9th Circuit Rules Apple Owes Retail Workers for Time Spent in Security Screenings (macrumors.com) 76
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday said Apple must pay over 12,000 retail workers in California for the time spent waiting for compulsory bag searches at the end of their shifts. From the report: A unanimous three-judge panel reversed a judge who had tossed the case and ordered him to enter summary judgment for the plaintiffs, after the California Supreme Court in response to certified questions in the case said in February that time spent undergoing security checks is compensable under state law.
Good call (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything that work makes you do as a condition of working there, should be included as part of the time you are working.
Even things like gathering up required clothing to wear for work should probably count...
Re:Good call (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought this would have been a given. Do their employees not get paid for training?
Training usually is, not other things (Score:1)
Stuff like training usually is, but there are other aspects of things people do to support the job they have that are not commonly paid for.
As a kid I had to get steel-toed boots for work. I can't remember if the business paid for the boots, but I am sure they did not pay me for the time it took to go get fitted for them. Stuff like that, I think should be paid for - at least in the case of hourly workers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That seems like a different case. (Score:3)
I'm a bit more iffy on that since you have some control over where you live, and I think if you pay people purely based on commute time it would lead quite a lot of people to choose to live very far away so they could get paid extra for doing nothing.
I think to some degree extra pay for areas where the workers cannot afford to live close by, is already baked into the hourly rate people are paid. Same for salaried workers, the alarm paid already bakes in the cost of living in that area close enough to be ab
field work people should get payid based on % (Score:2)
field work people should get payid based on % say you have to go to the office 1-2 times an mouth then they should not take out the miles / time for each work day that cover the home to office trip. (some places do that)
Now if you need to report to the office each day then that should be on you.
Re: (Score:1)
That sounds fair to me as well, that's why I was saying I was iffy as I figured there could be some cases like that where being paid for time traveling made sense.
I was a contractor for a long time, one of the things I did was help out at a conference. As I was a contractor I was being paid hourly, what I ended up doing was just billing for eight hours even though I had to spend a day traveling, then at conference for a day, then had to fly back... I felt like it wasn't fair the pay be the whole amount, bu
Re:Good call (Score:5, Insightful)
You're on company property doing company business.
Re:Good call (Score:4, Informative)
How about covering travel time to and from work as well?
Generally commute time from your home to the workplace is not covered, but once you're at your initial work site, travel time between subsequent work sites is usually covered through the end of the work day. It doesn't matter if your commute is a short walk across campus or a multi-hour trek across stop-and-go highways, those parts aren't compensated.
As the ruling re-affirmed, the usual interpretation is that once the company begins controlling tasks (like a security check) the clock starts ticking, and it keeps ticking until you are no longer doing actions under their control.
It gets a little more complex for jobs that travel from site to site through the day, but usually one of two major rules applies. Either they are paid as though the time is continuous work from first arrival time at the first site to final departure time from the final site; or the time at work sites is considered working and between job sites is calculated on a distance and time formula. Sometimes company offer both.
Further, often times companies with sprawling campuses (eg: the Googleplex, Nasa's JPL and ARC facilities, large universities) don't pay you if you choose to drive between buildings as that's just part of the workday, but will pay travel rates where you must drive from site to site (eg: auditing, site inspections).
what about Field work where it may 2-3 hours from (Score:2)
what about Field work where it may 2-3 hours from end to end??
They should not get to not pay some one to say make an long drive to an place right on the far part of the main area as your 1st job of the day or end someones day far from there main core zone.
Re: (Score:2)
A good model is the old days with time cards. You punch in and you start getting paid, then you punch out and you stop getting paid. After punching out they can't ask you to do other tasks unless you punch back in. But while punched in you can drive to a different site. Normally workers who punched in never went to another site except as a job duty (making deliveries), so it's harder to fit that model. But if you work in retail, then the model is like a time clock punch, you are paid by the hour and if
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Because there is no requirement by your company to live far from work. That's your call. You could theoretically pitch a tent across the street and have zero commute."
That would be illegal.
Based on your above logic, adjusted for legality, your employer should have to pay you for the minimum commute time. That is, the distance to the nearest available housing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Or any of the other 49 states. Though it is rarer in winter months in some states, it does happen everywhere. Many places will do regular police sweeps, though that's sometimes frowned upon and instead they do regularly "trash" pick ups where the tents and the belonging inside get removed. Other places will send in the street sweepers and hoses and other things to make the homeless voluntarily move to less visible locations without direct police action. What it means is that very often when someone thin
Re: (Score:2)
When I was contracting, I used to bill my clients for travel time. It was agreed up-front, and appeared as a line item on their bill.
As an employee, however; it is a bit different. I agree to arrive at a certain time, work for a certain number of hours, and leave. Getting to/from work is a standard precondition of my work, not a part of my work. If my employer requires me to go thru a security check (or put on/take off a bunny suit for going in/out of a clean room) -that is part of the job and is part o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Too bad it violates prior SCOTUS ruling. This goes against precedent. This ruling will be struck down on appeal, almost certainly.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re:Good call (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You think Congress has time to deal with issues affect actual working people? Neither party has time for that!
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily so. The SCOTUS ruling was based on federal law; this ruling is based on state law. Can a state impose additional constraints on employers' or employees' rights and obligations? (For example, could they impose a higher minimum wage than the feds require?)
However, if upheld, it would only apply to Californian workers.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they can, and do. CA minimum wage: $12/hour or $13/hour depending on number of employees. Federal minimum wage: $7.25.
Many states override the minimum wage.
CA law allows cities to set their own minimum wage.
Re: (Score:3)
Too bad it violates prior SCOTUS ruling. This goes against precedent. This ruling will be struck down on appeal, almost certainly.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
From your link;
"And he (Justice Thomas) said it was irrelevant whether the company had ways to reduce the wait time. “These arguments are properly presented to the employer at the bargaining table, not to a court,” he wrote."
THAT is why workers need unions. Otherwise there is no "bargaining table" for this type of work.
Re: (Score:2)
Also note that the SCOTUS was ruling on a federal law in the case noted above. Whether California's state law is constitutional or not is an entirely different question.
Re: (Score:2)
THAT is why workers need unions. Otherwise there is no "bargaining table" for this type of work.
As long as there is "at will" employment unions won't help much. Anyone refusing these searches will be fired.
"The land of the free"
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh- misclicked moderation...
Re: (Score:2)
...should be included as part of the time you are working.
Should be, but combined with your terrible "at will" working conditions what are they going to do? Refuse to comply?
They can be fired for any reason, or none at all, which is why Apple can get away with this.
It's for the employees (Score:3, Funny)
The security screenings are all for the employees benefit. They provide additional jobs and ensures a safe walled garden inside the working environment. It protects them from other employees that may smuggle goods outside. The rules are equal for all employees and they agreed to the rules before taking the job. We don't force employees to bring bags or clothes, so they can easily solve this problem themselves.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The screenings also ensure that they're not holding their bags the wrong way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It's for the employees (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Difficult to tell sarcasm from general idiocy these days.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not aware of Poe's law.
Sarcasm is completely invisible on the interwebz. Because idiots are so prevalent.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: It's for the employees (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok... I know I've been out of the US for a long time... but how in the world is this a good thing?
What kind of a company would hire someone and then choose to not trust who they hired? Bag checks say that you believe the people who work for you are criminals. And you're telling your honest employees that you have reason to believe their coworkers are criminals. How can this possibly be a healthy attitude?
If you don't trust your employees, your real problem is in the HR and payroll department. It means
Re: (Score:2)
Let me suggest that you look up Poe's Law.
lose-lose for Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple should not have fought this because even if Apple had won in court, they would have lost with their employees and in the court of public opinion. If you have done something so stupid that your own employees are bringing a class-action lawsuit against you, then you have screwed-up and you need to fix that, not fight it in court. Employer-employee is a two-way relationship, and the court ruling would not change the employees expectation.
Here is the real reason this became an issue at all:
On busy days, some employees have waited for up to 45 minutes waiting for a bag check.
If someone clocks out, then walks to the exit and leaves 45 seconds later, no reasonable person would be like "I want my 45 seconds of pay!" But if you make them sit there for 45 minutes, that is a significant impact on their schedule. Apple needs to rework their bag check process to fix the root cause of the problem.
Re:lose-lose for Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple fix: only require clock-out after the bag check. That puts the incentive in the right place.
Re:lose-lose for Apple (Score:4, Interesting)
The only thing that happened here is the the Ninth Circuit said yep, the district court ruled incorrectly when they upheld summary dismissal, because we now have very clear case law on the matter from the Supreme Court of the state in question.
Re: (Score:3)
In a world in which every business tries to get as much out of their staff as they can because a business' only purpose is profit maximisation, they'll always try every legal and sometimes illegal way to get even more, until they're stopped by law. Many aren't. It's not that Apple is the only one there, either. Many others have been doing the same all the time and continue to do so, the most prominent probably being Amazon. As long as money rules the world, this will not change.
Re:lose-lose for Apple (Score:4, Interesting)
There were actually two cases about this. And it's so old, it dates to when Jobs was alive.
The first case, decided years ago, was whether or not Apple and other employers (not just retailers) had to pay for time if employees were subject to exit checks and such. The courts ruled yes, and Apple has for many years now (at least 5 I believe) be forced to consider that time on the clock. This applies to every other employer too - Amazon workers who are subject to security checks after working are still on the clock too. It's done and settled and if your employer makes you go through screenings that can be lengthy in order to leave, it's on the clock time, and it can lead to overtime as well.
The second case, which is decided here is for employees in the past to claim compensation for this before the rule was implemented. Turns out that yes, they're entitled to that compensation and there will be payouts not just to past Apple employees, but for many other employees as well in other companies as well.
The first case was pretty obvious from a fairness perspective. The second case (which depended on the first) was more iffy since it would be retroactive of the first court ruling. I suspect this one might be appealed just because there are way too many interests beyond Apple in this case.
Oh, and practically yes, the supreme court will overturn cases - practically all circuit court rulings the supreme court takes on are overturned (many circuits have a 100% reversal rate). This is normal and is playing with numbers. If the supreme court feels like the ruling should stand, it simply doesn't take up the case - so while it may only hear 30 cases a year, it turns down way more. The court reviews the case, and if it feels no one made any errors in judgement, it doesn't hear the case so by default the ruling stands. (Of course, the court doesn't release the reasons for rejecting a case, so you can't get an accurate sense of how many cases are upheld since you don't know how many are simply legally correct versus how many fail due to poor legal arguments on why they're appealing). That's why the best chance is when two circuits disagree on similar cases - in this case the court gets interested to figure out why two cases end up with different judgements.
Re:lose-lose for Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
This doesn't seem iffy to me. This is straight up wage theft, and the people deprived of their wages should be made whole.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, that was quite informative.
Re: (Score:1)
The second case (which depended on the first) was more iffy since it would be retroactive of the first court ruling.
It isn't retroactive, at least in the sense that that term is usually applied to legal issues. The court is asked to apply the law to a dispute. Party A says "legally you have to pay us for this work", Party B says "no we don't". The court decides which (if either) is right or what the legal position actually is. Saying "Party A is right" is no more retroactive than saying "Party B is right". There isn't a default of "the employer is right until a ruling goes against them".
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think is the root cause of the problem?
What I see is that Apple is employing people they have clearly identified are a risk to them. They are employing dishonest people who would steal from the company they work for. If they're willing to do that, they're willing to steal from the customers as well. If this is not the case, then it's clear that the bag checks are simply not necessary and rather than being
Re: (Score:2)
It's a fair point. My only retort is "trust, but verify." Jobs was paranoid about leaks. For years, it seemed like a reporter always managed to get info about Apple's next product, so at some point he pulled-out every stop to prevent it. At least in theory, every company I've worked for reserved the right to check bags, but only when I worked retail did anyone actually check.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, I don't thnk Apple cares about public opinion anymore. A few cranky upstarts won't stop the flow of dollars.
Obvs (Score:4, Insightful)
It is disgusting that this has to go to court.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... I may be an Apple fan, but there is absolutely no way Apple could have won here. Why waste the energy?
Re: (Score:3)
What really disgusting is the first judge upholding Apple.
Amazon won this same lawsuit in front of SCOTUS (Score:3, Informative)
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
I wonder what the justification is by the 9th circuit? Seems to me to be the same lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
California law is quite clear on the issue, but I don’t have the energy to look at the 9th circuit’s logic.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
9th Circuit is federal. If they were alleging problems with California law, it would have been in the California courts, not the federal.
Re: (Score:3)
This is entirely incorrect. Federal courts can apply state laws. This discourages forum shopping. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Spot on, and entirely correct.
There are limitations on what can be brought in front of a Federal District Court, as State Courts have original jurisdiction for some matters. But if you meet the basic requirements, you can bring suits for state law matters in front of Federal courts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Amazon won this same lawsuit in front of SCOTUS (Score:4, Informative)
In the Amazon opinion SCOTUS was ruling on the applicability of federal law, and said it did not apply.
In this case the California court was ruling on the applicability of the state law and said it did.
SCOTUS did not say the feds could not change the law to make it apply, only that as written it did not. If they are asked the same of the California law that would again be an entirely new question, but I think their only purview would be to decide if it is constitutional or not, not as to it's application.
Re:Amazon won this same lawsuit in front of SCOTUS (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
I wonder what the justification is by the 9th circuit? Seems to me to be the same lawsuit.
Federal law vs. California law. Amazon's case was determined on the basis of federal law, which provides no such protection. Apple's case was determined on the basis of California law, which does provide such protection, but which only applies to employees in California.
The court opinion (Score:5, Informative)
Not a great PR move (Score:2, Flamebait)
Why is a wealthy company nickel-and-diming their employees? Especially when those employees are supposed to be "geniuses" to the customer? This strikes me as a short-sighted way to save a few pennies.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That is a rounding error for a company with $260 billion in yearly revenue like Apple. Even at fifty times that amount. They probably lose more money in lost productivity and/or lost morale from employees complaining about it. Tracking it seems like a more serious problem than paying for it.
Broad applicability? (Score:2)
Next time I go through an airport I'll be sending them the bill. Probably a great way to speed up screenings.
Amazon should be worried (Score:2)
This has huge consequences for Amazon. It takes them 30 minutes to get their employees through screening. They don't pay them for that. Now they'll have to. Apple could stick it to Bezos by not appealing the ruling if they wanted to.
Re: (Score:1)