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

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

#101

Post by Dylan16807 » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 5:23 PM UTC

tom_mellior wrote: post #79

mentat wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those are issues about treating people humanely and as equals.

This issue boils down to whether people have to work 8 vs. 9 hours for a certain amount of pay, with some paperwork issues piled on top. It matters but there aren't any human rights involved in any meaningful way. The law isn't inherently invalid.

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

#102

Post by jefftk » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 5:24 PM UTC

cesarb wrote: post #89

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.

> employees are required to commute to work, but they are not compensated for their commute. Where I live (another country), employers are required to compensate workers for their commute (vale-transporte).

Are workers compensated in proportion to the length of their commute? Is the company able to tell workers how to manage their commute?

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

#103

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 5:28 PM UTC

patientplatypus wrote: post #82

Serious question. Kavanaugh lied during his confirmation hearing about sexually assaulting many women ( https://www.salon.com/2019/09/16/republicans-know-brett-kava... ). We have evidence that the POTUS, attorney general, and vice-POTUS are all complicit in international corruption (and they were major sponsors of Kavanaugh). At what point are Supreme Court decisions non-binding as the justices themselves are crimina…

[deleted]

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

#104

Post by Dylan16807 » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 5:28 PM UTC

entropea wrote: post #94

ryandrake wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

...yes, but there is an implicit "If 25 minutes is okay" before that question. The comment is poking at the current law's logic.

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

#105

Post by Dylan16807 » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 5:35 PM UTC

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #41

paxys wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Sure you are free to go. And don't bother showing up tomorrow."

If everyone started refusing, they might be willing to change policy. That much overturn at once could be problematic.

At that point you're very far from a legality issue.

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

#106

Post by fiter » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 5:37 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #74

fiter wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Early in your reply you say employees have a choice where they apply for jobs, then you say they have no choice on whether to apply for jobs with security measures.

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

#107

Post by fiter » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 5:39 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #66

fiter wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

As mentioned elsewhere in the comments, the employees should be free to leave but this could result in their firing.

Regardless of the philosophy, what do you think of the legal basis?

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

#108

Post by Dylan16807 » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 5:42 PM UTC

patientplatypus wrote: post #82

Serious question. Kavanaugh lied during his confirmation hearing about sexually assaulting many women ( https://www.salon.com/2019/09/16/republicans-know-brett-kava... ). We have evidence that the POTUS, attorney general, and vice-POTUS are all complicit in international corruption (and they were major sponsors of Kavanaugh). At what point are Supreme Court decisions non-binding as the justices themselves are crimina…

Criminal behavior doesn't inherently disqualify you from being a judge.

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

#109

Post by cwkoss » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

entropea wrote: post #94

ryandrake wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Employees should always be paid for their time, regardless of volunteering, or it allows employers to negatively evaluate and find parallel reasons to fire employees who don't 'choose to volunteer' as a method of institutionalized wage theft

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

#110

Post by mikelyons » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 5:46 PM UTC

DangitBobby wrote: post #25

dev_dull wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or just a̶s̶s̶u̶m̶e̶ be vigilant about it, corporations are amoral profit machines and have no incentive to care about replaceable workers.