Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

141–150 of 210 posts

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

#141

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.

Grossly inaccurate is the best way of describing the screening time, I've done the amazon fulfillment center tour and seen employees check in for different shifts, it does not take 25 minutes to go through the screening process. There's no way Amazon with its efficiency mantra would let this happen knowing how it eventually impacts the bottom line.

> Grossly inaccurate is the best way of describing the screening time

Amazon agrees with you... they contend that the screening doesn't actually take this long. I'm not clear on how a question of fact like this can be in dispute unless we are arguing over definitions.

> I've done the amazon fulfillment center tour and seen employees check in for different shifts, it does not take 25 minutes to go through the screening process.

No one is claiming that the check-in process takes a long time. The check-out process is the one where the employees are screened for theft, and that is where the employees claim they must wait (unpaid) for a long time.

> There's no way Amazon with its efficiency mantra would let this happen knowing how it eventually impacts the bottom line.

I find that completely unpersuasive. The courts have just told Amazon that they DON'T HAVE TO PAY for this time. So it isn't inefficient for them to allow it to take lots of time. It doesn't affect Amazon's bottom line until the point where it becomes difficult for Amazon to hire any workers.

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

#142
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On what basis?

Being locked up at work without compensation. I guess the Constitution's "involuntary servitude" wording was meant for other contexts (actual 24/7 slavery), but this still seems like a basic human rights violation. But maybe the US Supreme Court doesn't view itself as a human rights court, so I don't know. That's why I asked.

That simply isn't how the Supreme (or any) court works. Perhaps there is a servitude issue at hand, but that is not the argument that the plaintiff made.

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

#143

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.

Ah so it is OK then? No, those people should be paid for their time too.

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

#144

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…

Some of the biggest employers of US “native” workers are immigrants. Some markets/industries wouldn’t exist entirely without immigrants. You can’t turn it into a black-and-white “immigration bad” summary. Then again, it seems clear you’re not against immigration that happened decades to a century or two ago; only immigration happening after a certain class of people benefited from it for themselves, right? Also, you…

I will just ignore your racist self-righteousness in the pursuit of discussion, but you are exhibiting lazy thinking.

…which you then follow it up with lazy pseudo-nationalist supremacist thinking that declares the USA far more worthy of the human resources it strips from the originating countries, while sabotaging any real hope for those originating countries to develop, and sabotaging the native US population at the same time. Those other countries don't deserve to develop, the US rich need to import foreigners to augment their failure of statesmanship and governance; those foreign countries of "brown people" don't deserve those human resources, becky needs a babysitter or a new iPhone. Come one, come all "brown people" that increase profits through lower wages/salaries. And yes, I realize the exceptions of high salary foreigners are elevated as arguments for the fallacious rule.

It's really just a "pivot" of the slavery business model, just more efficient, profitable, and also less obviously unethical and immoral, so the fools can't quite catch onto it. What is always missed in the debate about slavery, is that slavery hurt the common people far more than even the salves in most cases for the very same reason that "immigration" is solely about driving up profits of the ruling class on the backs of the middle and lower class, by selling their own people out to foreign mercenary pillagers. Slavery was essentially were fed, housed, and taken care of because they represented the low wage labor necessary to drive the wealth of the ruling class; while the common people (mostly white) were not only left to their own devices to scrounge out a living in poverty and having to make their own way in life having to take care of themselves ( in spite of what spoiled brats today think, "white people" did not live a life of Club Med), they were also undermined by slavery the very same way that your support of immigration undermines citizens.

But I get it, you are self-righteous and self-interested because you have no principle and scaffold that with lazy thinking, but that does not change the fact that immigration is not only immoral and unethical, it is just basic theft. At the very least, "immigrants" should have to pay immensely higher taxes to compensate and reward citizens for what they and their forefathers created, but employers of immigrants should also have to pay immensely higher taxes, which of course they will have no problem paying since the immigrants will "do jobs Americans will not do".

No, and most people don't seem to understand what is going on, a fraud and plunder of the USA from those who created it by those who are pillaging it, including the "white" ruling class that are essentially using a Private equity leveraged buyout model to take over the USA and suck it dry, and the "immigrants" are the vehicle for doing so, because every additional "immigrant" is a marginal increase in their profit.

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

#145

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.

At least they have coffee. Some places don't even have that.

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

#146
post #4

So, trying to follow the sequence of thrown out and overturned, it seems like now it would be going all the way back down to the original court that threw out the lawsuit to go forward? Seems crazy that it's taking this long to settle the question. 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.

> 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.

> It’s an asshole move for sure.

Yes, but corporations aren't known for going out of their way not to be assholes (more accurately--not known to go above and beyond the most basic compliance with local and federal labor and employment laws).

Tech workers benefit from the high demand for tech skills, so we typically have low "asshole" behavior from companies, less we just find another job.

Other workers typically do not. Certainly non-techworkers who work for tech companies get better treatment simply based on a uniform set of policies and procedures, but often, they are employees of a contract firm, and not subject to the same treatment as the tech employees.

I'm not sure how I feel about low-skill/low-wage workers being subject to unpaid security checks.

Being paid for time they are required to fulfill duties vs "A few rotten apples spoil the bunch."

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

#147

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.

So two wrongs don't make a right, but everybody doing it wrong does?

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

#148
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's still less then a 1/3 as many employees as Walmart Looks like they had similar issues? https://www.plbsh.com/jury-awards-walmart-employees-6-millio...

yes, and there have been numerous articles about Walmart being terrible as well :-/

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

#149
post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grossly inaccurate is the best way of describing the screening time, I've done the amazon fulfillment center tour and seen employees check in for different shifts, it does not take 25 minutes to go through the screening process. There's no way Amazon with its efficiency mantra would let this happen knowing how it eventually impacts the bottom line.

> Grossly inaccurate is the best way of describing the screening time Amazon agrees with you... they contend that the screening doesn't actually take this long. I'm not clear on how a question of fact like this can be in dispute unless we are arguing over definitions. > I've done the amazon fulfillment center tour and seen employees check in for different shifts, it does not take 25 minutes to go through the screenin…

> I find that completely unpersuasive. The courts have just told Amazon that they DON'T HAVE TO PAY for this time.

The headline is a little misleading. The appellate court was letting the case vs. Amazon go to trial under state labor law; the Supreme Court decided not to intervene, so the dispute is still being litigated.

(Previously, the Supreme Court said time being screening doesn't require compensation under Federal law).

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

#150

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN