Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Supreme Court rejects Amazon warehouse worker wage appeal

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 210 posts

Re: U.S. Supreme Court rejects Amazon warehouse worker wage appeal

#11

Post by arnmac »

rtkwe wrote: post #4

So, trying to follow the sequence of thrown out and overturned, it seems like now it would be going all the way back down to the original court that threw out the lawsuit to go forward? Seems crazy that it's taking this long to settle the question. Tangentially it seems crazy they're not required to pay for the time spent going through security. If they're paid hourly and not free to go they're still on the job.

The current court is often rejecting cases that they feel are more the responsibility of the legislature to resolve. I had heard an opinion on this that the court thought it was the problem of Congress to fix this NOT the court.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court rejects Amazon warehouse worker wage appeal

#12

Post by DangitBobby »

jbob2000 wrote: post #10
FPGAhacker wrote: post #5

It seems eminently reasonable and obvious that workers should be compensated for performing the Duties of their job while at work or in premises. Clearly submitting to a security check before being allowed to leave work is an obligation they incur as an employee. They should not be able to “clock out” until after such security checks.

I get what you're saying, but these are the ways that management finds the margins that allow you to receive cheap products on your doorstep in 2 days.

Then the products should cost more or get here in 3 days.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court rejects Amazon warehouse worker wage appeal

#13

Post by rayiner »

rtkwe wrote: post #4

So, trying to follow the sequence of thrown out and overturned, it seems like now it would be going all the way back down to the original court that threw out the lawsuit to go forward? Seems crazy that it's taking this long to settle the question. Tangentially it seems crazy they're not required to pay for the time spent going through security. If they're paid hourly and not free to go they're still on the job.

Yes. The Supreme Court rejected a claim in 2014 under federal law. Plaintiffs replead claims under state law. While a district court found the claims barred by state law as well, the Sixth Circuit found the claim were not. The Supreme Court declined to review the Sixth Circuit‘s ruling, meaning the case can go forward under the Sixth Circuit’s decision.

The Supreme Court (and appellate courts) are a batch system, with high throughout but poor latency. The Supreme Court reviews 7,000-8,000 petitions for certiorari each year, rendering judgment in the merits after oral argument on about 80-100 cases per year. Each case typically has hundreds of pages of briefing, rulings below, etc., and requires reference to hundreds of additional pages of precedent and other authorities. All that is done by the nine justices, each with the assistance of four clerks.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court rejects Amazon warehouse worker wage appeal

#14

Post by DangitBobby »

rtkwe wrote: post #9
FPGAhacker wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tangentially it seems crazy they're not required to pay for the time spent going through security. If they're paid hourly and not free to go they're still on the job. It’s an asshole move for sure. I hope they are forced to pay up, and then they will invest in streamlining the process.

> In its 2014 ruling in the case, the Supreme Court decided that under a 1947 law that amended the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, companies do not have to pay employees for the time they spend undergoing security checks. It's a supreme court decision that is allowing Amazon to do this [0]. TL;DR the decision is solely on if the "activities are an intrinsic element of the employee’s primary job duties and one that…

It's a relief to know that the Supreme Court is so fair and even-handed in its treatment of employers and employees!

Re: U.S. Supreme Court rejects Amazon warehouse worker wage appeal

#16

Post by dev_dull »

DangitBobby wrote: post #12
jbob2000 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you're saying, but these are the ways that management finds the margins that allow you to receive cheap products on your doorstep in 2 days.

Then the products should cost more or get here in 3 days.

Kind of like how people say “then unhappy amazon employees should simply find another job”?

Re: U.S. Supreme Court rejects Amazon warehouse worker wage appeal

#17

Post by slothtrop »

dev_dull wrote: post #16
DangitBobby wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the products should cost more or get here in 3 days.

Kind of like how people say “then unhappy amazon employees should simply find another job”?

let's head over to the job tree, what sort of bullshit dropping to the ground today?

Re: U.S. Supreme Court rejects Amazon warehouse worker wage appeal

#18

Post by dev_dull »

rayiner wrote: post #13
rtkwe wrote: post #4

So, trying to follow the sequence of thrown out and overturned, it seems like now it would be going all the way back down to the original court that threw out the lawsuit to go forward? Seems crazy that it's taking this long to settle the question. Tangentially it seems crazy they're not required to pay for the time spent going through security. If they're paid hourly and not free to go they're still on the job.

Yes. The Supreme Court rejected a claim in 2014 under federal law. Plaintiffs replead claims under state law. While a district court found the claims barred by state law as well, the Sixth Circuit found the claim were not. The Supreme Court declined to review the Sixth Circuit‘s ruling, meaning the case can go forward under the Sixth Circuit’s decision. The Supreme Court (and appellate courts) are a batch system, wit…

The bulk of those cases end with them saying “deal with it in your state for now” by declining to hear the case.

Personally I think the system works great but I’ve never been a “too down” style person anyway.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court rejects Amazon warehouse worker wage appeal

#19

Post by FPGAhacker »

rtkwe wrote: post #9
FPGAhacker wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tangentially it seems crazy they're not required to pay for the time spent going through security. If they're paid hourly and not free to go they're still on the job. It’s an asshole move for sure. I hope they are forced to pay up, and then they will invest in streamlining the process.

> In its 2014 ruling in the case, the Supreme Court decided that under a 1947 law that amended the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, companies do not have to pay employees for the time they spend undergoing security checks. It's a supreme court decision that is allowing Amazon to do this [0]. TL;DR the decision is solely on if the "activities are an intrinsic element of the employee’s primary job duties and one that…

Not that it is the supreme court's fault, assuming that test is very explicit in the act.

But seriously, could that test be any more absurd? The test should not be "of Amazon could eliminate screenings with out affecting the primary job." It should be if the employee could choose not to participate without it affecting their job.

It's the difference between voluntary and compelled.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court rejects Amazon warehouse worker wage appeal

#20

Post by nerdponx »

rtkwe wrote: post #9
FPGAhacker wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tangentially it seems crazy they're not required to pay for the time spent going through security. If they're paid hourly and not free to go they're still on the job. It’s an asshole move for sure. I hope they are forced to pay up, and then they will invest in streamlining the process.

> In its 2014 ruling in the case, the Supreme Court decided that under a 1947 law that amended the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, companies do not have to pay employees for the time they spend undergoing security checks. It's a supreme court decision that is allowing Amazon to do this [0]. TL;DR the decision is solely on if the "activities are an intrinsic element of the employee’s primary job duties and one that…

hired to retrieve products from warehouse shelves, not to undergo security screenings, and the company could eliminate the screenings altogether without impairing the employees’ ability to complete their work

Am I reading a Dr Seuss book or a Supreme Court decision?

Post reply on HN