Hacker News Reader

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.

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.

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.

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.

In this example with Google, the higher ups might reject this idea, but only because the measure would have a net negative impact on their own bonuses: pulling the cheap drinks would make 0.3% of employees move and the execs won't get bonuses because retention rate is a metric the company owners look at.

I see execs as a blind force of nature that does everything possible to enrich itself within the constraints set by higher ups. If the company owner hires an exec and gives him a task "give me more liquid assets by end of year no matter what", the exec will liquidate the company, because the constraints were loose. Same with those sleazy VPs running the facilities: SVPs set very loose constraints (likely intentionally), and got the rather expected result.

> Unfair, but legal.

Apparently, not.

OK, not quite legal, but justifiable. Nobody goes to prison for that, and the saved 10 mil get a nice house for that exec.

No, not justifiable. Illegal. Rich people blatantly stealing from poor people. Wage theft is more common in the United States than all other types of theft combined, and we shouldn't normalize it. It's criminal, and it's morally despicable.

How do you feel about "employee parking" being an extra minute or two away? That time adds up to... And it's virtually the same thing -- ”company policy mandatees you ___"...

I agree with everything you're staying, but add I said, this is a thought experiment... What would be a good line to draw?

Unless the company policy mandates that you drive to work, and further mandates that you then use their parking, then that sounds a lot like commute time to me. If the hypothetical company decided to not offer parking to its employees, and they had to park a 15 minute walk away on the street, that would certainly be commute time.

Whatever terms the corporate and unions agree on?

> How do you feel about "employee parking" being an extra minute or two away?

What about arguing the converse, which is not at all hypothetical in my case (this is a change that happened to me): an employee commutes to work via public transport and the stop the employee uses is a straight-line path to the front door of the employee's work location through an open area owned by the employer.

The employer then constructs a parking lot on that open area and places a fence around it so that only people assigned to that parking area may use it.

Now, the employee--who does not drive and thus does not have access to the parking lot--is required (by the employer, who owns the property and assigns the employee to a building and does not permit the employee access to the parking lot) to walk an additional three minutes from the public transit stop to the front door of the employee's building. Employees who drive to work are now positioned closer to the front door.

Do the people who drive now take a pay cut because they spend less time getting from commute vehicle to the front door of the office building? Does the employee who uses public transport get a raise?

> What would be a good line to draw?

Parking is a convenience, a benefit as such. Your responsibility is to arrive at the entrance, ready for work on time (or clock in). When someone from the company prohibits you from entry to clock in or leave on time, that is on the company.

Another aligned argument here, could be that the closet food restaurant is 20 minutes away and you have 60 minutes for lunch. It is not the companies responsibility to make sure you make it there and back in 60 minutes, you account for traffic, ordering time, eating time etc. But if the company stops you at the door with a security guard for 10 minutes, before you can go get your lunch, and when you enter back from lunch then it's their problem.

> Your responsibility is to arrive at the entrance, ready for work on time (or clock in).

This seems circular, like saying you shouldn't get paid for working on a project at home because you agreed to be responsible for completing the project at home. In both cases it is a task that requires time and effort, which you are doing for the company's benefit, not your own.

Ultimately these factors are included in the employee's mind when they seek and negotiate for jobs. All things being equal, you take the job with shorter commute and same pay because the commute is part of the job in your mental calculation. You can also negotiate for more pay to offset a long commute.

> Ultimately these factors are included in the employee's mind when they seek and negotiate for jobs. All things being equal, you take the job with shorter commute and same pay because the commute is part of the job in your mental calculation. You can also negotiate for more pay to offset a long commute.

There are many choices at play here, some may even may live further away to offset the cost of living or have a bigger back yard etc. I am sure that many do this in the cities.

But all things being equal if you are wage earner, you generally get paid by the hour and thus time spent at work at the companies need or request, should be paid for. If you cannot leave your job on time, then you should be paid for that time.

Some things are just inflexible in any workplace, both from an employee's and an employer's perspective, and a legal one.

Now those fortunate people who are salary earners, they get to negotiate a little more. However generally (unless they have a flexible agreement), there is still hours of work which are committed to.

All others like contractors etc fall into a different pile.

> Some things are just inflexible in any workplace, both from an employee's and an employer's perspective, and a legal one.

They're just shifted from official numbers to some form of hidden cost. The economic situation is the same. I'm presuming no one at the apple store actually makes minimum wage, so ultimately Apple will counter an increase in hours clocked by a reduction in hourly pay. Though I'd expect them to be sneaky about it.

The cutoff for reporting hourly wage is something like $47k. Everyone either negotiates directly or else affects the wage indirectly by not competing for the job (requiring the company to offer more to attract employees). Companies give regular raises to their wage workers for completely rational self-serving reasons. And obviously a business wants to employ from a larger (and therefore better) pool of potential employees beyond those who live on the same block. Common sense says people are going to consider the cost of the commute (both in time and money) when considering the gross income they would get from the job. So for everyone apart from minimum wage workers, there's still some overall average component of pay based on how much people think the commuting part is worth.

The pay outside the hourly rate for a given employee should be total employee commute time (factoring in extra minutes for employee parking lot, etc) minus total commute time for a non employee from the same starting point (they can park wherever, etc), plus any time the employee is delayed before/after clocking in/out (waiting in line to clock in, security checks, etc).

As soon as someone steps foot (or tire) on the premises, the clock starts ticking.

> As soon as someone steps foot (or tire) on the premises, the clock starts ticking.

In retail the idea of premises could be very fuzzy. After all the mall may not be owned and in all likelihood not owned by Apple. In retail you are often asked to park at the back of the mall for good reasons, one of them being that customers park up front.

Secondly I can just imagine Tim Cook in a pair of running shoes parking his car and walking as fast as he can to the door, and he does it in 2 minutes so everyone else must as well. Damn those 6'1 people if you are only 5'6. If it is a 2 minute fast walk and you take 4 minutes casual, then you get docked.

I cannot claim I am working if I am have a 3 hour lunch break on company property.

But it is easier to consider that the commute to work is the employee's responsibility, it would be the most common and logical case. Work being where you actually do the work and not where you go to work.

If the contract specifies the place of the work as the Mall, Mall street 1, as soon as someone crosses that line, it is ON and ticks as long as they leave the premises. I see no ambiguity there. If the time spent walking to the door is so important hire the fastest people.

That's kind of an interesting question, but I'd lean towards that being part of commute and just tied into salary, unless you are required to drive. I used to get on my boss's nerves when I'd show up on time and be in the building, but not visibly at my desk. He was trying to apply more control than necessary, and my rationale was that there was no urgent matter requiring me to be at my desk in order for me to be capable of working (I had varies IT responsibilities). Being in proximity of someone requesting my presence was sufficient for fullfilling my duties, but I couldn't do that while in transit.

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).

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.

> 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.

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.

If that’s a clear line, how does zoning work? If there isn’t anything residential within ten minutes, your clear line flips: you cannot choose to live closer, so does everyone get paid an extra 20 minutes per day for the minimum commute? I don’t think it’s such a clear line.

It’s even fuzzier with the common situation of nothing remotely affordable within X minutes commute. You can’t choose a $3M home on minimum wage, so the delineation of what is and isn’t forced on you to do this job is very fuzzy.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

Not having worked at Apple, I have difficulty understanding whether the NoPocket Jumpsuit is a thing or not.

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.

>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.

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.

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.

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

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.