596 other People opt in Class Action Suite against Apple.

[*LTD*]

Rofl.

 

[samiwas]

You said
"Do these people work 100% of the time they are on the clock, never doing anything personal like talking to a coworker or checking personal email?"

You have got to be kidding right? Tell me .. who works 100% of the time.. that is NOT the point at all...

The point is,, working before the clock starts is wrong.. period.

OK, so this is an old thread, but it's like a train wreck. I've been reading every post for the past hour just befuddled. So I'm going to clarify TheReverend's position here so that we are all on the same page.

"Tell me..who works 100% of the time"...This basically means, in his own mind, and really any sane person's mind, that no one works 100% of the time they are on the clock. But that is OK, and normal, and acceptable. The company should understand that, even though you are on the clock and being paid by them, that you don't have to work the ENTIRE time.

HOWEVER, it is completely abhorrent that you might have to do things in order to be prepared for your shift (ie: off-the-clock booting of a computer).

Reverend, you are specifically saying that it IS ok for the employee to not work 100% of the time when they ARE being paid, but it is NOT ok for the employee to have to do two minutes of work BEFORE being paid. So at the end of the day, the company might well be paying the employee for 5 or 10 or 30 minutes they did not work (when they went to pee or get a drink of water). You are truly a leech and really must have some other issues in your life if this is actually that important to you.

I am a stagehand. If I receive a call for a job at 8am, that means that we start work **AT** 8AM. That means that you are clocked in, tools on, bathroom business done, and ON stage READY to work **AT** 8am. You do not show up at 8:01am. You do not start putting your tools on at 8am. You do not clock in at 8am. You WORK at 8am. If you do not have your tools on, ready to go at 8am, you are sent home immediately, and a replacement is brought in for you. In fact, you will usually get a phone call if you are not signed in 10 minutes ahead. You have a problem with that? Fine. You don't work. There's no requirement saying they have to use you.

If you brought your pathetic work ethic to my place, you'd be on the street before you could even clock out.

I worked for a company once that had a no-facial-hair policy. A group of total loser asshats tried to stir up trouble saying they should now be paid 24 hours a day since they must be shaven at all times. I really wanted to kick one of them in the junk.

The funnier part is how much of a complete lack of knowledge you have for the class-action process, and then tell A LAWYER that he is wrong. HAHAHA.

And stop saying, "That's not the issue here." Yes, we understand that your issue is thinking that Apple owes you (Miles) pay for "working" off the clock. I don't think a single person has agreed with you on this. Because your issue is a total non-issue, and the REAL issue is that no one was being screwed.

 

[The Reverend]

American Express VS Travel Workers

This a another case , in another State. But the facts are very interesting and almost the same as the case in this discussion.

http://www.plansponsor.com/Ex_Amex_Travel_Workers_File_FLSA_Overtime_Suit.aspx

Hummmmm.

 

[dukebound85]

Well of course they do.

But this is America and we all have the right to free speech.

If Apple thinks they can threaten people and deny them the right to speak their thoughts and beliefs. Then Apple should go to some other country that doesn't give the right to say your mind.

I would suggest that current employees post without using their real names Since Apple is known to be an jerk and hold people back that do not conform to the Apple secret society wish's.

Here a tiny bit for you all.

When the Class Action Suit started, Apple had to change it's internal policies to have all computers power on and other login features before each agent was allowed to login to the system and start their time on the clock. This only happened AFTER the suit began. It wasn't like they could not have done that years before, but they didn't. This is true for all the Apple call centers across the world I would guess.

Well you did sign an agreement to not post on forums when you decided to work with apple

Dont like it, dont work for apple....nothing to do with free speech

I find this to be a silly case personally

Do you know flight attendants dont get paid until they are on the plane? On layovers in the airport, r being at the airport while not on a plane, they dont get paid. Thats one industry out of many others that are like that in a sense

******** about turning on computers....seriously

They're actually running with this same case at a lot of companies. I think it's a little nit-picky if you ask me, but have fun. Maybe some day you'll get your check for $3.47 in the mail

One can only dream of that much fortune.


OP: You lnow that EVERY salaried job is based off a 40hr work week for most part and we are all expected to do casual overtime if need be and not be compensated for it.

Working at apple doesnt require a special skill set. if I were apple, I would fire all you people for making such a dumb case. Once you get a reality check, you will realize how stupid this case is

Ha... a non-disclosure agreement.

I know that, but that is not what we are talking about.

Apple goes through a lot of trouble to keep their people held down.

I do understand that they have the right to protect their products and that non-disclosure agreement is that that reason.

At what point does this non-disclosure agreement become a breach of the law for free speech tho?

Those non-disclosure agreements are only for Apples benefit, and do nothing for the employees rights.

I say..BAAAA.. to non-disclosure agreements.. as long as you have to cover up a breach of the Law. No one should have to sign something that could cause them to become a not report an employer that is breaking the law.

Wow. So you have no issue breaking the terms of employment with apple on your end by ignoring the NDA that YOU signed to even work there and are fileing a class action suit for apple potentially not holding theirs up.

How ironic

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.

Jeebus, what a WASTE of PUBLIC tax money and time

I am quite pissed at this whole suit to be honest

Humm After i suggest that it could be over a million dollars owed.

But I thought this wasn't about the money....

No one had any logic why i was wrong, so I must be very close to the truth.

I think you are new to the workforce and don't know what is expected when you take a job and are ******** when you arent being paid for the first minute

Hell, why not petition for wages on your drive to work?

Then that's a violation of free speech. I think this thread is stupid, but you're being complacent in censorship.

Hardly

I cant go talk about classified stuff and use "free speech" as my defense. You need to study up on what "free speech" is maxrobertson

BTW I am a Reverend in a church. And it's part of my title. So I am allowed to use it when I wish.

When you make up a church "Church of Creativity", you can be called anything you want I suppose eh?

I mean that is what you post in your profile "TheReverend" or should I say MilesMaria....
http://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendMilesMaria

The court date is expected soon.

The the oral arguments start.

Haha...oral arguments huh? You ready to get embarrassed by apple when they say "well you don't work 100% of time when on clock"

 

[TechieJustin]

did anyone notice the OP used the wrong version of the word "their" in his first post?

 

[DesignerOnMac]

Well of course they do.

But this is America and we all have the right to free speech.

If Apple thinks they can threaten people and deny them the right to speak their thoughts and beliefs. Then Apple should go to some other country that doesn't give the right to say your mind.

I would suggest that current employees post without using their real names Since Apple is known to be an jerk and hold people back that do not conform to the Apple secret society wish's.

Here a tiny bit for you all.

When the Class Action Suit started, Apple had to change it's internal policies to have all computers power on and other login features before each agent was allowed to login to the system and start their time on the clock. This only happened AFTER the suit began. It wasn't like they could not have done that years before, but they didn't. This is true for all the Apple call centers across the world I would guess.

Guess you haven't done any research on the Patriot Act when Bush was president! We all lost a lot of our freedoms. Tried wearing a negative political t-shirt at the airport? Raised your voice at the airport? Have you applied for a new drivers license since 911? And so much more....

 

[TechieJustin]

Guess you haven't done any research on the patriot Act when Bush was president! We all lost a lot of our freedoms. Tried wearing a negative political t-shirt at the airport? Raised your voice at the airport? have you applied for a new drivers license since 911? And so much more....

The Patriot Act has to do with national security - not corporate America.
By definition a corporation or private entity cannot violate your constitutional right. The US constitution puts restrictions on the government - not the people.
For example, if I try to interfere with somebody making a negative post/speech/whatever against my company - that may be a violation of civil law. Now if a police officer tried to prevent somebody from making negative remarks about the mayer, that's different because he is acting on behalf of the government.

The US Constitution shouldn't belong in a discussion about a corporation.

 

[dukebound85]

The Patriot Act has to do with national security - not corporate America.
By definition a corporation or private entity cannot violate your constitutional right. The US constitution puts restrictions on the government - not the people.
For example, if I try to interfere with somebody making a negative post/speech/whatever against my company - that may be a violation of civil law. Now if a police officer tried to prevent somebody from making negative remarks about the mayer, that's different because he is acting on behalf of the government.

The US Constitution shouldn't belong in a discussion about a corporation.

Wrong

You do not have the right to free speech to say anything and everything you want wherever you want

 

[TechieJustin]

Wrong

You do not have the right to free speech to say anything and everything you want wherever you want

Incorrect with regards to the US Constitution.
Going outside and yelling "dukebound85 sleeps with sheep!!" Is not a violation of anything in the US Constitution. It can be, however a violation of civil law. If you think it is a violation of the US Constitution - which amendment.

I keep emphasizing US Constitution because the piece of crap EU Constitution may be different.

 

[JNB]

Incorrect with regards to the US Constitution.
Going outside and yelling "dukebound85 sleeps with sheep!!" Is not a violation of anything in the US Constitution. It can be, however a violation of civil law. If you think it is a violation of the US Constitution - which amendment.

I keep emphasizing US Constitution because the piece of crap EU Constitution may be different.

Try yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater and see how far a 1st Amendment claim will get you.

 

[rhett7660]

Or better yet, "I have a bomb strapped to me", or "give me the money in the cash register"... hmmmmmmm

 

[TechieJustin]

Try yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater and see how far a 1st Amendment claim will get you.

That is a violation of civil law - not the constitution.

 

[TechieJustin]

Or better yet, "I have a bomb strapped to me", or "give me the money in the cash register"... hmmmmmmm

That would be armed robbery. Again, another violation of criminal law - not the US Constitution.
That's the distinction.

 

[dukebound85]

That is a violation of civil law - not the constitution.

That would be armed robbery. Again, another violation of criminal law - not the US Constitution.
That's the distinction.

The flaw with that argument is that the US Constitution trumps any "civil law"

The point is that there is indeed limitations to freedom of speech defined by SCOTUS

Want evidence? look at Schenk v. U.S. (1919)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

In summary.... it states a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a "clear and present danger" — i.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent.

No civil law about it..its been defined in SCOTUS cases

 

[TechieJustin]

The flaw with that argument is that the US Constitution trumps any "civil law"

The point is that there is indeed limitations to freedom of speech defined by SCOTUS

Want evidence? look at Schenk v. U.S. (1919)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

In summary.... it states a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a "clear and present danger" — i.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent.

No civil law about it..its been defined in SCOTUS cases

That case is irrelevant to what we're discussing.

I'm trying to argue that the USC puts restrictions on the government - not the people.
chenk v. U.S. set a precedent that if you yell something crazy that can potentially endanger lives - your ass is grass.

I san sit around and make a webpage saying Microsoft sucks. Or Apple sucks. Apple can't do anything under the guise of the Constitution. They can sue me for libel which is a violation of code law.

I've discussed this very issue with my law professor when I got my Masters.

The only was I as a private citizen of the US can violate your constitutional rights is if I held you as a slave.

 

[rhett7660]

That would be armed robbery. Again, another violation of criminal law - not the US Constitution.
That's the distinction.

Should of put a smiley at the end of it.. I was being sarcastic regarding the post right above mine...... sorry bout that.

 

[JNB]

That is a violation of civil law - not the constitution.

That would be armed robbery. Again, another violation of criminal law - not the US Constitution.
That's the distinction.

I'm sorry, but your concept of civil and criminal law, and the protections of the Constitution are fairly twisted to the point of making my head hurt.

Civil and criminal laws in this country have to pass constitutional muster. They are restrictions on the individual citizenry; the Constitution—through the Amendments—places limits on the power of the government, which is why any civil argument or criminal action can be appealed through the judiciary up to and including the Supreme Court, and there the final determination of the constitutionality of the underlying law is put to test. One is neither sued nor arrested for "violating the Constitution," and that wasn't the claim of either of us; your post claiming Constitutional protections is faulty, and laws can be and are drafted and enforced to restrict behavior and seek redress without running afoul of the Constitution.

One doesn't need a law degree to understand this. I think you should get your money back for that Masters.

 

[niuniu]

So what happened with the class action in the end?

 

[dukebound85]

That case is irrelevant to what we're discussing.

I'm trying to argue that the USC puts restrictions on the government - not the people.
chenk v. U.S. set a precedent that if you yell something crazy that can potentially endanger lives - your ass is grass.

I san sit around and make a webpage saying Microsoft sucks. Or Apple sucks. Apple can't do anything under the guise of the Constitution. They can sue me for libel which is a violation of code law.

I've discussed this very issue with my law professor when I got my Masters.

The only was I as a private citizen of the US can violate your constitutional rights is if I held you as a slave.

No it is not irrelevant

You say there are no restrictions on free speech. I gave you SCOTUS cases saying there are

Meanwhile you are trying to say there are NO restrictions

I'm sorry, but your concept of civil and criminal law, and the protections of the Constitution are fairly twisted to the point of making my head hurt.

Civil and criminal laws in this country have to pass constitutional muster. They are restrictions on the individual citizenry; the Constitution—through the Amendments—places limits on the power of the government, which is why any civil argument or criminal action can be appealed through the judiciary up to and including the Supreme Court, and there the final determination of the constitutionality of the underlying law is put to test. One is neither sued nor arrested for "violating the Constitution," and that wasn't the claim of either of us; your post claiming Constitutional protections is faulty, and laws can be and are drafted and enforced to restrict behavior and seek redress without running afoul of the Constitution.

Well said

 

[TechieJustin]

No it is not irrelevant

You say there are no restrictions on free speech. I gave you SCOTUS cases saying there are

Meanwhile you are trying to say there are NO restrictions

That's not what I said - where are you getting that?
I said the US Constitution is a restriction on the government. I also said you can saw whatever you want about another private entity - person, corporation without violating their constitutional rights - because I am not an agent for the government.
If a police officer, mayor, goes around saying you sleep with sheep - that's different.
If I do it, you can visit a lawyer and try to sue me - beyond that there's nothing you can do.

mychryslersucks.com, http://www.daimlerchryslervehicleproblem, the HP sucks website - all of these websites exist and there's nothing Chrysler or HP can do about it.

I love how you people always take the one exception to the rule and try to apply it as if it were a common situation.
The scotus case you cited is way out of the scope of this "discussion." Saying Apple sucks is very different than yelling fire in a crowded theater, or shouting "kill the prez!!"
If you can't see the difference you're more daft than I originally anticipated. Which is saying alot.

 

[dukebound85]

Try yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater and see how far a 1st Amendment claim will get you.

Or better yet, "I have a bomb strapped to me", or "give me the money in the cash register"... hmmmmmmm

That is a violation of civil law - not the constitution.

That would be armed robbery. Again, another violation of criminal law - not the US Constitution.
That's the distinction.

That's not what I said - where are you getting that?
I said the US Constitution is a restriction on the government. I also said you can saw whatever you want about another private entity - person, corporation without violating their constitutional rights - because I am not an agent for the government.
If a police officer, mayor, goes around saying you sleep with sheep - that's different.
If I do it, you can visit a lawyer and try to sue me - beyond that there's nothing you can do.

mychryslersucks.com, http://www.daimlerchryslervehicleproblem, the HP sucks website - all of these websites exist and there's nothing Chrysler or HP can do about it.

I love how you people always take the one exception to the rule and try to apply it as if it were a common situation.
The scotus case you cited is way out of the scope of this "discussion." Saying Apple sucks is very different than yelling fire in a crowded theater, or shouting "kill the prez!!"
If you can't see the difference you're more daft than I originally anticipated. Which is saying alot.

Excuse me? Look at the first two quoted posts. Ok do it? good

Now look at your repsponse saying those are not violations of free speech but of civil law.

Now look at the court case I cited which states this in the passage

"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

There is limitations on free speech. That is our point you are missing COMPLETELY

The scotus case you cited is way out of the scope of this "discussion."

Hardly. The clear and present danger precedent on freedom of speech as outlined in this case goeas AGAINST your response to the post concerning yelling fire.....

Saying Apple sucks is very different than yelling fire in a crowded theater, or shouting "kill the prez!!"

Well yea, that is our entire point! The point being that there ARE limitations on freedom of speech

If you can't see the difference you're more daft than I originally anticipated. Which is saying alot.

I see the difference as that is the ENTIRE point I have been making. You however seem to been argueing there are no limitations to freedom of speech when there clearly are

Might help if you knew what you were really arguing..

 

[TechieJustin]

Excuse me? Look at the first two quoted posts. Ok do it? good

Might help if you knew what you were really arguing..

This is my final post on this issue. It is not a limitation on freedom of speech, but a restriction on endangering the public.
This isn't Europe - the government isn't in every aspect of its citizen's lives. Private entities can battle private entities all they want without involving the government/constitution.
I don't know why that's so hard to understand.

 

[dukebound85]

This is my final post on this issue. It is not a limitation on freedom of speech, but a restriction on endangering the public.
This isn't Europe - the government isn't in every aspect of its citizen's lives. Private entities can battle private entities all they want without involving the government/constitution.
I don't know why that's so hard to understand.

It isn't

Just that you seem to think that yelling fire in a theater is covered by freedom of speech when it isn't as that is spelled out in the SCOTUS case

I don't know why that's so hard to understand.

 

[The Reverend]

No date for the oral arguments has been set.

So what happened with the class action in the end?

No date for the oral arguments has been set.

There has NOT been a settlement offer.

There has NOT been a ruling yet.

The case is still in Sacramento, CA USA

Like most of these cases.. they take a long time to get anywhere.

Yes, I know.. this process does take way to long to resolve.

Keep watching.. We will know the answers to all the questions soon.

 

[The Reverend]

American Express VS Travel Workers

American Express VS Travel Workers


This a another case , in another State. But the facts are very interesting and almost the same as the case in this discussion.

http://www.plansponsor.com/Ex_Amex_T...time_Suit.aspx

Hummmmm. How come no ones seems to notice that this is happening all over the country and many many people seem to feel that Big Business is ripping them off.

So.. the discussion was.. why to big companies like Apple think that this behavior is OK and not do anything about it till someone complains.