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

71–80 of 210 posts

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

#71

Post by No1 »

azernik wrote: post #53
dev_dull wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%.

That would be ~1%

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

#73

Post by SolaceQuantum »

jbob2000 wrote: post #63
goto11 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

" Maybe paying these wages means there's no money for more robots, so packaging things will take longer?"

It's not like Amazon is running a zero sum balance sheet here. They have profits this could take out of and maintain all their service and speed.

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

#74

Post by simonh »

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…

Employees generally choose where they live and which jobs they apply for and where, so this is not a reasonable comparison. They have no choice about these checks.

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

#75

Post by SolaceQuantum »

jbob2000 wrote: post #69
mnm1 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I hear a lot of horrific stuff about Walmart working, actually, including their anti-uninionizing efforts. Costco IIRC actually just plain cares for their employees and is doing well in its niche.

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

#76

Post by michaelmrose »

ceejayoz wrote: post #61
toasterlovin wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you are on the right track. Further amazon is incentivized to save money on security staff even if it costs employees cumulatively hundreds of hours of work since employees wait time is free and individual employees are very replaceable.

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

#77

Post by ryandrake »

ceejayoz wrote: post #57
breakerbox wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wonder if there is any limit at all. What if the screenings were 3 hours long before and after each employee’s shift? Would the company still be allowed to not pay them during this time? Seems this is pretty abusable. How long is too long [EDIT: according to the law] to force someone to work without paying?

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

#78

Post by michaelmrose »

microcolonel wrote: post #65
bluedevilzn wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Spending token amounts and effort doing small things to make things nice is often taken as a sign that staff are valued.

If work has shitty coffee I can of course bring my own but the kind of people that buy shitty coffee are often stingy in other ways that are more meaningful like raises. It might well be a good indication to look elsewhere.

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

#79

Post by tom_mellior »

mentat wrote: post #42
DangitBobby wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Talk to Congress about laws, it's their job to change them.

It was the Supreme Court's job to change the laws about abortion and gay marriage and school segregation when Congress obviously messed up or failed to act.

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

#80

Post by michaelmrose »

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…

This is called the single lump of labor fallacy otherwise known as the brown people are coming for my job. In your interpretation there is a finite or relatively nonelastic number of jobs and importing a bunch of people drives down the cost by substantially inflating supply.

There are multiple problems with this thought. The imports are in many relatively low paying sectors already an expected part of the market and withdrawing them would actually be the shock to the market. Americans may in some cases not be willing or legally able to pick fruit for a price that results in a price you would actually be willing to pay at the super market.

More importantly the surge in population creates jobs. The new citizens need cars, food, doctors. Their children start operations like Google that employ thousands.

I would suggest this post is more appropriate on your personal Facebook.

Post reply on HN