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

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

#91

Post by Frondo » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 4:57 PM UTC

jbob2000 wrote: post #58

wnevets wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This could be addressed by having more labor-conscious journalists and headline writers.

Framing it that way, of course people would respond negatively to price increases.

"Amazon workers now paid for all the time they're clocked in, prices may be affected" is a lot more sympathetic to workers.

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

#92

Post by elliekelly » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 4:59 PM UTC

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.

And, perhaps most importantly, Amazon derives no benefit from the length of a worker's commute while Amazon derives all of the benefit of employee security (really, theft) screening.

A better analogy might be employees changing into a required uniform, which (I believe) is also exempted, though obviously does not typically take ~25 minutes every day.

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

#93

Post by elliekelly » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 5:01 PM UTC

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…

I understand this is an unpopular SCOTUS ruling/decision but I don't understand why a comment summarizing and linking to the case is worthy of downvotes? Is something about this comment inaccurate or misleading in some way that I'm missing?

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

#94

Post by entropea » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 5:09 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #77

ceejayoz wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>How long is too long to force someone to work without paying?

0.00hr. You should always be paid for your time unless that person agrees to volunteer it.

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

#95

Post by ghaff » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 5:14 PM UTC

elliekelly wrote: post #93

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…

I understand this is an unpopular SCOTUS ruling/decision but I don't understand why a comment summarizing and linking to the case is worthy of downvotes? Is something about this comment inaccurate or misleading in some way that I'm missing?

It's called shooting the messenger.

I also imagine that a lot of the people calling for the Supreme Court to make this and other decisions on the basis of whatever feels fair to the individual justices would be a lot less happy if that methodology were applied to various other things.

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

#96

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 5:16 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.

[deleted]

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

#97

Post by jedberg » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 5:19 PM UTC

Ok, so the key ruling here was in 2014, which said "the Supreme Court declared that such screening procedures were not an 'integral' part of the job. Integrity’s staff at the warehouses...were hired to take products off the shelves and package them for shipment to Amazon’s customers, not to go through security screenings. The Court also found that Integrity could have eliminated the screenings without affecting the workers’ ability to complete their normal tasks." [0]

So it seems like if the security isn't integral to the job, then someone should be able to just walk out without doing the screening. Then of course they would get fired for that, and could then sue that they got fired despite the fact that the screening isn't integral to their job duties. The company would either have to claim that the security is integral, or allow others to skip it too.

Now of course, a warehouse worker doesn't have the resources to engage in such a lawsuit or live without a job while it plays out, which is what Amazon counts on here. But what if someone agreed to pay all the legal fees and pay the employee an equivalent wage to be a test case?

[0] https://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/no-overtime-pay-for-after...

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

#98

Post by microcolonel » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 5:19 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #78

microcolonel wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If you have the luxury to think about that, you can choose not to work for Amazon in R&D. I know people who used to work for Amazon and left because they didn't like that aspect, but isn't that Amazon's problem more than anything?

Or is it even a problem? Maybe Amazon deliberately puts on their best Ebenezer Scrooge to weed out people with too much taste and not enough nose-to-grindstone.

You guys clearly think more about what messages the workplace is sending you than maybe Amazon wants their employees to. ;- )

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

#99

Post by paxys » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 5:20 PM UTC

mfer wrote: post #87

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.

Changing this is up to the legislature rather than the courts. In other news, about 18% of Americans approve of congress job while about 81% disapprove of it [1]. [1] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional... !

Most Americans disapprove of Congress but approve of their Congressman/woman. Even at 18% overall approval most of the Senate & House is going to get reelected, which is why nothing changes.

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

#100

Post by hypersoar » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 5:20 PM UTC

The Supreme Court decision related to this is being unfairly maligned in these comments, even though I'm in total agreement that the end result was bad.

I recommend reading the ruling [0] itself; it's readable and quite short, under 2,500 words.

The unanimous 2014 decision concluded that Amazon (technically, a contractor) could not be penalized under federal law for not paying workers for time spent getting through security screenings. It turned on the 1947 Portal-to-Portal Act. IANAL, but, looking at the decision, I don't see how they could have reasonably ruled any other way.

To summarize:

In the 1940s, courts had interpreted the Fair Labor Standards Act (source of the minimum wage, overtime pay, etc.) to imply very broad definitions of "work" and "workweek". This allowed mine workers to sue for back pay for all the time they spent traveling between mine portals and work areas. This wasn't consistent with pre-FLSA practice, and companies suddenly faced huge, unexpected lawsuits for back pay and damages. Congress passed the Portal-to-Portal Act explicitly to clarify the definition of time "on the clock" and prevent these lawsuits, excluding "preliminary" and "postliminary" activities.

It is this law that results in Amazon not having to pay their workers for the screenings. Quoting from Sotomayor's concurrence:

  The security screenings at issue here fall on the 
  “preliminary . . . or postliminary” side of this line. 
  (*citation*) The searches were part of the process by 
  which the employees egressed their place of work, akin 
  to checking in and out and waiting in line to do so 
  activities that Congress clearly deemed to be 
  preliminary or postlimininary. See (*citation*). 
  Indeed, as the Court observes, the Department of Labor 
  reached the very same conclusion regarding similar 
  security screenings shortly after the Portal-to-Portal 
  Act was adopted

So, I believe that, obviously, Amazon should have to pay workers for these hours. But the blame for their not having to do so lies with the federal government's inability to update a 1947 law rather than with the courts.