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

111–120 of 210 posts

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

#111

Post by mikelyons »

Buge wrote: post #30
dev_dull wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of like how people say “then unhappy amazon employees should simply find another job”?

I don't see how it's that similar. Employees getting a new job is often very difficult, so would create a lot of difficulty for a lot of people. Whereas Amazon raising their prices by a few cents shouldn't be much work.

It's not about the difficulty of raising prices, it's about the impact to the bottom line profit to shareholders when a few cents is extrapolated over a billion transactions.

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

#112

Post by Brain_Thief »

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 agree with the sentiment of your post and similarly find it shocking that anyone could defend a gargantuan corporation like Amazon refusing to provide their workers with reasonable wages to support quality lives.

It's worth noting that anyone who cares about this should refrain from purchasing things from the Amazons and the Walmarts of the world. The only thing these trans-human entities care about is money - that's IT. The only language they speak is money, and they will destroy the world, their human employees, and anything else that comes between them and their goal of capturing 100% of all economic power. The only thing to do is to stop feeding the beast. Don't buy shit from mega corps - no matter how convenient it is. It's unnecessary and directly helps propagate a system where sociopathic political-economic agents repress living standards for the vast majority of people so that a shockingly small number can be wealthier than kings.

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

#113

Post by DangitBobby »

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.

This source is from another comment in this thread: https://www.idfa.org/news-views/headline-news/article/2014/1...

>The FLSA establishes minimum wage and overtime compensation for the time that employees work over 40 hours in one work week. Congress constructed the Act so that employers are not required to compensate employees for activities that occur before and after shifts unless those activities are integral and indispensable to the work an employee is employed to perform.

The employer will fire you for not doing it. That makes it essential.

Any interpretation of such a law that uses the job description, eg packing and moving boxes, as the be-all-end-all of what is "integral and essential" instead of what the employer will fire or refuse to employ you for not doing is either bought and paid for or anti-labor.

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

#114

Post by DangitBobby »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #101
tom_mellior wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

I bet traffic problems would be solved overnight if employers were required to compensate employees for commute times. It's time to stop giving freebies on people's backs, tbh.

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

#115

Post by cesarb »

jefftk wrote: post #102
cesarb wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> Are workers compensated in proportion to the length of their commute?

The workers are compensated for the tickets to the public transport they use. If they need to use more than one (for instance, taking a bus and then the ferry, or a bus and then the train and then another bus), they will be compensated for all these tickets.

> Is the company able to tell workers how to manage their commute?

AFAIK, when there's more than one public transport route, it's the worker who chooses which route they will use.

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

#116

Post by dantheman »

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.

It seems that if people want this, the law should be changed. This is isn't the job of the courts.

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

#117

Post by olliej »

Ignoring the obvious immoral nature of wage theft, let’s look at the argument people keep saying “they could go work somewhere else”.

What if there aren’t any other companies they can work for, because Amazon has undercut all their competitors by, among other things, systematically engaging in wage theft.

If wage theft is helping to keep the prices down, and other businesses went bust because they were unable to compete with a large business that was ignoring the law, then that isn’t a free market economy, and the victims are now in a position where they have even less power to prevent abuse and wage theft.

The fact that the US courts seem to have decided that mandatory unpaid presence is somehow not something that violates existing Labour law is absurd.

If my booked hours are from X-Y and it takes 25 minutes for your company to get me to the door, then I should have stopped “working” at Y-25 minutes.

If you don’t want to pay me to sit around for 25 minutes you can fix your processes so that it doesn’t take 25 minutes.

Or alternatively: you aren’t permitting me to leave, your not paying me, and you don’t believe I’ve actually stolen anything (eg you’re waiting for police to come and arrest me), then that’s false imprisonment and the entire management chain involved in it should be sent to jail.

I kid of course, the management chain are the people with money contributing to politicians that are saying illegal imprisonment is awesome.

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

#118

Post by mikelyons »

wingspar wrote: post #84

I guess I can’t read English anymore. The headline to me reads that the WORKERS appeal was rejected, but it’s a ruling FOR the workers, rejecting AMAZON’s appeal.

Key paragraph:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Amazon.com’s bid to avoid a lawsuit seeking to ensure that warehouse workers ... get paid for the time it takes them to go through extensive post-shift security screenings.

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

#119

Post by olliej »

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.

Well, Amazon also employs more people than entire industries, and has a long track record of grotesque Labour abuses, so this is just an additional data point for when people ask why amazon is awful

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

#120

Post by joejerryronnie »

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.

Not sure why you’re being downvoted here (maybe a misunderstanding of what you’re trying to say?) My takeaway from your comment is that we should first look to our own hypocrisy, i.e. we’re quick to post a comment about Amazon’s unfair labor practices, but we’re just a little quicker to click on that free 2-day prime shipping button.
Post reply on HN