Alsup says Apple owes California workers for bag check time | Hacker News Reader

Alsup says Apple owes California workers for bag check time

law360.com

47 pointscwwc18 comments

Didn't this happen in September 2020? https://www.hrdive.com/news/apple-employees-must-be-paid-for...

9th circuit remanded (again?) in October to allow Apple to make another defense claim.

9th Circuit Rules Apple Owes Retail Workers for Time Spent Security Screening - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24364652 - Sept 2020 (262 comments)

The money is important but I think it would be nice to find a way that people don't have to undergo this kind of indignity.

I'm normally a pretty libertarian person, but I definitely recognize how lucky I am that I dont have to be put in a position where I have to be treated like a criminal for the sake of money. Same reason I would never shop at Walmart, or take a drug test, etc. But I recognize that some people are not in a position to say no and get abused for it. And would be happy to see that change.

Unfortunately, retail theft by employees is commonplace and they're doing way more damage than shoplifters (https://www.nra.net.au/policy-advocacy/safe-retail/internal-...).

The key thing to change would be to better pay employees, but... well yeah. Not going to happen...

I am sure you fly, and TSA or any other country's airport security subject you to a similar level of scrutiny. So unless you have never taken a flight on a business trip, you have been in position, when you are treated like a criminal for money.

Yes I fly, but I'm a normal looking white man, frequent flyer so I know how to pack and how to behave, and I've never had a problem with airport security.

I feel the same way about flying as in my earlier comment, nobody should have their dignity taken away to be able to travel, I'm lucky it has never happened to me in any serious way, and I support measures to end security theatre and treat everyone respectfully.

"Normal looking white men" still have to get drug tested; in fact, some companies drug test their IT people for office jobs, even. The one I'm aware of never tested people once they were hired, I guess they just wanted to know you could sober up for once in your life.

> I’m a normal looking white man

Why did you bring it up? It’s irrelevant, because everyone at the very least has to remove their shoes, belts, watches, etc and stand in line for metal detector like an idiot. Equally humiliating for normal and non-normal looking people. Btw, what is your criteria of normality in white dude’s appearance?

> I’ve never had a problem with airport security

If you have never gotten you scissors thrown away or sent for extra check because you forgot a bottle of shampoo in your hand luggage or never got asked few extra questions at the border or right before boarding the plane, then you are truly an outlier. I guess looking “normal” really pays off.

Anyway, my point is: you have been subjected to such disrespectful procedures, so you can get some reward in return, whether it’s to board a plane to on vacation or meet a client or smth else.

> security theater

It’s not a theater. Just because TSA is inefficient, does not mean it is ineffective.

> respectful

It becomes disrespectful, if some people are singled out all the time, if privacy is not preserved, or if it crosses certain boundaries. The article talks about bag check, while not pleasant, not something outlandish.

And for hourly employees being paid for such screenings is fair and absolutely a must, imo.

A lot of people rightly criticize TSA security theatre too. But at least the TSA is organized to prevent harms like terrorism, as opposed to harms like someone stealing an iPhone.

I don't understand this idea that theft isn't a harm worth worrying about.

Sure, it isn't the same thing as blowing people up but surely that isn't where we want to draw the line, right?

I dont think anybody's arguing whether companies should worry about theft. My earlier comment was that companies should not be using their concern about theft as justification for treating their employees like criminals, and subjecting them to bag searches.

Exactly this. Theft is bad, but it is disproportionate to subject employees to this kind of indignity (and even worse to fight being asked to pay them for the time they spend waiting for it) to avert the risk of petty theft.

As with any claims of disproportion, one might disagree with the relative weighing. I assume we all agree that it would be unjustified for, eg., ordinary offices to cavity search every employee to make sure they aren't sneaking out company post-its. I assume we also all agree that it is justified for the CIA to search people when they come out of a SCIF. My only claim was that in the in between range, Apple store employee searches are less justifiable than TSA, because stealing an iPhone is lots lots lots lots less bad than terrorism (albeit obviously much more likely).

I accept that I work in a world in which not everyone is trustworthy and sometimes that means that I'm subject to verification procedures. What reason is there to feel indignant about that? The existence of controls is not at all the same thing as being accused of committing a crime.

Should a convenience store clerk be indignant that their cash drawer has to balance out at the end of their shift? Should a bookkeeper be indignant that cash handling controls are enforced?

I realize that controls can be excessive but that is different than being indignant that there are controls at all.

(Just to be clear, the issue of being paid for the time associated with controls is really something entirely different than objecting to the controls themselves)

Yeah, at a certain point the controls themselves are objectionable. There's room for debate about what that point is, but, sometimes treating people like you distrust them is rightfully offensive. Suppose that a church counted the cash in everyone's wallet on the way in and again on the way out to make sure they weren't stealing from the collection plate, for example? We'd find that highly offensive, because it would imply that the parishioners weren't to be trusted.

> it would be nice to find a way that people don't have to undergo this kind of indignity

I tend to agree with this, especially with Apple stores, which incidentally have the highest revenue per square foot of any retail store:

Hire good employees, treat them well, and pay them fairly.

Treating your employees like criminals* rather than partners is a recipe for resentment and hostility, as well as high hiring expenses due to turnover.

That being said, I wonder if jewelers or watch shops (or other stores selling small and valuable things) routinely search their employees' bags?

Some university libraries (which I guess also have small and valuable items) also search your bag when you leave, and it's very annoying, especially when the books already contain tags that will set sensors off if you accidentally leave with a book you haven't checked out.

> Same reason I would never shop at Walmart, or take a drug test, etc. But I recognize that some people are not in a position to say no

Yeah, I'm not going to criticize anyone for shopping at Walmart rather than more expensive stores, especially during this tough economic time.

*besides retail, I have heard that Apple corporate is also extremely paranoid, largely about leaks, even though those typically come from the supply chain rather than employees at the mother ship

I worked in a high end jewelry store for about two years (the kind you get buzzed into, in downtown Palo Alto, during the first dot com, across from the police). We daily sold six-figure jewelry and the store had tens of millions in inventory easily.

Never once was I searched.

There is an Apple Store a few blocks from that location. They were getting searched to make sure no one left with headphones.

How are Walmart shoppers treated like criminals?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com