Apple Loses In Court, Owes $2 Million For Not Giving Workers Meal Breaks (cnn.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Apple has been ordered to cut a $2 million check for denying some of its retail workers meal breaks. The lawsuit was first filed in 2011 by four Apple employees in San Diego. They alleged that the company failed to give them meal and rest breaks [as required by California law], and didn't pay them in a timely manner, among other complaints. In 2013, the case became a class action lawsuit that included California employees who had worked at Apple between 2007 and 2012, approximately 21,000 people...

The complaint says Apple's culture of secrecy keeps employees from talking about the company's poor working conditions. "If [employees] so much as discuss the various labor policies, they run the risk of being fired, sued or disciplined."
Apple changed their break policy in 2012, according to CNN, which reports that the second half of the case should conclude later this week. The employees that had been affected by Apple's original break policy could get as much as $95 each from Friday's settlement, according to CNN, "but it's likely some of the money will go toward attorney fees."

Comments

O wow

[Anonymous Coward]

A whole $95...(if they're lucky)

Re: O wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I know. Assuming they made $10/hr, thats a mere 19 days of 30 minute lunch breaks. Unless 19 days was the longest anyone could ever stand to work in one of those stores, thats a ridiculously low compensation

Re:O wow

[matbury]

Apple Wins In Court, Owes Only $2 Million For Not Giving 21,000 Workers Meal Breaks And Other Abusive And Illegal Employment Practices For 5 Years

There. FTFY

Re: O wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Luck has nothing to do with them. The lawyers will extract their pound of flesh and thet will receive about 95 cents.

Re:O wow

[Anonymous Coward]

It's almost always cheaper for a corporation to break the law and pay the fines than to obey the law in the first place. Doesn't matter if it's Apple, Uber, or Exxon.

Re: O wow

[ArmoredDragon]

Unless the lunch breaks were paid lunches (which I kind of doubt because that is atypical in retail) then how would you figure that?

Personally, when I worked retail I didn't like lunch breaks specifically because they were unpaid. I would have rather just had a shorter shift. Though more importantly, retail jobs suck, and I swear to god I'll never work another retail job again, even if it paid really well. I worked at Staples, and constantly shifting between moving freight and helping customers was frustrating (I would rather have done one or the other rather than having to constantly be mindful of both.) I can't imagine how much it must suck working for Apple with the type of rude assfuck customers they get there.

Re:O wow

[Anonymous Coward]

employees sue over missing lunch breaks. gets money to buy *A* lunch -- after legal fees.

sounds about right. american legal system, ftw.

Re:O wow

[silentcoder]

Personally - if I could write a constitutional ammendment it would make it de facto illegal for a fine to have a fixed number. All fines would always be calculated as a percentage of your brute income the previous year. In the case of corporations only your last year's investor reports would be considered as income - basis (the thing where you have no incentive to ever lie it down because if you do your share price drops).

The idea of fixed or jury-determined fines flies in the face of equality before the law. Two people both get caught going 10mph above the speed limit. They each get say a 100 dollar fine. For one of them - that's 3 weeks wages, for the other - he'll never miss it. One of them is getting a severe punishment that will make it seriously hard to feed their kids this month, one of them will never notice.
And it's the exact same crime.

But if each of them was fined 5% of their brute income - then the first person would have had a 20 dollar fine (which would hurt without starving) while the second one would pay 200-thousand dollar fine, which would hurt without starving. That's equality before the law.

Apply that accross the board. Of course having juries determine fines, especially for punitive measures does have it's virtues - but you simply change those so the juries are bound to use a percentage of brute income as well (and the regulations could, where appropriate, specify a minimum percentage). So the jury can never be fooled into considering the income of the plaintiff and being swindled by the "frivolous lawsuits" myth (the evidence is overwhelming that civil suits against companies are extremely rare and the average payout is a mere 55-thousand in the rare cases where they succeed) and getting emotionally manipulated to be opposed to giving some hick from the sticks a million bucks.
Instead - they come back to "The defendent harmed the plaintiff, we've found the defendant guilty, now we should punish".

Re: O wow

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a great idea, you brute!

P.S. I think you meant gross income. I think net income would be fairer, but I agree wholeheartedly with your principle.

Re: O wow

[oobayly]

The Swiss already do this for speeding tickets - a millionaire was fined £180,000.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/eur...

Re: O wow

[silentcoder]

The Swiss tend to be quite impressive. Their FOIA system is just mindblowing. Walk into any government office, fill in a request, and if they don't give you the document you demanded within an hour somebody WILL get fired. No cumbersome multi-month turn-arounds, not court appeals to be allowed to keep it secret.

Anything less than national security top-secret classification and if they don't give you the paperwork within the hour - they are breaking the law. Now that makes corruption almost non-existent, it makes government oversight easy and immediate and powerful.

Re: O wow

[Anonymous Coward]

It works like that in Switzerland because they are a very small, homogenous society. They also share social and cultural values consistent among the populace. They basically agree on a standard for expectations. Try to actualize such a rule in the US and you will see how it falls apart. We're a far to vast, divergent and disagreeable society to ever achieve this level of pristine regeneration.

It's a nice fantasy. I will give you that. The reality is that without utter transparency and oversight, human interests always regress to selfish and self serving. That is to say to advantage ones interests at the disservice of another's position. "I take out of yours increasing mine and diminishing from yours." This is corruption. People enhancing their position while lessening the others resource.

Apple and almost all major corporations are enjoying unfettered, use of their human labor resources. People capital. They get to do whatever they want a people since they're a no more labor movement, worker rights, work security or or recourse other than this joke pittance type of reward that gives almost nothing to each aggrieved while scarcely tapping violator so he feels the punishment in dollars for his violation. It's meaningless. It does nothing and says nothing meaning it's only had for workers and more of the same. The capitalist owner wins. Labor is exhausted again by the futility of seeking lawful justice or any meaningful changes in the practices of his boss.

We're at a point where we have no rights. The corporations won. The govt handily betrayed its people and the workforce, selling our rights and our power as labor capital (the only capital there is because without it you cannot transform raw resources into commodities. Without labor nothing happens. Labor is the essence of producing tradable and currency in a capitalist society. But they've effectively succeeded in trivializing and marginalize labor so effectively were just about expendable slaves who have completely lost touch that our labor is the oil that runs the engine. Not resources, not corporations or stockholders. They have brainwashed and castrated American labor and labor everywhere into begging for work and taking any shit way they treat us at work.

How did this happen? What the f...?!

We were asleep at the wheel while they involved burrowed and shoved their way in. Now we're fucked. This settlement proves it. Its meaningless exercise in futility, neither punishing the violator nor recommending the aggrieved.

Why do we have endless discussions and debates that are off point and mean nothing. After all, it is in the ruling. Capitalistz get to keep fucking labor. Labor gets a week's worth of Praline Lattes and all of the Jazz crys your ever want.

Re: O wow

[stealth_finger]

I can't imagine how much it must suck working for Apple with the type of rude assfuck customers they get there.

If I worked at an apple store I would tell people the most retarded shit about the phones to see what they believed. "Oh yeah they have a microwave receptor converter so if you ever lose your charger you can stick it in the microwave for 30 seconds for a full charge" etc..... I probably wouldn't work there long

Re: O wow

[Maritz]

It works like that in Switzerland because they are a very small, homogenous society. They also share social and cultural values consistent among the populace. They basically agree on a standard for expectations. Try to actualize such a rule in the US and you will see how it falls apart. We're a far to vast, divergent and disagreeable society to ever achieve this level of pristine regeneration.

LOL. No. It's not because you have such a wonderfully 'diverse' society.

It's because your goverment is corrupt, the ruling elite have clubbed together and successfully locked out everyone else.

The foxes are running your henhouse and have for a long time.

Switzerland has a real democracy. You don't. End of story.

Re: O wow

[x_t0ken_407]

It works like that in Switzerland because they are a very small, homogenous society. They also share social and cultural values consistent among the populace. They basically agree on a standard for expectations. Try to actualize such a rule in the US and you will see how it falls apart. We're a far to vast, divergent and disagreeable society to ever achieve this level of pristine regeneration.

LOL. No. It's not because you have such a wonderfully 'diverse' society.

It's because your goverment is corrupt, the ruling elite have clubbed together and successfully locked out everyone else.

The foxes are running your henhouse and have for a long time.

Switzerland has a real democracy. You don't. End of story.

Not sure if you realize it or not but he's basically said the exact same thing, if you read further than the portion you quoted:

We're at a point where we have no rights. The corporations won. The govt handily betrayed its people and the workforce, selling our rights and our power as labor capital (the only capital there is because without it you cannot transform raw resources into commodities. Without labor nothing happens. Labor is the essence of producing tradable and currency in a capitalist society. But they've effectively succeeded in trivializing and marginalize labor so effectively were just about expendable slaves who have completely lost touch that our labor is the oil that runs the engine. Not resources, not corporations or stockholders. They have brainwashed and castrated American labor and labor everywhere into begging for work and taking any shit way they treat us at work.

How did this happen? What the f...?!

We were asleep at the wheel while they involved burrowed and shoved their way in. Now we're fucked. This settlement proves it. Its meaningless exercise in futility, neither punishing the violator nor recommending the aggrieved.

Courage

[Anonymous Coward]

Courage.

Re: Courage

[Luthair]

Breaks for workers have been with us for a hundred years, it to take courage to change that.

Re: Courage

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please.

You deserve a break today!

[Anonymous Coward]

Use these coupons to upgrade your #1 meal from medium to large.

Justice served in the canteen...

[Anonymous Coward]

"As much as $95". LOL, justice has been served, supposedly, but it sure has a funny taste.

Meal breaks

[Kohath]

This is a big part of the reason why California is the worst state in the US to do business.

Re:Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

source?

Re:Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh, it's called lunch. Been working since the 70's all over North America and have always had time to eat food during the day. If it was hot and I was working outside, there was both food and water breaks. I would think places that DON'T offer such things might be great for business but really sucky for workers...

Re:Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes how dare they mandate meal breaks on glorious job creators just to make sure the ungrateful wretched can have the energy to do their jobs.

Not to worry though, with the coming wave of automation we won't have to worry about pesky humans anymore. Too bad there wont be anyone who can afford to buy the craptastic Apple stuff except for the independently wealthy.

Re:Meal breaks

[DishpanMan]

So people having the right to eat and being paid in a timely manner is bad for business? Unfortunately to counter your point, California has the largest economy in the US, so these laws are obviously not bad for business.

Re:Meal breaks

[Kohath]

Yes. Pretending like every trivial thing is a right -- and enforcing it by transferring money from productive enterprises to lawyers -- is bad for (productive) business.

Re: Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Even medieval peasants were allowed to have afternoon supper

Re:Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, to counter - the law is fairly clear. Apple chose to transfer that money to lawyers. They could do like most everyone else and just, you know, follow the law. We've had it since before I worked - and I am getting up there now. My first job - at a Burger King franchise when I was 16 - in about 1983 was subject to this rule. Employees who worked more than 5.5 hours got a lunch and two short breaks. More than 3 hours one short break. The rules may have changed a bit since then, but they are still similar at least. It can't be that hard to comply since most businesses manage to do so.

Re:Meal breaks

[Howitzer86]

Have you been sued over this? If so, could you share with us the circumstances?

Re:Meal breaks

[Kohath]

They could do like most everyone else and just, you know, follow the law.

That's what Trump keeps saying about Mexicans. Is obeying laws right for some people and wrong for others?

Re:Meal breaks

[hwstar]

California does give a damn about its working population. The asymmetrical negotiating advantage of employers needs to be balanced with statutes protecting the worker class from large multinational corporations. Sorry, the free market doesn't work well when the balance of power is so heavily tilted towards these large players. I do agree that small businesses should be subject to less regulation than the large multinationals though.

Re:Meal breaks

[Kohath]

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=californ...

Re:Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Pretending like every trivial thing is a right -- and enforcing it by transferring money from productive enterprises to lawyers -- is bad for (productive) business.

They are rights because the elected representatives in the state passed laws. Don't like it? Pass other laws. That's how things work in a representative democracy.

And if the productive businesses don't like paying out, maybe they should read the laws once in awhile. Meal breaks--especially for non-exempt employees--isn't rocket science (it's nearly Let Me Google That For You territory).

Re: Meal breaks

[Kohath]

Without lawyers extorting money from the landlord? How is that possible?

Re:Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Holly shit you are a nutjob. You think people are robots? People need food to function you moron.

Re:Meal breaks

[Kohath]

Which is why employers would have meal breaks for employees even without these rights and the lawyerly looting they enable.

Re:Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's the exact reason they account for 1/6th of the total GDP of the USA I guess.

Re:Meal breaks

[Waffle Iron]

Which is why employers would have meal breaks for employees even without these rights and the lawyerly looting they enable.

Employers like Apple?

Re:Meal breaks

[Waffle Iron]

This is a big part of the reason why California is the worst state in the US to do business.

Heads up: Don't be surprised if you get visited by a few ghosts over the next couple of nights.

Re:Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, then perhaps you're a moron, and didn't even read the summary, because they weren't giving them the breaks, resulting in this lawsuit.

Re:Meal breaks

[Xenx]

I looked through a few myself. I didn't see a single one mention that providing breaks was a large, or any, part. In fact, one of them mentioned business were leaving for states such as Washington. Washington has breaks as well, so obviously that wasn't a large factor.

Re:Meal breaks

[Kohath]

Yes. These lawsuits are about a few people missing lunch (or getting lunch a little late) a few times.

Re:Meal breaks

[uncqual]

California has the largest economy in the US

As they should, because they have the largest population of any state in the US. About 1 of 8 people in the US live in California.

A more interesting statistic would be Gross State Product GSP per capita in each state. In 2012, California's GSP ranked 17 among all states and in 2015 it still only ranked 10. In 2015, California's GSP per capita was only about 11% higher than the US GDP per capita.

Income in California is also very much distributed at the upper end -- from 2012 through 2014, 48% of the state income tax was paid by the top 1% of taxpayers.

As well, according to the Department of Labor, in November 2016 California had relatively high unemployment compared to other states -- 38 states had lower unemployment rates.

Overall, California's economy isn't particularly impressive.

Re:Meal breaks

[Kohath]

Someone should have told Scrooge that big payoffs to lawyers is a substitute for virtue.

Re:Meal breaks

[nnull]

"I do agree that small businesses should be subject to less regulation than the large multinationals though."

No, they shouldn't. As a small business owner myself, I have no problems with California regulations and I do give my employees lunch and breaks if they want too (Hell, some of them I have work from home now). The fact is, a lot of the big companies will follow most of California regulations to the letter because they don't have time to deal with all the liability if they don't. It's actually the damn small businesses that abuse the hell out of employees and don't follow the rules. As for costs, it's minuscule to follow for me because I actually know how to plan things for the long term and actually have procedures.

So, a good example of a small business is the building down from me, a paper converter. They don't follow any regulations, hire illegals to run their machines, abuse the hell out of their workers by overworking them over 12 hours a day (How do I know? They all come to my building looking for work telling me about this). So whenever I go to lunch with the owner, he bitches and moans about California laws everyday because he wants to pay his workers even less than minimum wage. Complains he has to pay overtime for his employees because he doesn't want to hire more people to deal with the overflow. Then he bitches and moans to me how he can't find any maintenance guy worth anything because he wants to pay them minimum wage and the guys he interviews laugh at him (Wants an engineer to work minimum wage or close to it). The guy has no permits, but plays the game with the city and OSHA like a flute. That is the small business you are talking about that you want to subject to less regulations. And this is actually very typical of every small business in California. Stop thinking that mom & pop shop is ethical, because this guy is a mom & pop shop, they're actually the worse.

And this isn't the only guy, I have a logistics company up the street from me doing the same thing, a screen printing business doing the same thing, and a company making spices doing the same thing.

And somehow I have no problem dealing with the regulations, but everyone else does! In my opinion, small businesses need to be subject to more regulations and scrutiny because they get away with so much, you wouldn't believe. If it was so bad in California, they would have moved out long ago.

Re:Meal breaks

[Daemonik]

It doesn't matter what's on the books, does Washington ENFORCE meal breaks? Apparently California didn't, thus this lawsuit and somewhere a middle manager who made a nice bonus for several years for forward thinking.

It's like, every Wal-Mart employee knows they have paid time off. It's in their paperwork, it's the law in most areas. Yet they also "know" that if they take a minute of it they'll be told their services are no longer needed. They also better show up for those 4 hour "management meetings" off the clock where they do a suspicious amount of shelf stocking.

Re:Meal breaks

[Daemonik]

When Trump follows the law, he can start dictating to others.

Re:Meal breaks

[Daemonik]

Somehow I doubt that if your employer took away your meal breaks, you'd be so blase about turning to a lawyer to secure your rights.

Re:Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

You americans are slaves, indentured. You work 4 hours for free, and the no meal breaks? No wonder you are being replaced by more "efficient" robots. Worst off all noones hearth breaks knowing this, as you idiots defend corporate rights to run over people, because you retards think one day you might be owner of such corporation or something idiotic like that.

Re:Meal breaks

[Kohath]

No one "took away" anyone's meal breaks.

Re:Meal breaks

[Daemonik]

Overall, California's economy isn't particularly impressive.

Except for, you know, being the 6th largest economy in the entire world, with it taking the rest of the entire US combined to be larger...

Re:Meal breaks

[Kohath]

If you believe fictional stories about us, yes. Also we spend our nights huddled in our homes hiding from vampires.

Re:Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, i think you understand the position. it's not logical at all.

Re:Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Expecting humans to work 8-12hr shifts without meal/bathroom breaks is pretty harsh and also counterproductive to business.. That's how accidents happen and they cost more than the meal breaks do.

Honestly, I'm surprised that apple got away with this. I believe every state has such laws.

"invoke fear into the class members that if they so much as discuss the various labor policies, they run the risk of being fired, sued or disciplined."

Use of the phrase 'class member' is interesting as no typical employee would use such phrases. It sounds more like these people were told what to say. TFS only attributes it to 'store employees', but it reads like propaganda.

Re:Meal breaks

[epyT-R]

Expecting humans to work 8-12hr shifts without meal/bathroom breaks is pretty harsh and also counterproductive to business.. That's how accidents happen and they cost more than the meal breaks do.

Honestly, I'm surprised that apple got away with this. I believe every state has such laws.

"invoke fear into the class members that if they so much as discuss the various labor policies, they run the risk of being fired, sued or disciplined."

Use of the phrase 'class member' is interesting as no typical employee would use such phrases. It sounds more like these people were told what to say. TFS only attributes it to 'store employees', but it reads like propaganda.

Re:Meal breaks

[Kohath]

I hope not. Dictators are bad. Freedom is good.

Re:Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

I was awarded a pretty good amount of money while working at a company based in Seattle for not being given breaks. I think they did a pretty good job of enforcement.

Re:Meal breaks

[CaptainDork]

... indentured ...

I don't have my dentures in.

Re:Meal breaks

[CaptainDork]

So Trump has a tater on his dick.

Now I get the tiny hands humour.

Re: Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

You only read the last line in the gp, didn't you?

Re:Meal breaks

[Joe_Dragon]

But people who really need an doctor may just brake in a take the apple stuff it's win win you can get away with it and flip the apple stuff or go to jail / prison where the state must give you an doctor.

Re: Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what Trump keeps saying about Mexicans.

Too bad he doesn't mention the root cause of that problem.

Is obeying laws right for some people and wrong for others?

As usual, you fail to ask the right question. Are some laws right to obey, while others are wrong to obey? And the answer is...yes.

Learn that lesson, Kohath, I dare you.

Re: Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Beheadings were a common option.

Re:Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

you're stupid

Re:Meal breaks

[Aighearach]

In Oregon we have balanced rules that protect both sides, and the actual problem on the job with mean breaks is that employers will force you to take them.

When the rules are super-clear and well-enforced and can be changed by direct public vote, then there ends more obstinate workaholics than employers who don't give breaks.

Since employers and employees have different worst case scenarios, you can protect both at the same time without any conflict. Don't believe the cynics.

Re:Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it real hard to believe a "few" people missing lunch a "few" times makes it's way to a 2 million judgement in a class action suit.

Re:Meal breaks

[Waffle Iron]

You forgot to add:

"Humbug!"

Re: Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Income in California is also very much distributed at the upper end -- from 2012 through 2014, 48% of the state income tax was paid by the top 1% of taxpayers.

People like you must think random babble is impressive. Here's a hint, not only do you fail to establish the actual level of income distribution, you neglected to consider the actual tax gradation levels.

As well, according to the Department of Labor, in November 2016 California had relatively high unemployment compared to other states -- 38 states had lower unemployment rates.

Oh goodness. Hey you left off the unemployment rates. Oh wait, wait, maybe it's because of the many people who come to California because they want to do so. Especially in Winter. And some because Nevada buys them bus tickets.

Re:Meal breaks

[Ambassador Kosh]

Overall I have been screwed over FAR more commonly from a small business than a large one. What I have found is that large businesses don't screw you over on small contracts since it is not worth the time to do it. It gets them more negative press and for no reason at all. I have also found that small businesses tend to be the most abusive and deceptive in what they want to do.

I once had a contract to build an electronic voting system for a professional ethics body and they wanted the ability to tamper with the election, They where PISSED when they found out the system notified everyone voting when they tried to temper with the system. I have just never seen a large business do that.

Re:Meal breaks

[Osgeld]

so, no other state in the union has mandatory lunch breaks along with other breaks for hourly workers?

cause im pretty sure all of them do, course im pretty sure you are a moron as well

Re:Meal breaks

[Falos]

We have a lot of brainwashed, but the real influences are behind closed doors. I'm sure some idiots in the UK swallowed the noise about the snooper's charter (mostly those who believe in the terrorist boogeymen) but they're not the ones who pulled the strings. I pity their population, not mock it for "doing it to themselves".

>No wonder you are being replaced by more "efficient" robots.
Obviously your perk-blessed workers will evaporate even faster, as your corporates decide to take the plunge and buy machines that don't demand meal breaks.

Re:Meal breaks

[Imrik]

More likely they were about "working lunches" where a meeting or such is scheduled for lunch time and employees are expected to eat while working.

Re:Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you going to provide any references or just expect everyone to take your word for it?

Re: Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a skeeter on my peter, flick it off.

Re:Meal breaks

[hwstar]

I didn't say there should be no regulation or enforcement of labor laws for small businesses, and existing California labor law, I beleive is not to onerous given there are even more employee-friendly laws in most other advanced democracies.

Larger corps screw the workers in more indirect methods which present less liability to them. Fissured workplaces (contingent/temporary workers with no benefits), using H-1B body shops, buying off legislators for favorable laws, and using the courts to overturn what voters have willed to name a few.

Re:Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Blood-sucking immortal pedophiles that sparkle in sunlight rather than combust? You're damn right we're hiding from them.

Re:Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

You say and complain about all this, but apparently haven't bothered to drop a line to the authorities about the people breaking the law while you go to lunch with them.

Re:Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Fancy that, trying to refute a post that has four citations with nothing more than opinion and a "fact" that isn't.

Re: Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

They do, and most businesses (that I have worked for) actually insist you take breaks and lunch, as they wish to avoid paying lawyers for avoidable stuff. Perhaps Apple just has too many lawyers with not enough to do.

Re:Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

And you reported both of those businesses right? Right?

Re: Meal breaks

[uncqual]

Unemployment rates are widely accepted as part of the measure of the strength of an economy. Of course, no single factor can generally be viewed in isolation.

Re:Meal breaks

[lgw]

OK, even on Slashdot you need to read the post you're replying to!

"A lot of people live in California" is a different thing to claim than "California does well by the average guy". Do you get that?

Re: Meal breaks

[lgw]

Mostly because of the church! That's the key to understanding the middle ages: the church restrained the worst excesses of the aristocracy, and the aristocracy restrained the worst excesses of the church. When either became ascendant, things went to shit.

Re: Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Every little thing Apple does destroys the little equity they have left. They are now rich, but they are riding on Jobs vision stripping what's left of his ideals (with all his pros and cons, he was quite remarkable).

Re:Meal breaks

[aaarrrgggh]

Yeah... well... I'll share a different perspective. (California)

Break and meal rules are quite clear for non-exempt employees. What is much more grey is who really is exempt. The California Labor Commission takes the approach that everyone really should be non-exempt, unless they clearly fit in the exempted categories without any potential conflict.

I am an engineer (PE). We hire engineers with zero to 30+ years of experience, all with degrees, most with their EIT, and some with their PE. It is strange to consider someone with 30 years of experience (without PE) doing a higher level work as non-exempt, while someone with two years of experience (but passed their PE) could be exempt, doing lower level work. So, in our industry, it is customary to consider everyone as exempt that is not a draftsperson/CAD operator.

We got sued by an engineer who passed his PE three months after being fired for lunch and breaks... because we didn't have proof he took them. (He did take lunch, despite being ineligible for breaks.) We won, but that is the kind of crap you get to put up with as an employer.

Re:Meal breaks

[hey!]

California is so huge you have to look at it piecewise, otherwise you're doing apples-and-oranges comparisons.

For example the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland CSA is an economic behemoth that is likely the richest region of that size in the world. Yes, Qatar, Macau, Luxemburg and Lichtenstein would beat it for per capita GDP, but compared to the Bay Area those places have tiny populations.

Does it make sense to average a place like that with San Joaquin County, which has the highest percentage of people living below the poverty line in California? That's entirely a function of the industry that dominates the county: agriculture. Over 20% of the workers are immigrants, 3/4 of them fairly recent.

So it's like a card game in which California was dealt 58 very different cards. What you have to do is compare different CSAs to comparable CSAs elsewhere in the county. If you want to start a tech business, you aren't very likely going to start it in Riverside, but that'd be a good place to start a trucking business. The same applies to states; sometime social dysfunction is useful. Arkansas and West Virginia have the lowest educational attainment in the US, which makes them a great place to start a low-wage business. Massachusetts and Maryland have the highest educational attainment in the US, which makes it a great place to start, say, a biotech firm. California has counties that resemble either end of the spectrum.

Re:Meal breaks

[aaarrrgggh]

GSP is also fairly skewed, placing Alaska and North Dakota high based on selling natural resources, and ignoring accounting gimmicks that place Deleware and states without income tax higher.

California has plenty of issues as you say, but is hardly a "failed state" like Kansas.

Re: Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Unemployment rates are widely accepted as part of the measure of the strength of an economy.

That's nice and all, but you left them off. I guess reading comprehension lead you to skipping that?

I mean, maybe you think all of us are so dumb that you can just barf out a comparison between states as if that was meaningful, and none of the rest of us will notice what a load of junk that is, but I'd rather think you were just poor at reading.

Of course, no single factor can generally be viewed in isolation.

Then why did you try to do what you did?

Re: Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, they worked hand in hand to screw the common people. Who eventually drove both of them off, though sadly new nobles are always hellbent on taking the mantle.

Re:Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy has no permits, but plays the game with the city and OSHA like a flute.

Odds are good the city is in on it because they don't want to upset "job creators". Meanwhile, if it goes to the governor, they'll just talk about how they're not responsible because they were played. Meanwhile, said GP will receive shit from all parties involved for rocking the boat. Not that excuses not doing anything, but I wouldn't surprised if he did say something and nothing has come from it.

Re: Meal breaks

[uncqual]

That's nice and all, but you left them off. [...]

Nope, you should learn how to use computers and read -- there's a link you can click on. I know HTML may be hard for mentally challenged individuals, but links are these things that are often underlined and, on /., followed by a hostname in clear text.

Then why did you try to do what you did?

Again, you should learn how to read. I included several factors in my comment -- unemployment was just one of them.

Re:Meal breaks

[Scarletdown]

Sounds like your business neighbor does not deserve the privileges of having either customers or employees. Only thing deserved for him should be bankruptcy.

Re: Meal breaks

[Kohath]

Don't tell me. Tell the guy I was responding to. He's the one who argues "laws" like laws are sacred and the politicians who write them should be worshipped.

Re: Meal breaks

[Plumpaquatsch]

Every little thing Apple does destroys the little equity they have left. They are now rich, but they are riding on Jobs vision stripping what's left of his ideals (with all his pros and cons, he was quite remarkable).

You mean things like being sued for stuff that happened while Jobs was still alive and stopped when he was dead? The sanctification of Steve Jobs by Apple Haters is becoming ridiculous.

Re:Meal breaks

[ArtemaOne]

That's really interesting. I'd love to hear more.

Re:Meal breaks

[CaptainDork]

I know you are, but what am I?

Re:Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Referring others to the entirety of the Internet is not a source, princess

Re: Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, you should learn how to read. I included several factors in my comment -- unemployment was just one of them.

You must think everyone else is too dumb to spot your deceits. Yo randomly babbled several disjointed statements and expected us to allow them.

That's why you couldn't even state the employment numbers. Still can't. You're blaming someone else for your incapacity.

But really, it takes a special brand or stupidity for you to think nobody else can spot your mendacity. It might as well just be trivia.

Re: Meal breaks

[uncqual]

Cowards who hide behind AC are hard to figure out -- in particular, I have no idea which of the ACs in the thread you are.

However, I gave you a link to the employment numbers - JUST CLICK ON IT (the URL is a .gov in the US so even if you are enough of an idiot to not have protected yourself from malicious URLs, it's a lot safer than the porn URLs you regularly click on). If you refuse to click on a reference, you're the idiot. Or, you just haven't figured out what a link IS (I assume it's the latter given the evidence that your IQ is just enough to support a sporadic heartbeat and an occasional breath - leaving only enough electrical signals to spasm on your mothers keyboard from time to time).

And, no, not disjointed -- unlike the post I responded to, I didn't cherry pick, I didn't post disingenuous claims that, while technically true, are irrelevant. Intelligent people take relevant facts when presented and tie them together in obvious ways without a thousand page "See Dick Run, See Spot Poop" guidemap -- unfortunately, you appear not to be one of those intelligent people.

Anyone reading this thread long ago figured out who the idiot is -- and it's not the person posting as AC!

Have a nice life.

Re: Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you know, you could simply not be assholes and give everyone meal breaks? Then you wouldn't have any of these problems.

Re:Meal breaks

[Aristos Mazer]

In the USA, most of our laws are enforced through civil court action -- laws like workers rights give the worker the right to sue if the law isn't followed. We don't have a police force going around investigating most of our civil regulations. The workers bringing a lawsuit like this is how the system is *designed* to work. It generally provides the right balance... rather than the government injecting itself into all our economic and social relationships, the people involved are free to negotiate a system that works for them and only appeal to the government when no reasonable accord can be reached or when one side just goes too far. It is the social equivalent of kids yelling for the parents to come resolve things... you don't want the government to be constantly monitoring because they have to enforce all the rules when they get involved ("fine... everyone go to your rooms") and can disrupt a lot of what is working.

Re:Meal breaks

[Aristos Mazer]

Here's the citation: http://www.politifact.com/cali... Yes, California has the 6th largest economy in the world.

Re: Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you understand that the president to be is extremely corporate friendly. Around half (mostly the right wing) of the US demand fewer regulations for corporations - it's retarding competition.

He's not that far off the mark.

Re: Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

This seems to weigh heavily in the corporations favor.

How can someone making minimum wage sue with any lawyer?

Re:Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

"As they should, because they have the largest population [wikipedia.org] of any state in the US. About 1 of 8 people in the US live in California."

As they should, because they have the largest bank accounts of any citizen in the state. They live off those workers backs, they need to reinvest in those workers and their communities.

Re:Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh* The solution for everything is NOT the invisible hand of the market. That hand is currently giving everyone the finger. If poor practices and lawbreaking were gonna bankrupt them, they would have gone under already.

Re:Meal breaks

[silentcoder]

In what insanity can ANYONE EVER be exempt from breaks ?

You do realize that human bodies, like any other machine, requires energy to power it. We are not solar powered. We get our energy from eating food during breaks. The only people who could logically be exempted from breaks are those who work 3 hours a day - as they can reasonably get their meals in outside of work hours.

You expect people to work a full day without a lunch break ? You're going to have incredibly unproductive employees. And this applies to desk workers no less than manual labourers, brains use energy to function too. If the body is low on energy - the brain scales down operations and devotes that limited energy to essential survival functions making far less available for non-essential higher cognition functions. Just like your laptop when the battery gets low will start to save power by slowing down the CPU clock and dimming the screen.

Do you seriously think we figured out how to do powersaving in laptops - but 4 billion years of evolution hasn't figured out how to do that in brains which are trillions of times more advanced ?

Re:Meal breaks

[silentcoder]

>That's what Trump keeps saying about Mexicans. Is obeying laws right for some people and wrong for others?

Nevermind that what Trump says nicely ignores the fact that the only reason ANYBODY breaks that law is because it's filled with so much burocracy that it's physically impossible to follow it unless you are already rich (and then the odds of WANTING to go to America goes way down - why would ANY sane person CHOOSE to live in that crazy country where all your neighbours want to shoot you if you are RICH where you live ?)

But like I said, nevermind THAT. You may want to stop worshipping at the Trump temple now since he's clearing going to sell you out on that one. He just appointed the CEO of Karl's Junior to his cabinet - one of the largest users of immigrant labour, a man who has gone to massive lengths to avoid immigration enforcement over his businesses, has repeatedly and publicly stated that he PREFERS illiegal immigrants over American labour because their lack of legal status makes them basically indentured slaves (you can make them work for any price because they dare not complain for fear of being deported). And Trump just put him in the white house.

Sorry pal. Trump lied ... again.

Re: Meal breaks

[silentcoder]

Then let me give you a very good rule of thumb.

If the "person" is actually a BUSINESS -then ALL laws ARE sacrosanct and MUST be obeyed without question.

If it's an actual PERSON - then some laws may be wrong and may on occasion deserve to broken. A good example of a law that SHOULD be broken is a law that unjustly denies some people a right that others have. Like making Rosa Parks move to the back of the bus - it was right of her to break that law.
The reason this rule of thumb is so uncannilly good at telling the difference is because there is a key difference between a person and a business: a business is not a human being and does not HAVE rights. The law cannot violate the rights of a business since it HAS none and never SHOULD have any.

Re: Meal breaks

[silentcoder]

>given the evidence that your IQ is just enough to support a sporadic heartbeat and an occasional breath - leaving only enough electrical signals to spasm on your mothers keyboard from time to time

It's not his IQ that's the problem. It's that there is only enough energy available to his brain for those core essential functions and none left for higher cognitiion because his employer wouldn't let him have lunch breaks.

Re: Meal breaks

[silentcoder]

Actually that's not quite as true as you think.

For example - adjusted for inflation and cost-of-living changes, what the average 14th century English peasant earned in a year, would be equivalent to earning 20 thousand pounds a year today - that's a VERY comfortable salary.

The great poverty ever experienced in England happened during industrial revolution. Child mortality before 10 went up from about 50% in the 18th century to over 90% with starvation and worked-to-death being prime factors in the increase. More people were homeless or starving in 19th century English society than at any time before. It lasted until the end of World War 2 - when the welfare state (and critically the NHS) became a thing.

This was Britain in the 1920s: http://www.newstatesman.com/po...

There are still people who remember what life before the welfare state was REALLY like - and none of THEM want to go back, and the libertarians who do - either don't know, or are so convinced of their own superiority that they are absolutely certain they would be in the top 5% and never experience the results of the policies they promote. A few of them, of course, have bought the bullshit that Murray Rothbard and co have been telling them about how getting rid of welfare and regulations will actually improve their lives - they are just in for a shock when they discover how austerity makes them even more poor. They'll end up looking back at the last few years as a heaven on earth compared to what their lives will be like if the Koch brothers and their pet-republicans get their way.

Re: Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent comment. Yes, AMERICANS are idiots. They'll take a pile driver up the ass and smile while theyre gettin it, just to please the boss so that one day, maybe..

I'm embarrassed to be an American. This is the most ball-less, nut-less bunch of porn addicted, got my car mixed up w my dick group of people to ever hit the planet! By my estimate, We're fucked. We will not last more than ten more years before the race extincts. The end is very near. I am so sad that my fate and destiny, which is destined ruinous, just had to be tied in with such a sad, sorry group of motherfuckers.

Humanity has been a failure. We're so stupid, we got to go... Seriously, humans collectively are incredibly stupid. Who would shit in its own nest, this precious earth and shit rightbinto the business of the most vile profound exploitation of other members of our own species!? No animal is as brutal and barbaric to its own as we are! None!! Dogs, rats, even cockroaches do a better job of caring for their own, than we do!!!

It's a mangled debacle of post apocalyptic porno stew that was left on hot-high far too long, much less to save, or serve.

How'd we let them few old white cocksuckers take over the wheel while we were just too busy, watching tv and getting it on w the American dream..

We're going to pay dearly. We already are. And we will pay so dearly. That is, with our lives. It's coming down to that. Not checking these bastards and not taking political responsibility for our former democracy is going to cost us our lives and the lives of our children. That is the cost of inattention and lassitude. This is everyone's fault. Everyone. We are all guilty. All of us.

  We just don't want to be responsible. We cannot grow up to ever be autonomous self sufficient adults. We're eternal toddlers. Shitting everywhere, breaking everything. We nust cannot recognize that our political liberty being an ideal/value -we must fight and work hard for. Liberty doesn't just passively evolve or even remain. It falls apart when left alone. It just decays and dies. Like an unwatered plant. The grand Democratic experiment. Grade F

Re: Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

California is a shithole falling in the sea. It's corrupt from top to bottom infested w gang scum, prostitution pedophiles, dirty politicians... Its Sodom and G. teeming w mindless degenerate immigrants and cracker woods on big bikes. California is doomed. It's a writhing cesspool place, thats hurtling down the track,s straight into hell on a burning boxcar..

Re: Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya finally noticed, "in favor of the corporation." Really? You just now noticed? You are stating what's been evident for a very long time to the many.

Re: Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. It's good for business which means in your skewed world and the one we live in, its pretty much than going to be bad for labor. Havnt you noticed the two are mutually exclusive. Moron.

Re:Meal breaks

[Maritz]

Giving truth to 'better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt".

Re:Meal breaks

[Maritz]

Haha, you're the twat who whinged about people getting meal breaks, and now you're defending instead? Get your fuckin' story straight.

Re:Meal breaks

[Maritz]

Obviously your perk-blessed workers will evaporate even faster, as your corporates decide to take the plunge and buy machines that don't demand meal breaks.

The beauty about all this, of course, is that the very machines that don't need meal breaks don't go out for food either. Or coffee. Or anything else. And neither do the freshly liberated 'workers' who don't have any money.

Great environment for business growth, there.

Re:Meal breaks

[Maritz]

"ineligible for breaks". You don't hear that over here. Funny how you guys don't just hire people to do work, and pay them. You have to fucking own them as well. Some serious stockholm syndrome too, most of the victims seem weirdly infatuated with that system.

Re:Meal breaks

[Maritz]

Yeah. The attitude is that the occasional break would be like handing over the fillings out of your fucking head. Amazing isn't it.

Re: Meal breaks

[Maritz]

Instances of the words "finally" or "noticed" in parent: 0.

Re:Meal breaks

[PPalmgren]

California labor law is an absolute nightmare. There are about a half dozen extra things you have to track that don't have any significant effect on productivity or labor rights, but add large extra costs to payroll and HR. I deal with payrolls from multiple states and our procedures are completely different for California because of all the labor laws that don't line up with the rest of the country. The troll post is correct, although without any proper explanation.

Re:Meal breaks

[stealth_finger]

We got sued by an engineer who passed his PE three months after being fired for lunch and breaks... because we didn't have proof he took them. (He did take lunch, despite being ineligible for breaks.) We won, but that is the kind of crap you get to put up with as an employer.

If someone is working more than ~4 hours they should get a break. If it's a full day they should get a lunch break. End of story. If you're just working people to the bone because you're legally allowed to then fuck your shitty company. What are they called?

Re: Meal breaks

[Maritz]

You think "Apple Haters" sanctify Steve Jobs? lol.

Re:Meal breaks

[Maritz]

Yes. These lawsuits are about maybe one or two "people" missing part of their lunch (or getting lunch a little late) probably just the once

.

I just wondered to myself if I could minimise it even more than your (really quite ridiculously) biased language. Turns out I could - just a tad.

Re:Meal breaks

[Maritz]

Yeah, but if he doesn't couch it in biased language, he realises he doesn't have a point. Hence, the dramatically ungenerous characterisation.

Re:Meal breaks

[tehcyder]

If you believe fictional stories about us, yes. Also we spend our nights huddled in our homes hiding from vampires.

That last bit isn't fictional, I've seen it on the TV.

Re:Meal breaks

[stealth_finger]

More likely they were about "working lunches" where a meeting or such is scheduled for lunch time and employees are expected to eat while working.

This is people working in the shops, there's no eating while you're trying to upsell.

Re:Meal breaks

[careysub]

Justly rated "troll" right now. Kohath's "evidence" is simply doing a search using his unsupported statement, but look at the actual results of his search and his claim immediately collapses into smoking ruins. That's why he didn't post any of them.

The query will of course tend to bring up *any* similar claims, rather than tending to bring up objective rankings, but only one single source of this claim appears in the top 20 search results - an unscientific (i.e. self-selected) poll by Chief Executive magazine. That's it. No other source making this claim. (CEOs as a group, it should be noted, have a high proportion of sociopaths - or worse - a fact that should be born in mind when considering CEO opinions about things).

But of the eight or so independent state rankings that show up in this search, none of them places California at the bottom. It is 8th from the top on one, and in the middle of several others. Not even the one-note Tax Foundation, that uses only a single metric for rating everything (low taxes on businesses = heaven, high taxes on businesses = hell, nothing else matters) places California on the bottom of their list.

Re: Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it funny though that I got governmwnt guys patrolling my neighborhood that can even kick down my door if they suspect I'm breaking the law, but the companies don't? Isn't it interesting that a company can hurt the lives of more people than I can, but I'm under constant government scrutiny but they aren't?

Re:Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

So let's get this straight. You are actually attempting to refute the argument that California's labor laws are conducive to productive business compared to less enlightened laws in the rest of the US by pointing out that California is 11 percent more productive per person than the US in general. You really shouldn't introduce the notion of being impressed as your reasoning is most unimpressive.

Re:Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

If the purpose is to compare the difference in state laws then comparing California as a state is perfectly valid. California's economy is the largest of the US states. California's economy is 11 percent more productive per person than all the US states together. Really there is no need to go further. The California labor laws are proven to be supportive of both growth and superior productivity.

Re: Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Rubbish. There are many cases where both were healthy and did not curb one another at all. Typically they acted in concert to abuse the population. In fact that is what the Feudal system was. Nobles slaughtered entire cities for the church. The church exacted taxes just like the nobles. The church also enjoyed inquisitions to make more money while simultaneously imposing divide and rule. The was no happy balance of church and state in the middle ages. It was a brutal and vicious system that was the antithesis of the rights we enjoy today.

Re:Meal breaks

[uncqual]

No, I was merely pointing out that the fact that California has the largest economy in the US is only due to its population being the largest -- per capita it's not at the top or even in the top three.

To clarify where California really sits in the hierarchy, I provided some relevant numbers to augment the irrelevant statistic the original poster presented.

You seem to be reading challenged as I state NO opinion about California labor laws being good or bad or conducive or harmful to a strong economy - where you got that I have no idea. Perhaps your meds need adjusting?

Re:Meal breaks

[hucker75]

Agreed. If the workers don't like the conditions, they should work elsewhere. If anybody wants the useless buggers.

Re:Meal breaks

[aaarrrgggh]

"Exempt" employees manage their own time and do their job as they see fit. Of course everyone gets breaks and lunch-- it is just that you have to prove that "Non-Exempt" employees actually took it, away from their workstation.

It is hard to be a "professional" under non-exempt status.

Re:Meal breaks

[aaarrrgggh]

The issue is PROOF that he took breaks and lunch.

An exempt employee is paid to do a week's work, not 40 hours. An exempt employee can work as few hours as they see fit to do their job; if they do it to our satisfaction in 20 hours then great!

Re:Meal breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the race to the bottom effect. There's no sense in using the more expensive "worker" if the superior choice allows you to undercut everyone else, and prevent the reverse.

Yet we've pinched proles to the limit already, and money simply must be fluid for an economy to "breathe", react.

We'll just issue a miniscule UBI that, at best, can only afford the newly-"efficient" lows of products. If you want to eat something other than soy paste, live in something other than terrafoam, you'll need to supplement with the $5/wk labor that manages to undercut even robowork. They're illegal jobs, of course. As if legislation fixes it.

two MILLION dollars....

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Let's see: with their market cap at about 620 BILLION dollars, 2 million is: a pinch of shit. They lose more than that annually in stolen office supplies.

Re:two MILLION dollars....

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how much each of the 21,000 people got and how much the lawyers got?

Re: two MILLION dollars....

[Anonymous Coward]

Try reading the fucking article, or maybe the summary.

Re:two MILLION dollars....

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Let's see: with their market cap at about 620 BILLION dollars, 2 million is: a pinch of shit.

True. 2 million out of 620 billion doesn't even amount a rounding error. Even 100 million would barely be noticeable.

Re:two MILLION dollars....

[Anonymous Coward]

Given 66,000 Apple Corporate employees (which includes engineering), that'd be a nice round $30 of stuff per employee per year. That's several *packs* of pens and several entire reams of printer paper.

Seems a bit on the high side, especially as probably most employees (anywhere, not even specifically at Apple) might print the odd personal e-ticket or letter on the office printer (let's say 5-10/yr) but that's about it.

Re:two MILLION dollars....

[guruevi]

Office theft is more than a few pens and some papers, we're talking about laptops, desktops, wireless access points, switches and other hardware that goes missing, especially portable peripherals or spare parts that 'get lost'.

Re:two MILLION dollars....

[silentcoder]

And of course, the odds go up when you employ contractors, or pay employees badly or most of the other 'labour cost saving' things businesses love to do. All these things have the common outcomes of
1) Making employees far less invested in, and loyal to, the business (only an idiot is loyal to somebody who is not loyal to them)
2) Making them poorer

Poorer people have less to lose and more to gain from theft (so the odds of them deciding it's worth it go up), and less invested, less loyal people are more likely to rationalize away any moral qualms about stealing a laptop from the office.

Complainers and whingers

[Anonymous Coward]

Just look at the amazing Christmas gifts that Apple gave them:
http://www.macrumors.com/2016/...

How dare they complain about not being able to take a break or getting their pay on time? They obviously work for a company that has deep respect for them. /s

Fire Tim Cook.

No Meal break...

[DrYak]

... is a significant part of the reason why the rest of the US (and other country such as China) are overworked, overstressed, in bad general health and overweight.

(Most Europe also has meal brake. That doesn't only include our giant bankrupcy generator (Greece), but also countries like Germany, Switzerland, Scandinavia...)

Re:No Meal break...

[Anonymous Coward]

If they get no meal break, how are they overweight?

Also saying that something is a "significant" part of a problem without providing a shred of evidence to support it makes you look stupid.

Re:No Meal break...

[Kohath]

So let's have meal breaks -- without lawyers extorting millions of dollars.

Re:No Meal break...

[TechyImmigrant]

(Most Europe also has meal brake.

They aren't very effective though. Bonded composites like those used in the USA make better brake pads.
It might explain the prevalence of small scooters in European cities. They don't require much braking force to stop.

Re:No Meal break...

[__aaclcg7560]

If they get no meal break, how are they overweight?

They bring their own snack food or hit the vending machine. Or they gorge themselves before or after work.

Also saying that something is a "significant" part of a problem without providing a shred of evidence to support it makes you look stupid.

This is Slashdot. You must be new around here.

Re:No Meal break...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's why business hire visa workers and illegals. You can force them to do anything.

Re:No Meal break...

[Anonymous Coward]

So let's have meal breaks -- without lawyers extorting millions of dollars.

No, lets fine Apple several extra million dollars as an example to the next scumbag corporation that thinks they don't have to follow local labor laws.

Re:No Meal break...

[Imrik]

Having consistent meal times is a huge factor in weight gain/loss.

Could be worse...

[__aaclcg7560]

I recently got a class action settlement from Wal-Mart for $3.66. I would have bought a gift card from the online website to use it elsewhere. Alas, Wal-Mart won't let use that balance for a gift card. Now I have buy something else that I don't need or want from Wal-Mart.

Re:Could be worse...

[LynnwoodRooster]

C'mon, you can ALWAYS use a roll of duct tape! Remember, duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it binds the universe together.

Re:Could be worse...

[__aaclcg7560]

Remember, duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it binds the universe together.

And a $5.95 shipping charge for a "free" item.

Re:Could be worse...

[LynnwoodRooster]

Nah, run down to your local Walmart and pick it up. Sometimes you get to see some amazing things... Better than half the movies that Hollywood puts out at least!

Re:Could be worse...

[__aaclcg7560]

Nah, run down to your local Walmart and pick it up.

None of the local Wal-Marts are in running distance from where I live.

Sometimes you get to see some amazing things...

White trailer trash? I don't need to see my distant relatives that badly.

GNU Lawyers.

[Anonymous Coward]

The employees that had been affected by Apple's original break policy could get as much as $95 each from Friday's settlement, according to CNN, "but it's likely some of the money will go toward attorney fees."

Maybe we should start an "Open Lawyer" movement were a bunch of anonymous lawyers give away their work. If you use their services and win then you'll have to donate a proportional amount of your time to someone else (pay forward).

Re:GNU Lawyers.

[brantondaveperson]

Why don't we apply that principal to whatever it is you do for a living, too?

Re:GNU Lawyers.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not the one complaining about lawyers being paid. CNN is, not that others haven't said as much every time a class-action is brought up on Slashdot.

Re:GNU Lawyers.

[Imrik]

Or we could just use currency to compensate people for their time and get currency for giving our time to others...

For those unfamiliar with California law

[Solandri]

Contrary to some of the comments, this is one of those labor laws that I think make a lot of sense (I'm an employer). The exact verbiage is a bit complex, but it basically boils down to:

• Unpaid 30 min meal break if you work more than 5 hours in a day. Second 30 min meal break at 10 hours.
• Paid 10 min breaks every 4 hours worked. So two such breaks in a 8 hour workday. Employees can combine this with the meal break for one long lunch break.

There are some miscellaneous aspects of it covering consecutive hours worked to make allowances for split shifts, but that's the jist of it.

A lot of people seem to think employers are out to squeeze every drop of life they can from their employees at the lowest wage possible. That might be true for some big companies or awful employers, but the vast majority of us (mostly small businesses) care about our employees. Having small details like break times laid down in law makes our lives easier too, since we don't have to stumble around in a legal grey area guessing what's acceptable and what's not. (That's the situation with illegal immigrants as workers. We're not supposed to hire illegal immigrants, but the government doesn't give us any tools to determine if someone is an illegal immigrant so that we can not-hire them. According to my lawyer, having acceptable copies of government-issued ID on file is enough. Except sometimes we get IDs which are fake, or worse, which might or might not be fake. You can get in trouble for hiring someone whose ID is obviously fake, and you can get in trouble for not-hiring someone whose ID is real. Which leaves you in a pickle when faced with an applicant whose ID looks like could be fake but you're not really sure.)

Re: For those unfamiliar with California law

[Anonymous Coward]

You can always e-verify if you think an ID is fake. That at least gets you out of trouble.

Re:For those unfamiliar with California law

[Tailhook]

I-9 is the one requirement that liberal small business people love to bitch about. Among the several forms and many regulations they have to cope with this is the one, singular requirement where they have no difficulty imagining a parade of regulatory horribles. It's a pencil whipping operation; actually prosecuting an employer that isn't blatantly violating immigration law is next to impossible since "knowingly" is the standard, but they still whine and moan. Even when their lawyers tell them how little is expected — as we see here — they bitch and bitch.

Re: For those unfamiliar with California law

[guruevi]

You can get sued if you consistently verify ID's of only particular groups of people.

You either have to have a policy in place and verify everyone that applies for a job (and carry the associated $150/query costs) or get sued for discrimination even if those persons were found out to be illegal. Even if you do verify everyone but you don't have a written policy around it or don't keep track of the results, you can end up being sued.

And even if they end up losing the suit, you're out thousands of dollars because those 'high risk populations' have the backing of organizations with deeper pockets than you.

A simple job opening can quickly cost you $5000 in e-verify and associated legal/documentation costs if you intend to use it because the results aren't always complete so you then have to file other paperwork and wait for it to come back.

Re:For those unfamiliar with California law

[Anonymous Coward]

Contrary to some of the comments, this is one of those labor laws that I think make a lot of sense (I'm an employer). The exact verbiage is a bit complex, but it basically boils down to:

• Unpaid 30 min meal break if you work more than 5 hours in a day. Second 30 min meal break at 10 hours.
• Paid 10 min breaks every 4 hours worked. So two such breaks in a 8 hour workday. Employees can combine this with the meal break for one long lunch break.

There are some miscellaneous aspects of it covering consecutive hours worked to make allowances for split shifts, but that's the jist of it.

I decent employer would pay the employees for the lunch break time as an incentive to attract a higher caliber employee. The entire unpaid meal break provision does not apply to the senior executives naturally as they can take 2-hour lunches on the clock.

Re: For those unfamiliar with California law

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of people seem to experience employers who are out to squeeze every drop of life they can from their employees at the lowest wage possible.

Fixed that for you. You don't seem to realize that people know what they've lived through.

That might be true for some big companies or awful employers, but the vast majority of us (mostly small businesses) care about our employees.

Try again. People are learning more and more how they are regarded and treated. There have been worse times, and that lead to violence. So shall the pendulum swing again.

Re:For those unfamiliar with California law

[Aighearach]

In Oregon we do it: 30 minutes unpaid, or 20 minutes paid. And in retail they can require you to take your break while you work, if you're allowed to eat on the job. If you're not allowed to whip out a burrito and munch down, then you have to get a real break without duties. Other industries have similar rules, if it is considered to be the standard practice in that industry.

Re:For those unfamiliar with California law

[Anonymous Coward]

I went to work for a large food producer who had been fined by the EEOC for discrimination. I don't remember all the details, but the gist of it was they were trying too hard not to hire illegal aliens. (That story may be a bit biased, but researching EEOC and discrimination claims against them returns so many other cases* I can't find specifics on that one anymore). IIRC, the fine was 7 digits,but they were able to talk them down to $300,000 or so.

When I was employed there, ICE raided at least 5 plants one morning and hauled off hundreds of workers. Much of the the 2nd shift didn't show up after that.

All the employees had presented valid documentation, Social Security Numbers which were run through e-verify. Sometimes applicants would present an SSN that was already employed there. All they could do was tell them to go work it out with the Social Security Administration and come back.

The ICE raids hurt them for months afterwards (due to not having enough workers at the plants).

Another interesting anecdote from there. One of the janitorial staff (possibly 3rd party contractor, I'm not sure) mentioned to our building manager that he was in the US illegally. Being a nice person she told him not to tell anyone that and kept it to herself but a few weeks later someone in HR must have found out and he was gone.

Many people say they should go after any company who hires illegal workers, but there is only so much they can legally do and the ICE raids hurt more than the EEOC fines.

I hate to sound like I'm defending them because I really have no love for that employer, but there are other unrelated reasons for that.

* - none that big and some were bogus anyway. We did a phone interview with a developer and decided not to bring him in for an in-person interview. A few weeks later someone from HR comes up to us and says he filed an EEOC complaint. The 4 of us in on the phone interview all honestly said "we didn't even know he was black".

Re:For those unfamiliar with California law

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you take a break while you work?

Re: For those unfamiliar with California law

[Anonymous Coward]

"high risk populations"

Racists like you always lose their shit when someone makes you do the right thing. If you had been simply hiring minorities at a rate in step with others, you wouldn't "HAVE" to do anything. But you couldn't, could ya? Cry some more.

Re:For those unfamiliar with California law

[Anonymous Coward]

>The people being treated with antidepressants are mostly suffering from clinical depression, which is caused by chemical imbalances in the brain.

That's one of those things I hear people say a lot, but for which I've never actually seen any evidence.

Re:For those unfamiliar with California law

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.uscis.gov/e-verify says you are full of shit.

Do you eVerify everyone?

If not then you are lying about the ability to check the workers status. Unfortunately the law only gives the tool, it does not mandate it's usage.

FTFY...

[The Grim Reefer]

The employees that had been affected by Apple's original break policy could get as much as $20 each from Friday's settlement, according to reality, "but it's likely most of the money will go toward attorney fees."

FTFY

Re:FTFY...

[Uberbah]

The employees that had been affected by Apple's original break policy could get as much as $20 each from Friday's settlement, according to reality, "but it's likely most of the money will go toward attorney fees."

FTFY

So? People are always free to hire their own lawyers, at their own risk and on their own dime, to file their own lawsuit. As opposed to having to do nothing whatsoever to gain some compensation from the company that wronged you, while punishing the guilty party.

The alternatives are:

1) Consumers and workers take it up the ass. Even if a few successfully file their own lawsuits, the pain to the company is insignificant and therefore does nothing to force a change in business practices, much less provide compensation to the many.

2) You want to quadruple the budget of every local or federal prosecutor, giving them the means and the authority to go after companies with the brass knuckles, so more money ends up back in the hands of those affected.

But the sort of people who complain about lawwwwyers making some mooooney are likely to be the sort that also complain about "big government", leaving people with the first choice. Almost like it was on purpose.

Re:FTFY...

[silentcoder]

Except that 2 million is no punishment at all for Apple. And in fact...
52 weeks a year * 6 days a week (Assuming Apple's retail workers get at least one day a week off) = 312 days a year.
2007 - 2012 = 5 years
5 * 312 = 1560 days without lunches.
Current California minimum wage is 10 dollars an hour, but it was 9 dollars for the period in question.
30 minutes is half an hour so call it $4.50. Of course we KNOW that what they pay is LESS than the worker's time is worth to THEM - that's how profit works, but lets be ultra conservative and use the $4.50 as if that was the value of the lunch break (considering the breaks are unpaid it's seriously generous not to use the likely value of about 30 dollars).

So if we assume that work days were not so long as to require two breaks under the law (again - being hugely generous to apple since the evidence suggests otherwise).
That 1560 * 4.5 dollars saved per employee.
21 000 employees.
21000 * 1560 * 4.5 = $147420000.0

Just shy of 150 million dollars..
They made, at the bare minimum using every assumption in their favor) just shy of 150 million dollars by breaking the law - and we "punish" them by making them give 2 million dollars back.

Re:FTFY...

[The Grim Reefer]

But the sort of people who complain about lawwwwyers making some mooooney

I have no problem with lawyers making some money. The problem I have is with ridiculous amount of money they tend to make. In cases of class action suits like this, they will settle for pennies on the dollar and then end up with 80 to 90% of the settlement. It's a great deal of the lawyer and the company being sued, not so much for those that got screwed. I mean the plaintiff

Perhaps people would be more likely to retain their own lawyer in these cases if the way the billing is done wasn't such a scam too. When they bill out at $300/ hour and the lowest billable increment is half an hour, it's fucking insane that a 30 second phone call gets billed at $150.

Re:FTFY...

[stealth_finger]

They made, at the bare minimum using every assumption in their favor) just shy of 150 million dollars by breaking the law - and we "punish" them by making them give 2 million dollars back.

Yep. You really do have to hand it to them, they've set up an excellent system

Re:FTFY...

[Uberbah]

I have no problem with lawyers making some money. The problem I have is with ridiculous amount of money they tend to make. In cases of class action suits like this, they will settle for pennies on the dollar and then end up with 80 to 90% of the settlement. It's a great deal of the lawyer and the company being sued, not so much for those that got screwed. I mean the plaintiff

That's just repeating the corporatist propaganda I just debunked. You are always free to hire your own damn lawyer and file your own damn suit on your own damn dollar (or a hundred thousand of them).

If you were working on contingency, and had to spend thousands to tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees, plus hiring expert witnesses & a small army of staff to peruse mountains of documents who need to get paid whether you win or lose....how much would you want to get from a settlement?

But that's not even the most willfully obtuse part of the whole deal: being more upset that some lawyers are making some money than a corporation getting away with screwing people over. If you get screwed over by a company, would you want them to keep every last cent, or if nothing else take it from them and burn it in the street?

Re:FTFY...

[Uberbah]

Except that 2 million is no punishment at all for Apple.

Except the point wasn't that 2 million is going to hurt Apple in this case, the point is that people have been willfully propagandized to hate lawyers and class action lawsuits far more than companies ripping off employees and/or customers, or worse.

Re:FTFY...

[silentcoder]

Oh I know, but you're explaining cause while I was examining the severity of the effect.

The *real* story of the McDonald's coffee cup is the story of a little old lady who ended up with third degree burns over half her body, very nearly died and was permanently disabled by a company's decision to serve their coffee at far above boiling point (effectively as a superheated and therefore explosive liquid). It's also the story of a lady who never asked to profit - she just asked McDonalds to help pay the 20-thousand dollar copay for her medical bills.

Mcdonalds - after months of stalling... sent her 700 dollars. Only then did she sue - for 20-thousand. It was the jury who decided to punish the hell out of McDonalds by giving her a million in punitive damages on top. And that got McDonalds to stop selling cups of explosive liquid that could seriously injure people (she was not the first person who ended up in hospital with life-threatening injuries from that practise).

They also embarked of a massive propaganda campaign to discredit her (by any reasonable measure she's a hero whose actions have saved lives) as a greedy symbol of a (non-existent) culture of frivolous lawsuits. We're still living with the results of how sadly successful that campaign was. It's much the same as the Trump phenomenon. If you make a lie sound juicy enough - nobody will bother to find out the truth, and even if they do, they would still rather believe the lie.

How much!?!?

[Afty0r]

The employees ... could get as much as $95 each

How on earth can it be so little? Let's say you worked there 5 days a week for one year, and you were denied a 30 minute lunch break on every shift. That would be around 130 hours of your time... or $1300 per employee per year... how does that become $95? If the practices were in place for 5 years, that could be $7500 for a full time worker who was there the whole time.

Re:How much!?!?

[Afty0r]

Ooops $6500

Re:How much!?!?

[Kohath]

Because it's more like "shit happened and I missed my lunch break 3 times in 2016".

Re:How much!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you never seen "justice math" or "MAFIAA math" before? Their result is the maximum harm to the regular people, the servants if you will.

Re:How much!?!?

[TechyImmigrant]

Is the lunch break required to be a paid break?

Re:How much!?!?

[whoever57]

How on earth can it be so little? Let's say you worked there 5 days a week for one year, and you were denied a 30 minute lunch break on every shift. That would be around 130 hours of your time... or $1300 per employee per year... how does that become $95?

Because the lawyers decided that it wasn't worth their time to negotiate for more. The injured parties (the employees) did not factor into the decision.

Re:How much!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

They breaks they didn't get were the unpaid ones.

Re:How much!?!?

[laurencetux]

the way it works on a mandated meal break is it is not paid

BUT you are required by law to not work during same

another fun factiod if you are required to be there and waiting for work YOU MUST BE PAID so if the power goes out and or the computers crash you must be paid until you are formally told to go home (so if it takes 3 hours for the manager to call a shutdown you get paid for that time)

Re:How much!?!?

[Bite The Pillow]

Any affected party can separate from the class action and sue separately, if they feel it is unfair.

But really, lots of employees worked without breaks for years, and didn't take it to someone to enforce. They were part of the problem. They worried about losing their jobs, and didn't take action, letting it happen to themselves and others.

Is it fair to give everyone who was an accomplice, their actual dollar amount as calculated? The only real victim is the representative who participated on behalf of the class. Everyone else is an accomplice. This is not always true of class action, but in employment suits it usually is.

They can take their pay stubs and try to recall which days they were shorted, and provide witnesses or other corroboration for each one, because they failed to take notes.

They may end up with $1000 for six weeks of work. As always, innocent until proven guilty applies to business too, and you can't just point to a class action result and a calculator, and get paid.

Re:How much!?!?

[Solandri]

Lunch breaks are unpaid. This is a fine for not giving employees an unpaid lunch break as mandated by law. Not compensation for failure to pay them for time worked.

Re:How much!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

How on earth can it be so little?

This sounds about right. Four employees, each will get $95. All the rest of the millions will go to the lawyers.

Re:How much!?!?

[dirk]

Except any employer with hourly employees tracks their time. To be able to pay these employees, they have to know when they started and stopped work. So Apple should be able to look at those logs and see who worked 8 hours without a lunch break. Simply force them to turn over the logs and then the court can work it out.

Re:How much!?!?

[Osgeld]

it has nothing to do with the employees, it has everything to do with the used car salesman / part time lawyer that talked them into such a pointless thing as a class action lawsuit

Re:How much!?!?

[Imrik]

I would be surprised if they didn't have the time officially listed as an unpaid break. If that is the case, they should also get paid for the time they worked.

Re: How much!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure you are not an executive/manager at an Apple Store? Because you are all up and down this thread condoning this behavior.

They broke the law. Made it hard for people to take lunch and even penalized them for it. They also didn't pay people properly. If you have no problem with that then you are either A) a paid shill B) a troll.

Re:How much!?!?

[No Longer an AC]

the computers crash you must be paid until you are formally told to go home (so if it takes 3 hours for the manager to call a shutdown you get paid for that time)

In a past life when I supported software at distribution centers I'd sometimes get a call with some guy screaming at me that he's got a warehouse full of union workers sitting around being paid to do nothing because the system was down.

I had one guy tell me to call him every 10 minutes with a status update. This was in the days of pagers and dial-up modems. I just rolled my eyes and told him I would. How was I going to diagnose and fix his problem if I'm calling him every 10 minutes? Fortunately for me, it didn't even take 10 minutes to fix.

The difference in his tone of voice between the first time I called him and the 2nd time when I told him it was fixed was quite remarkable.

Re:How much!?!?

[__aaclcg7560]

The difference in his tone of voice between the first time I called him and the 2nd time when I told him it was fixed was quite remarkable.

When I was working IT help desk at a Fortune 500 company, a woman screamed in my ear for ten minutes about how no one could fix her problem with the IE6 intranet sites being broken every month. I quietly remoted into her workstation, rolled back the monthly auto-update for Adobe Flash, and told her that it was fixed after she stopped screaming. She was so astonished that she no longer had a problem that she called everyone in management to praise me.

Re:How much!?!?

[TheFakeTimCook]

The employees ... could get as much as $95 each

How on earth can it be so little? Let's say you worked there 5 days a week for one year, and you were denied a 30 minute lunch break on every shift. That would be around 130 hours of your time... or $1300 per employee per year... how does that become $95? If the practices were in place for 5 years, that could be $7500 for a full time worker who was there the whole time.

Here's how.

Generally, Hourly employees are required to "clock out" during lunch breaks, and some employers even require employees to Clock Out during short breaks as well. This is pretty much universally accepted as legal (and customary) everywhere in the U.S.

So, while state law may have mandated the BREAKS, it almost assuredly did NOT mandate that they be PAID breaks.

This means that the employees were actually earning MORE than they would have if they HAD been taking their (unpaid) breaks.

So, since Civil suits are based in "making you whole", which generally is restricted to either " injunctive relief" (making the other side stop doing something); and/or "monetary damages" (making the other side give you money that their actions wrongly cost you), the "Plaintiffs" likely didn't have much (or maybe even no) "money" case at all.

So, the money award likely just represents a negotiated settlement where Apple essentially told the court "our bad"; but, since the "Plaintiffs" (Complainants) really weren't deprived of any MONEY (in fact, the opposite), unless the state law had some sort of monetary penalties built-in, they really weren't due ANY MONETARY "relief" AT ALL, sorry!

Re:How much!?!?

[TheFakeTimCook]

Except any employer with hourly employees tracks their time. To be able to pay these employees, they have to know when they started and stopped work. So Apple should be able to look at those logs and see who worked 8 hours without a lunch break. Simply force them to turn over the logs and then the court can work it out.

Work WHAT out?

Unless Apple automatically clocked them out during the times of their "missed" breaks, (which WOULD be illegal, let alone tortious, under pretty much all state laws), THERE IS NO LOSS.

Re:How much!?!?

[TheFakeTimCook]

Lunch breaks are unpaid. This is a fine for not giving employees an unpaid lunch break as mandated by law. Not compensation for failure to pay them for time worked.

Precisely.

Re:How much!?!?

[TheFakeTimCook]

I would be surprised if they didn't have the time officially listed as an unpaid break. If that is the case, they should also get paid for the time they worked.

Then be prepared to be surprised; because if Apple had done that, this would be a CRIMINAL case.

Re:How much!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is I know of at least one company where the employees of a couple departments clock in-out "on time" and clock out for their lunch and after 8 hrs but still continue to work. One department has ~10 employees that work an average of 2 hrs daily without getting properly paid for it. They don't dare complain or refuse because the manager will find ways to replace them quickly (supposedly it has happened several times)

Re:How much!?!?

[Bite The Pillow]

Anyone who starts a suggestion with "Simply" automatically does not understand the legal system. If it were simple, everyone would have done it, and no class action needed.

You worked 30 hours, how was that divided that particular week? How many days were you owed a lunch break? No way to prove it without discovery. How do you initiate discovery? I guess it is quite simple.

Good luck with your legal career, you'll need it.

Re:How much!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

What sick twisted reasoning you use calling employees accomplices in their own diminishment. I suppose you would refuse to consider a person a victim of rape if she didn't fight hard enough. An employer can consider an employee insubordinate if that employee refuses to perform duties as directed. It is the employer's responsibility to comply with laws when providing that direction. The same goes for safety. In both cases be it safety or work hours it is the employer's responsibility to know the law and comply with the law. Employees only have to comply with the employer's direction. This is of course sensible as there are different choices in how to properly comply with such laws and the employer gets to choose what is best for them. Some employees taking paid 20minutes, others taking unpaid 30 at the employee's whim as to when? That would be disorderly and impossible to manage. So it is the employer's choice and employer's responsibility in total.The employer is also expected to have the resources to ascertain the law. It would be absurd and inefficient to expect each individual employee to provide the resources to have his own HR and safety departments. Your assertion is false. It would only be true if an employee refused to take a break when directed and the employer allowed it. Only then would they be accomplices..

Another bizarre notion you have is that an employer would be able to recall or provide witnesses to recollect whether breaks were taken. Simply put..NO. The employer is required by law to maintain a record using standard practice. No dog and pony reconstruction is acceptable to the courts where the court is following precedent. The same is true for any other situation where someone accused of wrongdoing has clearly not met legal requirements for documentation. Courts do not entertain notions that someone overtly and blatantly disregarding the law should be able to use compromised and questionable means when robust and required means were illegally neglected.

In civil cases there is no innocence or guilt so there is no assumption of innocence. One party walks into court unable to present legally required documentation? They are then PROVEN to have been irresponsible. Preponderance of evidence is the rule and blatant neglect to maintain the very documentation legally required to ascertain such facts is the strongest evidence of culpability there is. They will likely have any other evidence denied on the strength of that proof of negligence. In the Frischs case the judge denied video evidence showing employees taking breaks, instead preferring the evidence that Frischs did not have the legally required time card record. If God himself walked into court and and wished to provide testimony to assert a fact where he had blatantly disregarded the legal requirement to document that fact, the court would tell him to get bent. Again, why would a judge want to get into that soup where he would have to evaluate the reliability of memory and witness testimony when it is already factually evident that a party had disregarded the very law that is specifically in place to avoid such nonsense?

Re: How much!?!?

[stealth_finger]

Are you sure you are not an executive/manager at an Apple Store? Because you are all up and down this thread condoning this behavior.

They broke the law. Made it hard for people to take lunch and even penalized them for it. They also didn't pay people properly. If you have no problem with that then you are either A) a paid shill B) a troll.

From a different post he seems to be an employer. What's good for the goose and all that.

How DARE they

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

The nerve of those workers wanting to eat meals!

What will they demand next, bathroom breaks? Clean air? Properly grounded equipment?

Please, Mein Fuhrer Trump, put an end to this anti-capitialist craziness!

Re:How DARE they

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny you saw that because he's said before he wants to turn the Republican party into a worker's party. He supports paid maternity leave and a higher minimum wage (not as a high as Bernie, though).

After all, H1-Bs and illegal immigrants undercut the wages of domestic American workers.

Re:How DARE they

[Anonymous Coward]

I thank Trump for at least having the courage to take the mask off and not even pretend to be a civil rights hating pro-corporate fascist. What most enrages me is that lack of outrage by the people -- mere gripes and whines, but we all know no one will do a damned thing. US Citizens lost their freedoms years ago -- all Trump is doing is not bothering to even present a facade.

And that what gives me the most anger of all -- seeing quite clearly that when push comes to shove, the average US citizen couldn't care two shits about "liberties" and "freedoms"

I honestly think I need to leave this nation before I'm put into a camp

Re:How DARE they

[No Longer an AC]

What will they demand next, bathroom breaks?

I don't know how true this is, but that has been alleged:

No relief for poultry workers

Oxfam interviewed dozens of Tyson workers across six states, almost all of whom reported being denied bathroom breaks outright or having to wait an unreasonably long time to use the bathroom—up to an hour or more. Hanson, a worker at a Tyson plant in Arkansas, had the uncomfortable experience of seeing his own mother urinate on the line; she now wears diapers to work to avoid it happening again. Tyson workers also report being fined if they are late returning from the bathroom. Jean, a worker from a Tyson Foods plant in Virginia, says, “You go to the bathroom one minute late, they have you disciplined. The supervisor will have you sign a discipline paper I don’t drink any water so I won’t have to go.”

Re:How DARE they

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

"You go to the bathroom one minute late, they have you disciplined. The supervisor will have you sign a discipline paper I don't drink any water so I won't have to go."

It's a testament to these worker's self-control that the supervisors don't mysteriously disappear never to be seen again, get knifed in the plant with no witnesses to the crime, or end up falling into the processing vats "by accident". A few such incidents would probably make a world of difference in the working conditions.

I am, of course, in no way advocating for such things, just making an observation.

Re:How DARE they

[unixisc]

How will they be geniuses if they are not starved? We all know that the secret to human greatness is starvation: it's when people have been starved that they brought out the greatness in them

Re:How DARE they

[Anonymous Coward]

Respecting my "Xie" pronouns are FAR more important than your break, shitlord!

Re:How DARE they

[stealth_finger]

Or in this case somehow managed to get pecked to death by chickens.

Re:How DARE they

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

It's funny you saw that because he's said before he wants to turn the Republican party into a worker's party.

Yeah, sure he does. And there are elephants living on the Abyssal Plain.

Do people like working at Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google employees always tell you where they work 30 seconds into meeting for the first time. Don't know if it's the same for Apple employees...

Re:Do people like working at Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know if a guy at a party is a pilot? Don't worry, he'll tell you.

Re: Do people like working at Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

Over the years on the Internet, I've come across at least 3 people who have worked there and expressed their love of working with fine colleagues but never say anything good about working there or elude to not wanting to get into specifics of why they left apple.

I do however know people who worked at Google and they've never complained about working conditions or benefits, just inexperienced management.

Re:Do people like working at Apple?

[stealth_finger]

Google employees always tell you where they work 30 seconds into meeting for the first time. Don't know if it's the same for Apple employees...

If they're anything like their customers then 30 seconds seems like a long time for them.

Why do we endure this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we that defeated that we have no recourse but to accept a paltry $95 check after being blatantly abused by a Corporation? Every week we see some $100,000,000+ "settlement" from a Fortune 500 Company after bringing in BILLIONS of illegal profits by defrauding it's costumers or committing grievous violations of environmental, finance and labor laws to skirt costs -- all while they threaten to leave the country unless we lower the record low taxes we already imposed that many have found ways not to pay.

When will we finally have enough of these flagrant abuses? When will we have enough of the rich capitalists abusing us with the clear and stated intent to take more wealth away from us for themselves while also depriving us of our basic rights? When will we get sick of struggling within a system that allows the wealthy to openly and blatantly violate the law and a government that refuses to protect the lower classes from the wealthy elite?

Or are we ok with this as long as we have shiny gadgets and a steady paycheck? Is that the trade you are willing to accept in return for our freedom?
Are you satisfied with that? I know I'm not and I don't accept that trade, why do you?

the money will go toward attorney fees

[Anonymous Coward]

of course it will. The ONLY people that come out in these things are the attorneys.. on BOTH sides.

Dominos

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked 8-12 hour shifts at Domino's before and its there policy not to give anyone any breaks at any time. I asked for a break and manager said I get breaks all the time while i am driving.

Re:Dominos

[ledow]

Your manager's a cock and breaking the law, in almost any first-world country (and the US).

You sit down for a break, stick to your allowed time, wait for them to complain. If they sack you (a distinct possibility), you can take them to court quite easily.

The problem is that people are SO scared of losing their job that they won't ever question it, as it sounds like you haven't, and they get away with it.

What gets me more is "One of the largest companies in the world thinks that they can't afford to give you your statutory legal breaks". If that doesn't say "Don't ever touch that company", I don't know what does.

Re:Dominos

[Anonymous Coward]

And just what do you get from the court? Not even lawyer fees are paid. Likely less money than just the hourly compensation. No money to compensate for loss of job. No money as a punitive assessment against the employer. Financial ruin and branded as a fool. It is abusive to scold employees for not taking this path.

Doesn't matter

[uvajed_ekil]

So what. Do you really think Apple cares about a measly $2 million fine? That's not even a slap on the wrist to them. They may be more careful about compliance since the next fine would be bigger, but they could simply shrug this off as part of the cost of doing business - a very minor part.

And those lucky ones who had a meal break...

[LordHighExecutioner]

...are filing a suit because they were offered meals made only with apples!!!

Keyboard finger jumble

[DrYak]

Yeah, sorry, I mistyped "beark"...

huh... "breka"....

no... "braek"...

Re:Keyboard finger jumble

[TechyImmigrant]

Yeah, sorry, I mistyped "beark"...

huh... "breka"....

no... "braek"...

Calm down, take a beak and then you will be able to spell berke properly

Re:Took away

[hackwrench]

Then what in your estimable opinion did happen and can you back it up with... evidence?

Junk food AND snacking

[DrYak]

They bring their own snack food or hit the vending machine. Or they gorge themselves before or after work.

In addition to the junk food (snacks and industrial), there is direct effect due to the *fast eating* (insuline peak, blablabla....) disruption of daily rythm...
which can also contribute to the increased chronic stress (increased corticosteroids, etc.) which also has a bad long term effect on health.

TL;DR: the junk food itself isn't the only cause of obesity, the overstress is also a major one.

Class Action Lawsuits are shams

[Draconis183]

Only ones that make out in all these "class action" cases are the lawyers. And for companies, a lot of times it's legalized extortion.

Reminds me of something

[bigdavex]

For what they done? Skinny get's some ponies, and that's it?
That ain't fair, Little Bill. That ain't fair!

-Alice, Unforgiven

Result to the worker

[buss_error]

Settlement: -95.00
Copying fee: 25.00
Filing fee: 34.35
paralegal recovery: $85.00
attorney recovery; $450.00
Government recovery fee: $104.00

Balance Due immediately $505.35
Remit within 2 days.

Re:Took away

[Kohath]

http://www.mercurynews.com/201...

Re: Took away

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you even read the article you linked? It says right in it that Apple made it extremely hard to take a lunch break. They might not have taken them away per se, but they took them away by making it harder AND not paying the employees properly. Basically they did sneaky shit to try and maximize work and said fuck employee safety and health.

They broke a California law. Period.

LOL

[DrYak]

That was funny : I'm laughing so loud, I'm going to berk a rib.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear it's pronounced "bork" in Sweden.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: Took away

[Kohath]

Yes. It says lunches were late. And some complaining about scheduling difficulties. And some guys got a final paycheck a little late. Not exactly earth shattering.

Re: Took away

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not going to read the article. I'mean going to assume what you said is true. And if it is than yeah, it's pretty earth shattering. Apple goes out of its way to not use chemicals most people don't know about isn't taking the time to ensure their employees get breaks? The local store managers up to Cook aught to pay that fine out of their own pockets.

Re: Took away

[Kohath]

I feel bad for you if you think getting exactly the right number of minutes for lunch at exactly the right time is what life is about.

some of the momey to attorneys?

[Anonymous Coward]

are class actions contingency or hpurly based. my personal injury case was 1/3 on contingency. i cant see attorneys going down easy on the multimillion dollar verdict potential of class actions. are there cost plus fee schedules?

Re: Took away

[fferreres]

Why can't they oay on time? Also judge ruled something tiny just as a way to say "pay attention" and patting it in the back.

iphones lost

[Anonymous Coward]

well.... when the prototype iPhone gets lost when an apple employee takes it with them during a lunch break you can understand their concerns.

Re: Took away

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off, shill. You don't even see macs4all defending this shit.

Those who had their right violated

[Anonymous Coward]

By Apple or have no job actually get nothing. The world we live in is so ugly for a few cents can we be anything other than doomed?

Never go class action

[kuzb]

Bsically, each worker wronged is entitled to about $50 - $90 while the lawyer laughs all the way to the bank. Class action lawsuits are pathetic.

What a completely

[Anonymous Coward]

disgusting company apple is.

Re: Took away

[Anonymous Coward]

What chemicals are you talking about?

Most companies banned toxins years before that Apl started using early in production... Then got patted on the back for it. Can you tell me what they're doing that others haven't already done?

Was thinking Android now it has to be.

[Anonymous Coward]

I cant reward treating workers bad eventually it makes others treat me badly if I do.

Re: Took away

[Maritz]

Yes. It says lunches were a little late. And some complaining about scheduling difficulties. And some guys got a final paycheck a little late. Not exactly earth shattering.

FTFY. Your mask slipped a second there. Don't you mean a "little" late? Don't just say "late" - that makes it sound that the employer wasn't perfectly angelic.

labor board?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where the fuck is some government labor board to step in after ONE complaint?

If this happened in Canada, I'd print off the law from the government website and allow the employer to get their shit together.

If they said fuck you, I'd make a call to the labour board and file a complaint (and keep calling them until rectified). Then they'd have to take immediate action or they'd be fighting the government.

Where's all this over regulation I keep hearing about?

Re: Took away

[LunaticTippy]

I feel bad for you if you think defending the richest company on earth from charges of stiffing its hardworking employees is a worthwhile endeavor.