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

191–200 of 210 posts

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

#191

Post by Buge »

uoaei wrote: post #160
Buge wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The percent impact would be negligible, I expect lower than daily fluctuation. Anyway, the law isn't just designed to protect shareholders, it's designed to protect everyone. If someone can make money by fraud, that money is not justification to allow fraud. The US economy relies on dependable contacts.

Percent impact is non-negligible when you consider the impatience of the average consumer.

I was thinking Amazon would raise prices slightly, not make stuff slower.

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

#192

Post by Buge »

Supermancho wrote: post #151
Buge wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The percent impact would be negligible, I expect lower than daily fluctuation. Anyway, the law isn't just designed to protect shareholders, it's designed to protect everyone. If someone can make money by fraud, that money is not justification to allow fraud. The US economy relies on dependable contacts.

> Anyway, the law isn't just designed to protect shareholders, Which law? "The Law" as an ideal, is impartial. That's irrelevant. In practice, applied law (and the cousin enforced law) leads to biased results, favoring the wealthy and the status quo while remaining "impartial".

Ok, then "the law shouldn't be just designed".

We shouldn't let a defeatist attitude discourage attempts at improvement.

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

#193

Post by Dylan16807 »

patientplatypus wrote: post #169
Dylan16807 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Wait, really?

Do you care if your judge used to shoplift? (I'm not interested in talking about real cases here.)

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

#194

Post by Dylan16807 »

tom_mellior wrote: post #179
Dylan16807 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

The entire law doesn't need to be invalid. But if it says that your employer can force you to be present without compensation, that part can be inherently invalid.

Define "force".

If you mean "hold you against your will", they can't do that.

If you mean "you have to do it to stay employed", they can.

The question here is how pay is calculated. It's not whether the security checks themselves are a problem.

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

#195

Post by SamReidHughes »

avar wrote: post #137

I'm surprised this hasn't come up before, isn't the US full of e.g. military installations where employees work by the hour and clock in/out, and where there's some gate check going in & out of the installation that might take a non-trivial amount of time? E.g. the CIA & NSA have such gates, and presumably the same goes for a bunch of military and security contractors.

Exactly -- can you imagine managing compensation for that time? Would you require hourly employees to have no conversations, no stopping to check their phone, on their way out of the office?

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

#196

Post by mikelyons »

bigj0n wrote: post #190
mikelyons wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're neglecting to consider that you have to be caught.

Amazon was just being tried in court. This isnt about being caught- the evidence is clear as day and was presented in court. This is about a failure of our legal system to protect basic rights of a laborer to be paid the agreed upon rate.

He was talking about their next job ...

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

#197

Post by erikpukinskis »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #138
mfer wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 American approve of THEIR congressmen by wide margins (50%+ for, 35% against, 15% no opinion) (Scroll down) https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx

Gerrymandering does lead to wide margins. You pack your opponents in tight.

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

#198

Post by tom_mellior »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #194
tom_mellior wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire law doesn't need to be invalid. But if it says that your employer can force you to be present without compensation, that part can be inherently invalid.

Define "force". If you mean "hold you against your will", they can't do that. If you mean "you have to do it to stay employed", they can. The question here is how pay is calculated. It's not whether the security checks themselves are a problem.

> The question here is how pay is calculated.

Yes. Specifically, whether your employer can make you do work that they don't define as work and therefore don't pay, even though it has all the characteristics of work: Being where they tell you when they tell you doing what they tell you.

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

#199

Post by tom_mellior »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #142
tom_mellior wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So what you're saying is that this is exactly how the Supreme Court works if someone comes and makes an appropriate argument?

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

#200

Post by tom_mellior »

toasterlovin wrote: post #55
travisjungroth wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes no sense to me. If the company makes them undergo security screenings, they were hired to undergo security screenings. By this logic, it seems like they could make them do an hour of phone support at the beginning and end of each shift since that’s not what they were hired to do.

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.

Here's a better analogy: Imagine your employer requires you to work some night shifts, just to have someone on premises in case "something" happens. You and your employer both agree that often nothing happens, so you can in fact sleep during those night shifts. But your employer says that sleeping on the job is not work and therefore should not be paid.

The European Court of Justice held that the employer is wrong, and if they require you to be on premises, even if sleeping, that's work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landeshauptstadt_Kiel_v_Jaeger (this was related to European laws, of course, not American ones)

Post reply on HN