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

201–210 of 210 posts

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

#201

Post by Dylan16807 »

tom_mellior wrote: post #198
Dylan16807 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They pay you every two weeks. From a human rights point of view, it doesn't matter the tiniest bit whether a workday is 8 hours at $12 plus .75 hours at $0, or 8.75 hours at $11. So there is no reason for the supreme court to intervene on that basis. The lawmakers are in charge here, and the law won't be inherently invalid.

That's why this is being fought with state law, not the constitution. The federal law is doing something stupid, but the stupidity is mostly an accounting trick. Everyone is still getting paid for their total labor.

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

#202

Post by tom_mellior »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #201
tom_mellior wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

They pay you every two weeks. From a human rights point of view, it doesn't matter the tiniest bit whether a workday is 8 hours at $12 plus .75 hours at $0, or 8.75 hours at $11. So there is no reason for the supreme court to intervene on that basis. The lawmakers are in charge here, and the law won't be inherently invalid. That's why this is being fought with state law, not the constitution. The federal law is doing…

From a human rights point of view it absolutely matters if you agree to work 8 hours per day, and your employer agrees to pay you for 8 hours of work per day, but also decides to keep you locked up for some extra unpaid time.

I see we won't agree here, so I'm out.

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

#203

Post by Dylan16807 »

tom_mellior wrote: post #202
Dylan16807 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They pay you every two weeks. From a human rights point of view, it doesn't matter the tiniest bit whether a workday is 8 hours at $12 plus .75 hours at $0, or 8.75 hours at $11. So there is no reason for the supreme court to intervene on that basis. The lawmakers are in charge here, and the law won't be inherently invalid. That's why this is being fought with state law, not the constitution. The federal law is doing…

From a human rights point of view it absolutely matters if you agree to work 8 hours per day, and your employer agrees to pay you for 8 hours of work per day, but also decides to keep you locked up for some extra unpaid time. I see we won't agree here, so I'm out.

You're not locked up. You agree to the extra unpaid time as a bundle with the paid time. You can quit any time. And your pay each week is a fair amount.

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

#204

Post by mruts »

edoceo wrote: post #90
mruts wrote: post #83

If I would get fired for not wearing clothes, should I get compensated for the time it takes me to get dressed? Also we could also talk about: dry clean suits, taking showers, cutting hair, shaving, putting on make-up, etc.

No, you're generally not on-prem for those tasks. And time for putting on your kit, for jobs that require that, is paid time

So it would be all good if Amazon did security checks at home?

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

#205

Post by blaser-waffle »

Frondo wrote: post #91
jbob2000 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Labor conscious writers mean nothing if their editors (and newspaper / website / whatever) owners disagree. Ultimately the wordsmiths need to get paid, too, and they write what gets them money -- which is what their bosses want to print.

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

#206

Post by edoceo »

mruts wrote: post #204
edoceo wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you're generally not on-prem for those tasks. And time for putting on your kit, for jobs that require that, is paid time

So it would be all good if Amazon did security checks at home?

That's not what "on-prem" means at all. I obviously meant Amazon should comp for on-prem time in security screen

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

#207

Post by mruts »

edoceo wrote: post #206
mruts wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it would be all good if Amazon did security checks at home?

That's not what "on-prem" means at all. I obviously meant Amazon should comp for on-prem time in security screen

Yes, fine. I agree. But if Amazon did the security screens off their property, should they be comped?

Moreover, why not just make the workers salaried so they can’t complain?

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

#208

Post by Brain_Thief »

ryanmercer wrote: post #168
Brain_Thief wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>find it shocking that anyone could defend a gargantuan corporation like Amazon refusing to provide their workers with reasonable wages to support quality lives. Amazon starts at more than double federal minimum wage... it took me a decade to make 15 dollars an hour at my job...

I'm sorry that reaching what many believe should be a minimum level of income took such a prolonged period for you and I hope that moving forward you experience an easier time growing your income.

Based on the tone of your response, I take it that you are not supportive of my criticism of Amazon et al. A question for you: do you wish for other people (including yourself in the future, your possible children, or your friends and family) to have to struggle to make an amount of money that can support their basic needs? The fact of the matter is that the current federal minimum wage is completely insufficient to meet the needs of a person attempting to make it in the modern world - even 2X the federal minimum is incredibly low given the uncertainties around health care and higher education / job training.

When a series of corporations are vacuuming up an overwhelming majority of all productivity gains and the top 0.01% are becoming wealthier than historical princes, it is very valid and important to level a critical eye at the fairness of the situation so that we can all improve together and not have our societal progress retarded by sociopathy and greed.

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

#209

Post by azernik »

No1 wrote: post #71
azernik wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 7,000-8,000 petitions for certiorari each year, rendering judgment in the merits after oral argument on about 80-100 cases per year That's what this line refers to: petitions for cert are requests to have the Court hear a case. They only accept ~10%.

That would be ~1%

Derp. That is the correct math, indeed.

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

#210

Post by Supermancho »

Buge wrote: post #192
Supermancho wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Nor should we pretend "the law" is perfect in application and outcome...or why would anyone try to improve it?
Post reply on HN