It sounds like the post-shift screening shouldn't be necessary. If they're not paying you, you should be free to go. The worker should try opting-out of the screening: it should be an OSHA issue if you can't freely leave the building at anytime.
U.S. Supreme Court rejects Amazon warehouse worker wage appeal
21–30 of 210 posts
Re: U.S. Supreme Court rejects Amazon warehouse worker wage appeal
#22Earlier 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…
That makes no sense to me. If the company makes them undergo security screenings, they were hired to undergo security screenings. By this logic, it seems like they could make them do an hour of phone support at the beginning and end of each shift since that’s not what they were hired to do.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court rejects Amazon warehouse worker wage appeal
#23Earlier 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
Wow. They were hired to do work, not to be locked up for half an hour per day and treated like criminals. Moreover, it is obviously clear that Amazon could just stop locking them up for half an hour per day and treating them like criminals. Therefore Amazon owes them no compensation for locking them up for half an hour per day and treating them like criminals. That is one hell of a Supreme Court ruling.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court rejects Amazon warehouse worker wage appeal
#24Is it not crazy that is has to come down to a Supreme Court case for Jeff Bezos and Amazon to treat their employees fairly?
This isn't a company that's on a sink or swim margin where this will collapse the company. Not when they're fine stocking all the break rooms in corporate offices with starbucks and AWS people get shelves full snacks all day. But give an hourly employee a little more money to accommodate their self enforced security is a line too far.
If you're an Amazon corporate employee, you support these decisions by working there.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court rejects Amazon warehouse worker wage appeal
#25Earlier 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”?
Damn, yeah, I guess these guys should really be asking their new employer if they'll be subject to wage theft before they get hired.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court rejects Amazon warehouse worker wage appeal
#26So, 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…
If I understand your comment (which is much clearer than the article) the 2014 US Supreme Court decision with respect to the 1947 Act is still valid Federal. The 6th Circuit ruled that the US Supreme Court decision and the 1947 Act do not preclude lawsuits on the state level. That makes more sense, because it seemed odd that if the 6th Circuit disagreed with a 2014 Supreme Court ruling, they would hear it.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court rejects Amazon warehouse worker wage appeal
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
That makes no sense to me. If the company makes them undergo security screenings, they were hired to undergo security screenings. By this logic, it seems like they could make them do an hour of phone support at the beginning and end of each shift since that’s not what they were hired to do.
Exactly. Let’s change the laws.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court rejects Amazon warehouse worker wage appeal
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> Not that it is the supreme court's fault, assuming that test is very explicit in the act.
Couldn't the Supreme Court declare the test unconstitutional?
Re: U.S. Supreme Court rejects Amazon warehouse worker wage appeal
#29Slightly better worded article:
Amazon Rejected by U.S. Supreme Court on Pay Claims by Workers
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-07/amazon-re...
Re: U.S. Supreme Court rejects Amazon warehouse worker wage appeal
#30Earlier 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”?
I don't see how it's that similar. Employees getting a new job is often very difficult, so would create a lot of difficulty for a lot of people. Whereas Amazon raising their prices by a few cents shouldn't be much work.