U.S. Supreme Court rejects Amazon warehouse worker wage appeal • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by ceejayoz » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 4:06 PM UTC

toasterlovin wrote: post #55

travisjungroth wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think commutes are a good analogy here.

The existence and length of a worker's commute isn't Amazon's fault, nor is it under their control.

The existence and length of the security screenings is.

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

#62

Post by chabes » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 4:07 PM UTC

notyourwork wrote: post #38

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…

Snacks and coffee are laughable costs compared to salaries.

This isn’t about salaries, or about Amazon not being able to afford to do the right thing.

Amazon has a surplus of money.. enough to buy other large corporations, like Whole Foods. And Jeff Bezos has so much money, he literally doesn’t know what to do with it.

Amazon will pay billions in legal costs before ever considering costs that actually benefit the workers.

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

#63

Post by jbob2000 » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 4:09 PM UTC

goto11 wrote: post #39

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.

I don't see how it should affect the speed of delivery that the Amazon employees gets paid for their time? But yeah it might affect the price - or Amazon might be able to optimize the "security check" if they have to compensate workers for the wasted time.

Money saved on labour means you can spend more money on more labour! Or you can buy more machines, or you could invest in a project to reduce packaging times, etc. etc. There's probably not a direct correlation between saving on security checks and reduced shipping time, but it's all connected. Maybe paying these wages means there's no money for more robots, so packaging things will take longer?

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

#64

Post by ummonk » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 4:11 PM UTC

tom_mellior wrote: post #23

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…

> 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 an…

The Supreme Court ruling is fine. It's Congress' fault it hasn't fixed the law.

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

#65

Post by microcolonel » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 4:12 PM UTC

bluedevilzn wrote: post #47

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…

Amazon corporate offices are extremely cheap. Absolutely shitty coffee and enough snacks for 10 people in an office floor that sits 100. It's pretty much a factory for software developers. A live-able salary is the only perk of being an Amazon corporate employee.

> A live-able salary is the only perk of being an Amazon corporate employee.

Yes, that is how employment works, and the compensation is better than livable for those who would make that elsewhere.

After you are a toddler, and once you are rich, do you need permission to buy snacks?

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

#66

Post by michaelmrose » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 4:12 PM UTC

fiter wrote: post #54

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?transitionTyp…

It is work from which the company derives value in the form of reduced shrink. Furthermore travel to and from work is at the employees discretion and direction they are free to go not only just to and from work but wherever they please and their employer can't be expected to know, care, or pay for it.

This is more akin to being locked on the company premises after work has terminated unpaid but unable to leave. If they can't do a bag check in 5 minutes and leave amazon should hire more checkers to do that work or compensate the employees for the time lost.

Perhaps the proper thing to assert is imprisonment instead of wage theft.

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

#67

Post by mnm1 » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 4:13 PM UTC

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.

Two day shipping of cheap products justify not paying employees for their time? Wtf?

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

#68

Post by vkou » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 4:15 PM UTC

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.

Yes, and it is why wage theft by employers I'd the most common form of theft in the US.

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

#69

Post by jbob2000 » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 4:15 PM UTC

mnm1 wrote: post #67

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.

Two day shipping of cheap products justify not paying employees for their time? Wtf?

I don't agree with it, but two day shipping is the silver bullet that separates Amazon from the competition. I don't hear these stories about Walmart or Costco's warehouses, clearly there's something about the way Amazon does business that causes these problems.

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

#70

Post by microcolonel » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 4:16 PM UTC

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…

Please work on tightening your prose. It's hard to follow what you're trying to say.

Immigration of some forms is obviously the result of corporate pressure, you're right on that; but you could stand to make your points clearer. As it stands, your comment sounds edgy and juvenile, with scare quotes on every other thing, and too many adverbs.