Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
596 other People opt in Class Action Suite against Apple.
- Thread starter The Reverend
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Indeed.
I have to wonder how many of the 597 people involved in this will ever have a vertical career path.
I worked in a call center years ago. You would be lucky to get 50% of them to do 4hrs work everyday.
Lets see, login to Computer-coffee break-seat down read mail-check Ebay for 30mins-login to phone-take a call-logout for break. You see a pattern here.
Now they worked 3hrs over in a week. They didn't get paid for it. Well hell no you didn't you owe me 25hrs of work.
Lets see, login to Computer-coffee break-seat down read mail-check Ebay for 30mins-login to phone-take a call-logout for break. You see a pattern here.
Now they worked 3hrs over in a week. They didn't get paid for it. Well hell no you didn't you owe me 25hrs of work.
I don't believe it! (UK joke...)
I was going to make the same point. Do the people there have to log out whenever they talk about football, or their wife/husband/partner/children/dog, or anything non work-related to a colleague during their shift? Or to go to the toilet? Or to get a coffee? Or to pick their nose? Or between the calls that they're supposed to be taking?
I ran a call centre, and we didn't expect more than around 70-75% useful time out of anyone - but that's the same in any work environment.
And it sounds as if the OP is wanting Apple punished, rather than fair pay for the individuals - keeping on quoting that it's 597 people, and that they'll be fined. The case SHOULD be about the individual who claims that they've been paid a few dollars a year less because they've had to log on to their machine a few seconds before their shift starts. And when you calculate how much it could possibly benefit them by, it's ridiculous. Say it's 5 minutes per day. Say it's $15 an hour (I've no idea...). That must be all of a dollar a day after tax and stuff. That's $250 a year, based on a salary of $30,000. That's equivalent to a pay rise of 0.8%. Worth the years of hassle? And the likelihood that no-one's ever going to employ you again?
Free speech is fine, as is the ability to use whatever stupid laws the government makes for your own gain, but I'm SO glad that I'm in the UK where we don't have lawyers on every street corner taking on the most far-fetched cases in the hope of some free publicity because they're going up against a big, successful, popular company.
What a waste of time, effort, money (and that's just the 15 minutes that I've spent wondering why on earth I feel strongly enough about this petty little case to post!).
Maybe I should take on the English government for failing to ensure that all men practice archery for 2 hours a day... Anyone want to join me in a class action, claiming that it's endangering our national security?
Tiptopp
I worked in a call center years ago. You would be lucky to get 50% of them to do 4hrs work everyday.
Lets see, login to Computer-coffee break-seat down read mail-check Ebay for 30mins-login to phone-take a call-logout for break. You see a pattern here.
Now they worked 3hrs over in a week. They didn't get paid for it. Well hell no you didn't you owe me 25hrs of work.
I was going to make the same point. Do the people there have to log out whenever they talk about football, or their wife/husband/partner/children/dog, or anything non work-related to a colleague during their shift? Or to go to the toilet? Or to get a coffee? Or to pick their nose? Or between the calls that they're supposed to be taking?
I ran a call centre, and we didn't expect more than around 70-75% useful time out of anyone - but that's the same in any work environment.
And it sounds as if the OP is wanting Apple punished, rather than fair pay for the individuals - keeping on quoting that it's 597 people, and that they'll be fined. The case SHOULD be about the individual who claims that they've been paid a few dollars a year less because they've had to log on to their machine a few seconds before their shift starts. And when you calculate how much it could possibly benefit them by, it's ridiculous. Say it's 5 minutes per day. Say it's $15 an hour (I've no idea...). That must be all of a dollar a day after tax and stuff. That's $250 a year, based on a salary of $30,000. That's equivalent to a pay rise of 0.8%. Worth the years of hassle? And the likelihood that no-one's ever going to employ you again?
Free speech is fine, as is the ability to use whatever stupid laws the government makes for your own gain, but I'm SO glad that I'm in the UK where we don't have lawyers on every street corner taking on the most far-fetched cases in the hope of some free publicity because they're going up against a big, successful, popular company.
What a waste of time, effort, money (and that's just the 15 minutes that I've spent wondering why on earth I feel strongly enough about this petty little case to post!).
Maybe I should take on the English government for failing to ensure that all men practice archery for 2 hours a day... Anyone want to join me in a class action, claiming that it's endangering our national security?
Tiptopp
And it sounds as if the OP is wanting Apple punished, rather than fair pay for the individuals - keeping on quoting that it's 597 people, and that they'll be fined. The case SHOULD be about the individual who claims that they've been paid a few dollars a year less because they've had to log on to their machine a few seconds before their shift starts. And when you calculate how much it could possibly benefit them by, it's ridiculous. Say it's 5 minutes per day. Say it's $15 an hour (I've no idea...). That must be all of a dollar a day after tax and stuff. That's $250 a year, based on a salary of $30,000. That's equivalent to a pay rise of 0.8%. Worth the years of hassle? And the likelihood that no-one's ever going to employ you again?
Tiptopp[/QUOTE]
Even $250 X 597 people X for a 1 year is against the law, even for 1 day for 1 person. But this is over a 4 year period, and perhaps longer.
And that Apple should not be fined for breaking California law if they are guilty? Why should Apple get away with it. The Law is the Law.
I think Apple knew they had this behavior. I think they did nothing about it until the this Case. I think they may have even fostered by pushing their employees into every corner.
Apple Should have had this figured out back in the 90's. When they took over all the call centers that were done by 3rd party contractors. They knew how to mange time then.
Here are some of the links found by searching google, you have to use Quote marks like this is the search " Miles Maria VS Apple"
http://www.saccourt.com/courtrooms/trulings/d54archives/D54-2007-0813-0900.pdf
http://www.saccourt.ca.gov/courtrooms/trulings/d53archives/D53-20080827-0200-CCMS.pdf
Tiptopp[/QUOTE]
Even $250 X 597 people X for a 1 year is against the law, even for 1 day for 1 person. But this is over a 4 year period, and perhaps longer.
And that Apple should not be fined for breaking California law if they are guilty? Why should Apple get away with it. The Law is the Law.
I think Apple knew they had this behavior. I think they did nothing about it until the this Case. I think they may have even fostered by pushing their employees into every corner.
Apple Should have had this figured out back in the 90's. When they took over all the call centers that were done by 3rd party contractors. They knew how to mange time then.
Here are some of the links found by searching google, you have to use Quote marks like this is the search " Miles Maria VS Apple"
http://www.saccourt.com/courtrooms/trulings/d54archives/D54-2007-0813-0900.pdf
http://www.saccourt.ca.gov/courtrooms/trulings/d53archives/D53-20080827-0200-CCMS.pdf
The law in the UK is that lorries drive at no more than 40mph on single-carriageway A roads. But it's a silly law, and the police choose to ignore it because, if they enforced it, there'd be more accidents (with car-drivers constantly trying to overtake them) and uproar. One company (Tescos) ensures that their drivers stick to the limit and, because I drive for 3.5 hours a day on single carriageway A roads and get stuck behind their damn lorries, I don't shop there unless I have to, because I think they're being silly.
And why can't you address the questions about what people are being paid to do at their desks? Coffee? Chat? Toilet breaks? Are you happy that employees should do all of this in their own time? They'd be at their desks a good hour longer each day if they clocked off for it... And have any employees ever used company property for personal use? Like writing a note on company paper with a company pen to buy milk on their way home? Or Googling something non work-related? Do they pay Apple back for that? Surely there's some give and take here? Just because Apple make a profit, it doesn't mean that they should do all the giving, with the employee doing all the taking, does it?
You're p****d off at Apple for some reason and want to punish them. Leave, move on, get a life, and other mildly insulting phrases that suggest that this is silly...
Tiptopp
p.s. Isn't 'silly' a great word?
An NDA is a legal document. Just had to point it out..
Anyhoo.. I'm done with this thread. It's obvious the OP joined an otherwise friendly and generally helpful forum just to showboat a personal indignation. To him I'd recommend spending some time being helpful before trying to rally his cause. Get to know the forum - you'll like once you do.
peace out.
word* not work...not to be the grammar police
---
OP: so are you an ex-employee or a current employee?
Apple has been known to do some pretty 'unethical' things to employees, both in the USA and overseas; in particular China.
Corporate giants walking on the backs of the little people.
Thank you everyone for posting.
I would like to focus this thread.
This may seem like an attack on Apple directly, but it is not.
This case is an example of what big corporations can get away with at the expenses of the employees.
This case is not so much about money. Or even how much money!
It's about the laws in Labor and Business Laws in California, USA.
I would state that this case seems more a matter of "corporate giants walking on the backs of the little people" for profit.
Apple could have had the ability to mange it's employees time since 1990's , when they took over all the call centers nation wide.
They had team mangers then, that could use the log-in phone system to rate support agents call times down to the second.
If an agent went beyond the target goal of lets say, perhaps 15 minutes and 30 seconds.. that agent would have a price to pay.
At first, Apple would try and train the agent more. Then they would write the agent up and threaten them that they may lose their job. Then they'll bring up the agents lack of ability at meetings by comparing the agent to other agent in public.
This is not to mention that those agents with the lowest call times got rewarded with the best work shift chooses. The pressure was over the top to get short calls and the give as much as possible to get ready to take calls. The pressure was so
It is possible that Apple created an atmosphere of pressure to perform or loss your job, even if an agent had to prepare the computer , headset, and whatever off the clock to take calls at the moment you were scheduled to start.
It was possible for Apple in the 1990s to create a login script that insured that all computers powered on before the employees had to login to the phone to start taking calls. But they didn't.
Apple rated every agents called to the second. If you took a short break, to bad you take more calls. If you login late, your report is flagged for review.
The only way I can see to ever login on time it would seem and take a call when an agent was scheduled to start.
Was to have the computer on, head set on, logged into the computer; logged into the data base,and launch all required applications. Then an agent could go to the phone and login so they could take calls.
Apple mangers knew all of this was happening I believe. They trained agents on how to get ready to take calls.
Yes sure, Volt used to do all the training back in the late 90's and early 2000's. But it was only last year that Apple changed there internal policies for agents logins and computer setups.
Apple may even have done this by accident. it could have been a select group of early managers that created an aura that just carried untill last year.
The real point is that Apple should have had the ability to NOT let this happen. It's not like they didn't have system in place that could handle it.
It just appears that they looked the other way and took advantage of the agents.
It was wrong I say. Apple should have known. Or they did know and got caught.
Either way, 596 Apple employees beside Miles Maria, believes that they may have been taken advantage of.
So my point is. Apple should not be allowed to bypass the laws of California.
These were the complaints for damages and injunctive relief as stated in the Class Action documents.
(1) FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES;
(2) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 203;
(3) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 226;
(4) UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (Violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200 et seq.).
If anyone is looking for more legal help with understand this case please contact.
PETER M. HART, Esq. (California Bar No. 198691)
LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART
Telephone: (310) 478-5789
He is the lawyer on the Class Action document.
If you just want to talk about why Corporations think they can get away with breaking the law. Then post more here.
Apple is just the possible example of the corporate giant and the 597 people in that case, are just the little people.
I say, That if Apple can hold it's employes to the second for their labors, then the State of California Labor laws can hold them responsible for what they do with it.
Please read the first threat if you have not yet.
Thank you everyone for posting.
I would like to focus this thread.
This may seem like an attack on Apple directly, but it is not.
This case is an example of what big corporations can get away with at the expenses of the employees.
This case is not so much about money. Or even how much money!
It's about the laws in Labor and Business Laws in California, USA.
I would state that this case seems more a matter of "corporate giants walking on the backs of the little people" for profit.
Apple could have had the ability to mange it's employees time since 1990's , when they took over all the call centers nation wide.
They had team mangers then, that could use the log-in phone system to rate support agents call times down to the second.
If an agent went beyond the target goal of lets say, perhaps 15 minutes and 30 seconds.. that agent would have a price to pay.
At first, Apple would try and train the agent more. Then they would write the agent up and threaten them that they may lose their job. Then they'll bring up the agents lack of ability at meetings by comparing the agent to other agent in public.
This is not to mention that those agents with the lowest call times got rewarded with the best work shift chooses. The pressure was over the top to get short calls and the give as much as possible to get ready to take calls. The pressure was so
It is possible that Apple created an atmosphere of pressure to perform or loss your job, even if an agent had to prepare the computer , headset, and whatever off the clock to take calls at the moment you were scheduled to start.
It was possible for Apple in the 1990s to create a login script that insured that all computers powered on before the employees had to login to the phone to start taking calls. But they didn't.
Apple rated every agents called to the second. If you took a short break, to bad you take more calls. If you login late, your report is flagged for review.
The only way I can see to ever login on time it would seem and take a call when an agent was scheduled to start.
Was to have the computer on, head set on, logged into the computer; logged into the data base,and launch all required applications. Then an agent could go to the phone and login so they could take calls.
Apple mangers knew all of this was happening I believe. They trained agents on how to get ready to take calls.
Yes sure, Volt used to do all the training back in the late 90's and early 2000's. But it was only last year that Apple changed there internal policies for agents logins and computer setups.
Apple may even have done this by accident. it could have been a select group of early managers that created an aura that just carried untill last year.
The real point is that Apple should have had the ability to NOT let this happen. It's not like they didn't have system in place that could handle it.
It just appears that they looked the other way and took advantage of the agents.
It was wrong I say. Apple should have known. Or they did know and got caught.
Either way, 596 Apple employees beside Miles Maria, believes that they may have been taken advantage of.
So my point is. Apple should not be allowed to bypass the laws of California.
These were the complaints for damages and injunctive relief as stated in the Class Action documents.
(1) FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES;
(2) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 203;
(3) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 226;
(4) UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (Violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200 et seq.).
If anyone is looking for more legal help with understand this case please contact.
PETER M. HART, Esq. (California Bar No. 198691)
LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART
Telephone: (310) 478-5789
He is the lawyer on the Class Action document.
If you just want to talk about why Corporations think they can get away with breaking the law. Then post more here.
Apple is just the possible example of the corporate giant and the 597 people in that case, are just the little people.
I say, That if Apple can hold it's employes to the second for their labors, then the State of California Labor laws can hold them responsible for what they do with it.
Please read the first threat if you have not yet.
ok
Viva La Revolución!
What?! You mean to tell me that Apple expected it's call center employees to actually work?
I want to make sure I'm understanding this. Are you saying that Apple expected it's call center employees to actually begin working when they were scheduled to begin working?
AHA! So that's when the chains of slavery began coiling themselves around the downtrodden!
I really have a difficult time believing that being late would cause an issue. Don't most people just stroll into work whenever they feel like it?
I'll buy that.
How utterly unconscionable! Those managers had nerve!
Oh good, the real point is finally revealed.
That's a lot of people! If it had only been 179, I'd be skeptical of the validity of the claim. But 597? Hoo-boy, they must be right!
Wait...is that the really real point, or does the real point you mentioned earlier trump this recent point? I'm sorry, I'm slow.
You're reasoning is rock-solid!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In all seriousness, thanks for giving me an excuse to jack around for five minutes typing this up. I agree Apple should not be allowed to break laws, but I'm not sure law-breaking occurred by your description. I guess a judge will eventually call that tune. And finally, the manner in which you have presented the lawsuit makes it sound petty and mean-spirited, attaching labels such as, "slavery," and, "little people," to it is an insult to people in this world who live in those circumstances for real.
You began the thread talking about a class action suit. This is a civil matter and plaintiffs must pay their own legal fees which are taken out of the class action settlement. The members of the class action would have no involvement in a labor law case even if it involves the same offense and would receive no money from any fines levied. In addition, they would have to sign a contract (you know, that thing you think you can ignore the terms of) stating that they forfeit all other possible claims against the defendant as a term of getting the class action settled.
You can expect to be paid for the time you are at work. If an employer only wants to pay for the time after the computer has booted, then they need to hire someone who comes early in the morning, and boots all the computers in time before the other employees arrive.
Okay, those links cover these parts:
Where did you get the rest of the information from your original post? Where is the original filing of this lawsuit?
All they have to do is log out at the end of the day. You don't have to shut down any running applications. then just log back in when your **** starts.
Now if your running windows at a Apple call center, I would reboot, open my needed applications and then log off. Takes a whole 2 mins to be up and running.
Reporting for duty as Ordered Sir!!!
Now if your running windows at a Apple call center
, I would reboot, open my needed applications and then log off. Takes a whole 2 mins to be up and running.Reporting for duty as Ordered Sir!!!
You are not a lawyer for sure.
You are incorrect that "plaintiffs must pay their own legal fees which are taken out of the class action settlement".
If anyone really wants to know the law.. please contact a lawyer.
I would suggest contacting the lawyers that is handling the case.
I haven't always had good luck with people at the call centers. Some of them are not the most intelligent folks around. Once my issue gets escalated to the next level, I usually get someone who can solve my problem.
It's especially true for the companies that outsource to Asia. It's often hard to understand the customer service people and it's frustrating for me to try to explain my problem to people who do not have English as their primary language.
Rev, your spelling and grammar mistakes are appalling. Are you one of the people I complain about?
And to everyone else, if and when Apple outsources their call centers to Asia, you can thank people like the Rev for it.
It's especially true for the companies that outsource to Asia. It's often hard to understand the customer service people and it's frustrating for me to try to explain my problem to people who do not have English as their primary language.
Rev, your spelling and grammar mistakes are appalling. Are you one of the people I complain about?
And to everyone else, if and when Apple outsources their call centers to Asia, you can thank people like the Rev for it.
You are not a lawyer for sure.
You are incorrect that "plaintiffs must pay their own legal fees which are taken out of the class action settlement".
If anyone really wants to know the law.. please contact a lawyer.
I would suggest contacting the lawyers that is handling the case.
I'm not and based on your expectations of who pays what, neither are you. I have, however, participated in a few class action lawsuits in the past. I recommend you take your own advice and ask the lawyers you reference where their compensation comes from. Since the case you are talking about is not "State of California v. Apple Inc" it is a civil (i.e. private party) lawsuit. I'm not saying the state isn't also seeking action, but the compensation for the attorneys in the class action suit you referenced in post #1 is most definitely coming out of any settlement. Apple could agree to settle before going to court and paying attorney fees could be part of the settlement, but if it goes to court and a settlement is imposed, don't be shocked when the lawyers pull their fee out of that pool, not send their bill to Apple. Did you read the documentation that came with the papers you sign to join the class action? I have read the entire package for several of the class action I was invited to join. You should have seen a breakdown of the requested payment and where it will go... attorney's fees will be right in there... and it will be a significant chunk of the total (they don't get paid if they lose, so they charge a lot if they win). If you think that just because the class action contends that laws were broken that the attorney's fees will be paid by the defendant, you are in for a rude shock at the end of the process.
Who pays the lawyers in a class action suit?
If you are holding out hope that the declaratory judgment exception will cause Apple to pay attorney fees ... declaratory judgments provide no award of damages.
I hear that. When ATI leaked info about which of their GPUs Apple would be using on their next line of notebooks, Apple immediately switched to NVIDIA. And that was an innocent slip by a business partner. If these folks win, Apple will completely shut down call centers in those states for sure. If they can't find other states that don't equate watching a computer boot up with working, they will look offshore.
Not all cases and fees are the same.
Miles Maria and the other Plaintiffs are not being charged any legal fees and that the lawyers PETER M. HART and KENNETH H. YOON have petitioned the courts for there fees.
Go to Sacramento County Records office and superior court house and get a copy of the records yourself.
Here is the case number 07AS02124
Superior Court of California
800 Ninth Street,
3rd Floor Department 54
Sacramento , CA
or
call them and request your copy at the Court at (916) 874-7848
(Department 54)
or Contact the lawyers and just ask them.
PETER M. HART, Esq. (California Bar No. 198691)
LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART
13952 Bora Bora Way, F-320
Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
Telephone: (310) 478-5789
Facsimile: (509) 561-6441
KENNETH H. YOON (California Bar No. 198443)
LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH H. YOON
One Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213) 612-0988
(213) 947-1211 facsimile
Miles Maria and the other Plaintiffs are not being charged any legal fees and that the lawyers PETER M. HART and KENNETH H. YOON have petitioned the courts for there fees.
Go to Sacramento County Records office and superior court house and get a copy of the records yourself.
Here is the case number 07AS02124
Superior Court of California
800 Ninth Street,
3rd Floor Department 54
Sacramento , CA
or
call them and request your copy at the Court at (916) 874-7848
(Department 54)
or Contact the lawyers and just ask them.
PETER M. HART, Esq. (California Bar No. 198691)
LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART
13952 Bora Bora Way, F-320
Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
Telephone: (310) 478-5789
Facsimile: (509) 561-6441
KENNETH H. YOON (California Bar No. 198443)
LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH H. YOON
One Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213) 612-0988
(213) 947-1211 facsimile