Apple store workers should be paid for time waiting to be searched, court rules

I left and came back later and found a more reasonable sales person, but still ended up waiting about 10 minutes.

Then there was the time I made a service appointment, showed up slightly before my appointment, and waited 35 minutes for a “genius” to look at my phone.

I don’t know if it’s just my local store, but I avoid Apple stores as much as I can now.

The store in my area is too small, always packed and too noisy. The employees are really good and make the experience bearable, but they really converted an awesome, friendly retail experience and made it stressful and inefficient.

The people who design the non-flagship stores don’t spend much time in them.

Seems unlikely that hussle pulled on you would work more than once, ever.

Over in the real world, the employees have spent 10 hours of their 12 hour shift explaining to the world's least-technically-adept people how to activate their Verizon service with 4 prepaid debit cards and a ripped $20 bill. Sixty times. While being yelled at. So... they might accidentally not notice you if you just come in and don't aggressively try to attract their attention. I do not blame them.

Now I’m kinda wondering if you could build a nice “rich people buying shit logistics” lifestyle biz though.

I’ve seen other stores appropriate internet orders to make a sale. From the salespersons perspective they don’t have much to lose.

I laughed. This is why customer interaction is often kept minimal, rediculous concerns like this.

This is a question for Jeff Williams, COO at Apple. I am often surprised with the amount of 3rd parties that Apple interacts with and the lack of integration between each group. Apple is the company of seamless integration after all...

I don't think this is the right mindset—theft from your own employer is a white-collar crime. The type of people who would even be morally okay with stealing iMacs out of people's hands wouldn't be bothering to work for the store in the first place; they'd be bribing security to get in and then shuttling boxes into a van. Or holding up a delivery truck full of iMacs.

Also, getting a job specifically to steal from your employer is a pretty long-term strategy; it doesn't pay off if you only do it a couple of times. If you're doing this, you're probably doing it because you have a specific play that allows you to do it over and over without increasing the compound probability of getting caught—i.e. one that doesn't really generate any evidence personally implicating you (like the testimony of hired goons when later caught by the police), only equivocal evidence (like the fact that the person who came in to buy an iMac is a friend of the employee.) Really, generating negative utility for any individual (rather than just a corporation) in your theft, is a pretty surefire way to have someone (e.g. that same individual) take a look into what's going on.

Which maybe it is even the case; and in that case you probably should think hard about if you are not slowly drifting away from the reality as experienced by the vast majority of other people.

Yep, Apple probably does not care much about your profile as a prospect.

Wow what do you do that requires a $50k computer?

>Apple said it could prohibit employees from bringing any bags or personal Apple devices into its stores altogether but gave them that benefit. The California Supreme Court said a ban on any personal items would be “draconian.”

If there's a traffic jam, that's the employers problem.

For 'going somewhere else after work', it wouldn't be officially allowed - you are still working till you arrive home. Obviously some workplaces could perhaps allow flexibility as a benefit.

Alas they can but they won’t and they’ll fight you in court so they don’t have to.

Works really well where it was pioneered (in Singapore) and also seems to do an OK job in London.

I suspect the Brits ain't as ruthless in applying orthodox economics in general, so they don't solve their problems nearly as well including their congestion problems.

oh no, the poor poor companies ;((((((

I commute a bit over an hour. Because I cannot afford to live close to my job and rent a place for me and child.

It would cost me triple my current rent.

EDIT: There's a thread about this farther down: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22322608

Didn’t seem to help them. They filed for bankruptcy.

We would have our lunch bags randomly searched as we passed through the outer security gate on our way to parking.

Bloody TicTacs.

They would leave snacking items or seconds in the break room for people to eat if there were any—just don’t walk off the lot with a half pack of TicTacs.

But I’ve never experienced so little trust elsewhere.

What should happen is a penalty for the CEO. I'd like to see Cook spend a few weeks in jail, incommunicado because I'm sure this was done at his direction. The government will never do anything to hurt such a company's bottom line in a significant way, however. If a regular person steals fifty cents worth of merchandise from the Apple store all hell will rain down upon him, but if Cook steals millions from his employees, he's a great CEO.

What if you have asthma and need to keep an inhaler? Or one of the numerous other medical conditions that also necessitate keeping an item on hand.

The article might leave one with the impression that the Court was saying that Apple could not impose such a ban. That doesn't seem to be the case. It's more that they are saying that Apple has not ever done so and it seems far-fetched that Apple would ever do so, and so Apple's claim that not doing so was done as some sort of benefit is not justified.

Here's that paragraph from the Court's decision:

> Apple acknowledges that the exit searches promote its interest in loss prevention, but nevertheless urges this court to view the searches as part of a broader policy that benefits its employees. Apple argues, in this regard, that it could have totally prohibited its employees from bringing any bags or personal Apple devices into its stores altogether, and thus employees who bring such items to work may reasonably be characterized as having chosen to exercise an optional benefit. However, Apple has not imposed such draconian restrictions on its employees’ ability to bring commonplace personal belongings to work. Under the circumstances of this case and the realities of ordinary, 21st century life, we find far-fetched and untenable Apple’s claim that its bag-search policy can be justified as providing a benefit to its employees.5

and here is footnote 5:

> However, it is uncontroverted that Apple may impose reasonable restrictions on the size, shape, or number of bags that its employees may bring to work, and that it may require employees to store their personal belongings in offsite locations, such as lockers or break rooms. We also take no issue with Apple’s policy prohibiting employees from shipping personal packages to its stores.

But, frankly, literally every time without exception that I remember seeing you post, it's been a variation on the theme of "of course they shouldn't be decent, why should they, I shouldn't have to be decent either", so I'm going to pass on being surprised.

And effectively stealing from their employees.

> I would do the same.

You would steal from your employees too?

Were you still expected to show up anywhere or perform any duties? How was the situation any different to being unemployed?

A similar type of wage abuse in call centers: The wage is $X/hr while on a call or available in the phone queue, and minimum wage at all other times.

Presumably now any noncompete(etc) are void as your employer has frustrated they contract

I would imagine store operations are vastly more efficient than they were when I worked there -- so I am more surprised that this got worse rather than better.