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

51–60 of 210 posts

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

#51

Post by jon-wood »

trenning wrote: post #24

Is 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 s…

I disagree with this decision, but Amazon are fairly well known for being one of the few big tech startups that don't have fully stocked snack supplies on every floor, and expecting staff to pay for those out of their own pocket. In all the Amazon offices I've gone to the only thing being given out for free is borderline acceptable coffee, hot water, tea bags, and milk.

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

#52

Post by ComputerGuru »

JamesSchriver wrote: post #6

I find the this whole wage debate rather interesting, because it is not only an extremely misunderstood issue, at the same times as it is a core measure of the condition of society (Please do not confuse that with a notion of "health", but rather the objective "condition" of the society, also not just the economy) The ideal state of any economy is one in which balance of opportunities exists to the point where an equ…

Some of the biggest employers of US “native” workers are immigrants. Some markets/industries wouldn’t exist entirely without immigrants. You can’t turn it into a black-and-white “immigration bad” summary.

Then again, it seems clear you’re not against immigration that happened decades to a century or two ago; only immigration happening after a certain class of people benefited from it for themselves, right?

Also, you do know that western countries have a birth rate less than that required for replacement, right? Without immigrants, who will pay for the “proudly native” aged populace’s social security and Medicare benefits?

Anyway, your entire rant is completely off topic and irrelevant to the court case at hand.

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

#53

Post by azernik »

dev_dull wrote: post #18
rayiner wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 7,000-8,000 petitions for certiorari each year, rendering judgment in the merits after oral argument on about 80-100 cases per year

That's what this line refers to: petitions for cert are requests to have the Court hear a case. They only accept ~10%.

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

#54

Post by fiter »

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.

They are also obliged to arrive at the workplace, but their travel time is not necessarily compensated. At least this was put through both a judicial and legal process a long time ago in the ruling before and the Portal-to-Portal Act[0]. I do wonder why this was re-litigated; if this will change it seems like it will have to be through an act of Congress.

[0]: https://content.next.westlaw.com/6-508-0673?transitionType=D...

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

#55

Post by toasterlovin »

travisjungroth wrote: post #22
rtkwe wrote: post #9

Earlier 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.

I don’t have an opinion on this case, but this may be a useful analogy (and may not; I’m not a lawyer): employees are required to commute to work, but they are not compensated for their commute. There are plenty of jobs, in construction for example, where the job site changes on a regular basis. Some job sites require longer commutes than others. Compensation still doesn’t include commute time.

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

#56

Post by tom_mellior »

mentat wrote: post #37
tom_mellior wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

On what basis?

Being locked up at work without compensation. I guess the Constitution's "involuntary servitude" wording was meant for other contexts (actual 24/7 slavery), but this still seems like a basic human rights violation. But maybe the US Supreme Court doesn't view itself as a human rights court, so I don't know. That's why I asked.

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

#57

Post by ceejayoz »

breakerbox wrote: post #50
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.

Amazon gets all the attention because it's Amazon. Work a retail job anywhere and you will discover that MILLIONS of retail workers must do similar checks.

1. They should get paid for that time, too.

2. The article says "the screening takes around 25 minutes to complete", which is not typical in retail.

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

#58

Post by jbob2000 »

wnevets wrote: post #44
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.

this would cost the customer an extra penny, maybe a nickel?

That wouldn't be the news headline, though. The customer would find out about the cost increase via an article titled something like "Amazon increases prices by up to 20%, are your favourite purchases affected?".

I'm with you though, it costs the consumer nothing.

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

#59

Post by ummonk »

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”?

If Amazon sends you a different product, or charges your credit card more than the claimed price, do you just simply find another retailer, or do you demand a refund?

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

#60

Post by azernik »

JackFr wrote: post #26
rayiner wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Amazon's argument wasn't that the FLSA prohibited state suits; it was about interpretation of Nevada state law. Specifically, Nevada had defined "work" to be "whatever the definition of work is under the federal FLSA". The appeals court ruled that, since the FLSA said the security checks exception was specifically an exception, it was still legally defined as work, and Nevada had not adopted the federal exceptions.
Post reply on HN