage more remote working (though not like we currently see)... But in lieu of that, where is the limit? Is employee parking, which is a 5 minute walk to the back of the lot, covered? I had a friend that works at a car factory... If you don't drive that manufacturers car, you park in lot B, an extra minute or three away. Is that any different then being forced to stand at the for to leave a few minutes now and then? (It's not always 5-15 minutes, where this example is a constant). Please accept this as a thought experiment... Not a criticism against better pay for retail. Everyone deserves the pursuit of happiness.

hkai 6y ago
Anecdotally, it seems that most places in the world pay a fixed salary even to the lowest paid workers, instead of paying by the hour. Perhaps this could be a simpler solution to the problem instead of trying to reengineer cities.
thinkingkong 6y ago
In your example you keep saying 5m as though thats the industry standard sla for security. Thats probably fine. The problem is that if the time is unpaid, theres no balancing force to get people through the queue. If you have to spend more on security guards to get the median time to check someone down to 5m, why would you do it if you dont have to?
- ldoughty 6y ago
  My average wait time was less than a minute.. though on a few years days i'd wait 5 minutes or more. I don't disagree with you... Just curious where people think the line is drawn. I personally look at this from the other side -- if we were more accepting of remote work, would cities be so large? Traffic so bad? But obviously, that's not today... So should the Starbucks employee be paid for their commute time? Is it their choice to drive 45 minutes to work? Or is that a mandated job function by applying? What if they were transferred? It's no longer the employee choice, but a business requirement to work there. Like I said, thought experiment. I agree, paying for the time created incentive, probably a good thing.
ponker 6y ago
If your job requires you to do something, yes it should be paid. Including walking from your car, at some reasonable pace.
- ultrarunner 6y ago
  I've had this same thought before, but where do you draw the line? Should employers compensate employees for time spend showering? Can employees sue for wrongful termination if they refuse to maintain personal hygiene for free? It's a ridiculous example, but somewhere between there and being compensated for performing a function lies the answer.
GeneralMayhem 6y ago
The limit, legally, is pretty cut and dry: commute time is not paid, anything on site is. If you have to wait in line for security, that's paid. If it takes 10 minutes to count out your till at the end of a cashier shift, that's paid. If you're sent to another location in the middle of the day, time getting there from your normal place of work is paid. There are a small handful of edge cases that vary by state (e.g., if you have to change into a uniform when you get to work, that's considered on-the-clock in California, but not federally), but not many.
- peterpeppers 6y ago
  Exactly! There is a reason why factories put their punch clock AT THE DOOR. Workers leave their assigned areas, pass through security, proceed to the punch clock and exit the facility. Apple is one of the wealthiest companies in the world. The cost of adding an additional security guard and letting their employees exit from the rear of each store is negligible.
  - vertbhrtn 6y ago
    Not negligible for the person responsible for that facility. Someone with a VP title is given a budget and freedom to run the shop and optimize expenses. Soon that VP realises that moving the punch clock inside the facility saves 3 millions a year and he gets to pocket half. Unfair, but legal. And if he doesn't pocket the easy money, he will be seen as incompetent by his manager - an SVP.
    - blackoil 6y ago
      Last line shows it is a company issue not individual. Think if some VP in Google recommends reducing free beverages inside company to shitty cola only it will not be accepted by higher ups. If your VP/SVP/CFO are reading only number and not the text line attached to it and its implications it is a culture issue.
      - vertbhrtn 6y ago
snuxoll 6y ago
Time spent waiting for a mandatory search is time spent as part of your employment, just like the time you spend logging into your computer and any programs you need to do your work.
- erik_seaberg 6y ago
  It sounds like it’s not mandatory if you don’t bring a bag or an iPhone into the store. I wonder whether they could keep a whitelist of Bluetooth IDs for employee-owned iPhones.
  - gilrain 6y ago
    And as long as they use the company-provided NoPockets Jumpsuit, they get priority access to the Honesty Line. That could mean five more minutes with your family over dinner!
    - laurent92 6y ago
      Not having worked at Apple, I have difficulty understanding whether the NoPocket Jumpsuit is a thing or not.
- __float 6y ago
  I worked in a call center where we were explicitly not paid to do those things. You were expected to have already done all of that by the time your shift started, otherwise you were considered late. Apple isn't alone here, but they're obviously a fun big target for it.
  - learc83 6y ago
    >Apple isn't alone here, but they're obviously a fun big target for it. They aren't. Too bad no one reported the situation at the call center. That's a textbook case of unpaid wages. I've worked at company before where this happened and the people who reported it were protected from retaliation, people above them lost their job over it, and back wages were paid out. I get that people are afraid to report this kind of thing, but it's an effective way to stop companies from stealing wages.
purple-again 6y ago
There is a very clear line in that you chose that commute. You can find housing near your employer. You have a laundry list of personal reasons why that housing is not right for you but the fact remains you chose to have those things and commute instead of living nearby and sacrificing those things. The employer requiring you to do something as a condition of continued employment is clearly, well obviously not, an act that should be compensated for. They could let you leave 15 minutes early to go through security check, they just don’t want to because, apparently, they don’t have to. I have no doubt that you will find a group of people on the other side of the line there who think employers should have to pay for commuting time and obviously this case proves there are people on the other side of this line who think they shouldn’t have to compensate you for going through security time. However I would guess that the majority of people will agree that hardships you impose on yourself are your responsibility while hardships the employer imposes on you should be their responsibility.
- JellyBeanThief 6y ago
  > You can find housing near your employer. You have a laundry list of personal reasons why that housing is not right for you but the fact remains you chose to have those things and commute instead of living nearby and sacrificing those things. I think this is only reasonable for jobs that 1) offer enough compensation that the worker has real choice about where they live and 2) both worker and employer expect the worker to live and work in the same place for a long time. A lot of people are in situations where, rather than them choosing the housing, it's the landlord choosing the tenant, and the tenant has to take what they can get. At one and the same time, they may also be in a situation where, rather than them choosing the employer, it's the employer choosing the worker, and again, the worker takes what they can get. A long commute is not a self-imposed hardship when other people are the primary determiners of where you can live and work.
  - jachee 6y ago
    As much as I love them, there are not a lot of Apple Stores within walking distance of housing their least-paid employees can afford.
- 6y ago
p1necone 6y ago
I think a line can be pretty cleanly drawn at "employer explicitly makes you do it in order to receive your paycheck". Like I wouldn't expect to be paid for my walk from the parking lot any more than be paid for the rest of my commute as that's not actually related to the job site, it's just a consequence of my transport method - what if I was catching the bus, or walking, or I lived in an apartment building across the road? Conversely - mandatory security screening is something that the company makes all employees go through every day as part of their job - it's no different from any other job task. Although having a separate further away carpark for people that don't eat and presumably pay for the company dog food is shitty for other reasons. Similar to some clothing stores forcing their minimum wage workers to buy and wear on brand clothing (yes this is a thing).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Spooky23 6y ago
I worked retail. That’s absurd — if I’m stuck in your building, pay me. If the Apple store has serious pilferage issues, get serious about controls around product. I cannot imagine how much shrink they have —- you could heist $50k worth of stuff trivially with 3-4 people.
_jal 6y ago
I get to choose where I live in relation to where I work. I also don't have to go home after work. That is my time to use as I wish. Going through a pat down is not my time. I must wait on my employer. It is also unilaterally redefinable. If $employer comes up with a new screen that saves them shrinkage, why should labor be expected to give up even more unpaid time for the privilege of submitting to it?

hkai 6y ago

Anecdotally, it seems that most places in the world pay a fixed salary even to the lowest paid workers, instead of paying by the hour. Perhaps this could be a simpler solution to the problem instead of trying to reengineer cities.

thinkingkong 6y ago

In your example you keep saying 5m as though thats the industry standard sla for security. Thats probably fine. The problem is that if the time is unpaid, theres no balancing force to get people through the queue. If you have to spend more on security guards to get the median time to check someone down to 5m, why would you do it if you dont have to?

ldoughty 6y ago
My average wait time was less than a minute.. though on a few years days i'd wait 5 minutes or more. I don't disagree with you... Just curious where people think the line is drawn. I personally look at this from the other side -- if we were more accepting of remote work, would cities be so large? Traffic so bad? But obviously, that's not today... So should the Starbucks employee be paid for their commute time? Is it their choice to drive 45 minutes to work? Or is that a mandated job function by applying? What if they were transferred? It's no longer the employee choice, but a business requirement to work there. Like I said, thought experiment. I agree, paying for the time created incentive, probably a good thing.

ponker 6y ago

If your job requires you to do something, yes it should be paid. Including walking from your car, at some reasonable pace.

ultrarunner 6y ago
I've had this same thought before, but where do you draw the line? Should employers compensate employees for time spend showering? Can employees sue for wrongful termination if they refuse to maintain personal hygiene for free? It's a ridiculous example, but somewhere between there and being compensated for performing a function lies the answer.

GeneralMayhem 6y ago

The limit, legally, is pretty cut and dry: commute time is not paid, anything on site is. If you have to wait in line for security, that's paid. If it takes 10 minutes to count out your till at the end of a cashier shift, that's paid. If you're sent to another location in the middle of the day, time getting there from your normal place of work is paid. There are a small handful of edge cases that vary by state (e.g., if you have to change into a uniform when you get to work, that's considered on-the-clock in California, but not federally), but not many.

peterpeppers 6y ago
Exactly! There is a reason why factories put their punch clock AT THE DOOR. Workers leave their assigned areas, pass through security, proceed to the punch clock and exit the facility. Apple is one of the wealthiest companies in the world. The cost of adding an additional security guard and letting their employees exit from the rear of each store is negligible.
- vertbhrtn 6y ago
  Not negligible for the person responsible for that facility. Someone with a VP title is given a budget and freedom to run the shop and optimize expenses. Soon that VP realises that moving the punch clock inside the facility saves 3 millions a year and he gets to pocket half. Unfair, but legal. And if he doesn't pocket the easy money, he will be seen as incompetent by his manager - an SVP.
  - blackoil 6y ago
    Last line shows it is a company issue not individual. Think if some VP in Google recommends reducing free beverages inside company to shitty cola only it will not be accepted by higher ups. If your VP/SVP/CFO are reading only number and not the text line attached to it and its implications it is a culture issue.
    - vertbhrtn 6y ago

snuxoll 6y ago

Time spent waiting for a mandatory search is time spent as part of your employment, just like the time you spend logging into your computer and any programs you need to do your work.

erik_seaberg 6y ago
It sounds like it’s not mandatory if you don’t bring a bag or an iPhone into the store. I wonder whether they could keep a whitelist of Bluetooth IDs for employee-owned iPhones.
- gilrain 6y ago
  And as long as they use the company-provided NoPockets Jumpsuit, they get priority access to the Honesty Line. That could mean five more minutes with your family over dinner!
  - laurent92 6y ago
    Not having worked at Apple, I have difficulty understanding whether the NoPocket Jumpsuit is a thing or not.
__float 6y ago
I worked in a call center where we were explicitly not paid to do those things. You were expected to have already done all of that by the time your shift started, otherwise you were considered late. Apple isn't alone here, but they're obviously a fun big target for it.
- learc83 6y ago
  >Apple isn't alone here, but they're obviously a fun big target for it. They aren't. Too bad no one reported the situation at the call center. That's a textbook case of unpaid wages. I've worked at company before where this happened and the people who reported it were protected from retaliation, people above them lost their job over it, and back wages were paid out. I get that people are afraid to report this kind of thing, but it's an effective way to stop companies from stealing wages.

purple-again 6y ago

There is a very clear line in that you chose that commute. You can find housing near your employer. You have a laundry list of personal reasons why that housing is not right for you but the fact remains you chose to have those things and commute instead of living nearby and sacrificing those things. The employer requiring you to do something as a condition of continued employment is clearly, well obviously not, an act that should be compensated for. They could let you leave 15 minutes early to go through security check, they just don’t want to because, apparently, they don’t have to. I have no doubt that you will find a group of people on the other side of the line there who think employers should have to pay for commuting time and obviously this case proves there are people on the other side of this line who think they shouldn’t have to compensate you for going through security time. However I would guess that the majority of people will agree that hardships you impose on yourself are your responsibility while hardships the employer imposes on you should be their responsibility.

JellyBeanThief 6y ago
> You can find housing near your employer. You have a laundry list of personal reasons why that housing is not right for you but the fact remains you chose to have those things and commute instead of living nearby and sacrificing those things. I think this is only reasonable for jobs that 1) offer enough compensation that the worker has real choice about where they live and 2) both worker and employer expect the worker to live and work in the same place for a long time. A lot of people are in situations where, rather than them choosing the housing, it's the landlord choosing the tenant, and the tenant has to take what they can get. At one and the same time, they may also be in a situation where, rather than them choosing the employer, it's the employer choosing the worker, and again, the worker takes what they can get. A long commute is not a self-imposed hardship when other people are the primary determiners of where you can live and work.
- jachee 6y ago
  As much as I love them, there are not a lot of Apple Stores within walking distance of housing their least-paid employees can afford.
6y ago

p1necone 6y ago

I think a line can be pretty cleanly drawn at "employer explicitly makes you do it in order to receive your paycheck". Like I wouldn't expect to be paid for my walk from the parking lot any more than be paid for the rest of my commute as that's not actually related to the job site, it's just a consequence of my transport method - what if I was catching the bus, or walking, or I lived in an apartment building across the road? Conversely - mandatory security screening is something that the company makes all employees go through every day as part of their job - it's no different from any other job task. Although having a separate further away carpark for people that don't eat and presumably pay for the company dog food is shitty for other reasons. Similar to some clothing stores forcing their minimum wage workers to buy and wear on brand clothing (yes this is a thing).

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Spooky23 6y ago

I worked retail. That’s absurd — if I’m stuck in your building, pay me. If the Apple store has serious pilferage issues, get serious about controls around product. I cannot imagine how much shrink they have —- you could heist $50k worth of stuff trivially with 3-4 people.

_jal 6y ago

I get to choose where I live in relation to where I work. I also don't have to go home after work. That is my time to use as I wish. Going through a pat down is not my time. I must wait on my employer. It is also unilaterally redefinable. If $employer comes up with a new screen that saves them shrinkage, why should labor be expected to give up even more unpaid time for the privilege of submitting to it?