If you are required to be at work, then you should be paid for that time. Just because you aren't "working" does change that the business is requiring you to be there.
If nothing else this should push them to make leaving work not take 20-45 minutes.
WTF. How does anyone think it's acceptable to [funcitonally] detain people.
Apple argues that it's not required because you aren't required to be searched, it's only if an employee freely chooses to use the ~~~privilege~~~ of taking your personal items to work that they are searched. You can always come to work with nothing and not be searched.
I think this argument is BS and it looks like so did the California Supreme Court. Apple argues that this choice is of benefit only to the employees but without it I think they'd have a much harder time keeping employees.
As you say, Apple's argument is ludicrous on its face (as the court pointed out) because Apple also requires employees to wear special clothing at work, and are forbidden from wearing that clothing off-premises. So employees must carry that clothing to work with them. I suppose that doesn't mean that they have to put it in a container, but that's a real stretch of an argument that the court also rejected.
And that really hinges on who is responsible for laundering said uniforms. If the employee is responsible for laundering, it is ridiculous for Apple to expect employees to not bring a personal bag to work.
Clearly someone thought it was unfair enough to take Apple to court over it.
Workers rights has always been a struggle but this sort of behavior has been trending up over the last 20 years. From the "permatemp" jobs to the new no benefits "gig economy" it's worrying.
I'm and experienced software developer and even I have seen this sort of thing.
I worked for a company out of San Jose. I was hired full-time with benefits and a bonus structure based on performance. But I had to switch to hourly at no pay if I was "on the bench" between projects. Despite a year of solid work, and receiving my performance bonus, true to the agreement when I rolled off a project they stopped paying me. I went 4 months without pay. And when they finally found a new project for me to join I had to take a significant pay cut because the rate for the new client was less.
Passing on risk and consequence to the employee seems to be increasingly common.
not saying its okay, but this has been standard practice at every retail store job I ever worked (mostly 20+ years ago). You clocked out in the back, and then had to wait to be searched and released in the front of the store. This isn't Apple being weird, this is amazingly common.
As long as you are required to be at work and can’t leave you should get paid. With increasing surveillance some smartasses will soon have the idea that employees shouldn’t get paid during downtime when they are waiting for customers.
It may be common, but it's obviously wrong. It's good that Apple got slapped for this. It would be even better if all other companies that do this got slapped too.
>How does anyone think it's acceptable to [funcitonally] detain people
From the business perspective, provided they can get a way with it, it is just another business decision, namely reducing cost and increasing profit. I would do the same.
Alternatively, you could treat people like people and give them an actual measure of respect instead of stealing time and money from them.
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.
>Alternatively, you could treat people like people and give them an actual measure of respect instead of stealing time and money from them
Thats depends on what one value, if you think treat people like people is important then yes you should do it but if one value profit then doing what apple did make sense.
All the buyers who choose to buy at cheaper prices from sellers who cut corners such as matz1 is saying enable the behavior. Sweatshops are common knowledge, yet everyone has no problem continuing to purchase garments from them at cheaper prices, not to mention the electronics, chemicals, and who knows what else we get from other places with even more lax oversight.
In some businesses, I bet you can’t even survive if you don’t abuse employees since customers will simply buy from someone who will.
My point is it’s funny to see people call out others’ abuse of employees when the same people, the vast majority of the time, support the abusers by choosing to support their business.
The proper response needs to be political support for laws to protect all labor with harsh penalties, not waiting for certain groups to sue in court.
lets say hypothetically, nearly every farm worker was horribly abused.
Would people be hypocrites that shouldn't dare call out that injustice because they need to eat?
Acting like participation in a system is some kind of grave strike against protesting terrible aspects of the system is less than helpful, both logically and rhetorically.
It is pretty much the definition of tu quoque and a really lazy defence of the status quo
>Acting like participation in a system is some kind of grave strike against protesting terrible aspects of the system is less than helpful, both logically and rhetorically.
It is that participation that make it impossible for non abusive employers to compete and exist as a business. I know that there is no option in certain businesses, but even the ones where there is an option, it's obvious how price sensitive people are. Everyone decries abuse of employees, but, as reality shows, basically everyone will opt to save money and reward the businesses that import goods from places known to abuse employees. So what good is complaining about the abuse of a specific employer of its employees?
We like our cheap goods and services, that's why we don't have the political will to change the laws.
How do I know which companies abuse employees and which dont? If I ask the staff, will they tell me? Why is the companies press office even allowed to lie to me about worker conditions without going to jail for fraud?
It's not always cheapest stuff either - apple product charge a premium and Foxconn employees are not treated well.
If you are required to be at work, then you should be paid for that time. Just because you aren't "working" does change that the business is requiring you to be there.
If nothing else this should push them to make leaving work not take 20-45 minutes.
WTF. How does anyone think it's acceptable to [funcitonally] detain people.