Supreme Court Rules for Employers

[ClydeR]

In a good ruling for employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/business/supreme-court-rules-against-worker-pay-for-security-screenings.html) -- which is necessarily a good ruling for consumers -- the Supreme Court said that Amazon.com warehouse workers should not receive pay for the time they spend in line at the end of each workday being checked for stolen merchandise.

The court said employers are required to pay for work that is "integral and indispensable" to the purpose for which the employees were hired. Since the Amazon employees weren't hired for the purpose of standing in line, then they shouldn't get paid for that time.

[Hightower]

That's true. The employer shouldn't have to pay them for not working. On the other hand, they should have no right to detain people who are off the clock. When I'm done with my shift I clock out and leave, and my employer can go fuck themselves if they want me to stick around without pay. Makes sense to me.

[waywardgs]

Yeah... If you want me to waive my right about search and seizure, I should be getting paid for that. I don't get the reasoning behind this ruling.

[Methais]

This is stupid.

[Gelston]

This is why Unions exist.

[Fallen]

This kind of reminds me of working lunches.

[Jarvan]

I Have worked, and am currently working again at Amazon for the holidays. This year I am working there because I wanted to get my nephew a job. (His First) Working two jobs sucks tho when one of them is 55 hours a week.. yuck.

Anyway... the security lines are much shorter then they were in the past. BUT.. the first time I was there, it could be up to a 45 min wait to get thru the lines. Now.. kinda stupid.. but it's hard to screen 2000 people fast and accurately. In one month, someone stole over 80,000$ worth of SD cards.

So.. yeah. The employer should certainly be able to keep a secure building. If you don't like it... don't work there.

[Tenlaar]

So.. yeah. The employer should certainly be able to keep a secure building.

Yes they should. And if they are going to say that their employees can't leave, they should have to pay them.

[Methais]

I Have worked, and am currently working again at Amazon for the holidays. This year I am working there because I wanted to get my nephew a job. (His First) Working two jobs sucks tho when one of them is 55 hours a week.. yuck.

Anyway... the security lines are much shorter then they were in the past. BUT.. the first time I was there, it could be up to a 45 min wait to get thru the lines. Now.. kinda stupid.. but it's hard to screen 2000 people fast and accurately. In one month, someone stole over 80,000$ worth of SD cards.

So.. yeah. The employer should certainly be able to keep a secure building. If you don't like it... don't work there.

People get paid for their time. If they're making them spend their time getting checked for stolen stuff, that should be on their dime, not the employee's.

[Wrathbringer]

People get paid for their time. If they're making them spend their time getting checked for stolen stuff, that should be on their dime, not the employee's.

Cavity searches take time, Methais, and if they paid their employees to do these searches, well, that's prostitution.

[Jarvan]

People get paid for their time. If they're making them spend their time getting checked for stolen stuff, that should be on their dime, not the employee's.

You know.. it's ALSO your time while you are driving to and from work, or while you are waiting in traffic to leave.

Should they pay you for THAT time as well? I mean, it's your time.

I can't think of any place that pays you for the time for going thru a security check. When I worked at Circuit City, and we checked purses and backpacks before employees left, it was always after they punched out as well.

Sorry.. but you are not working, you don't get paid. Pretty simple concept I would think.

I consider the security check, as just part of going from and to your job. I am SURE we have office workers here that clock in and out at their desk... if it takes 10 min for you to go from your desk to the doors of the building, do you feel you should get paid for that 10 min travel time? Or do you literally have a punch out place right at the door and you only clock out the second you leave? and that last 10 min of work time you weren't working? because it's the same thing.

Also.. Amazon doesn't have to worry about unions... 90% of their workers are thru a temp agency during the holiday rush, which is the only time the security lines are ever an issue. But if you don't take metal objects on the floor.. you spend like.. .5 seconds going thru the express lines. I always laugh at the people taking off their steel tip boots... they even tell people NOT to wear those.

[Jarvan]

On a side note...

I doubt the people working at the US mint get paid while they are going thru security.

[Sorcasaurus]

Cavity searches take time, Methais, and if they paid their employees to do these searches, well, that's prostitution.

I believe the cavity searches are included in the company benefits under "Daily enema"


I'm very surprised by this ruling, and they keep referencing “employees could skip the screenings altogether without the safety or effectiveness of their principal activities being substantially impaired.” If you're not allowed to skip the screening, does that mean they are detaining you illegally? Does that mean my work can demand me to do tasks for free if they're not part of (Edit: or drastically effect) my "primary activities"?

EDIT: Given this quote: Since then, Justice Thomas said, the court has required pay for activities that were “an intrinsic element of the job” and could not be skipped.

Taken from the Portal to Portal act they reference:
http://labor-employment-law.lawyers.com/wage-and-hour-law/portal-to-portal-act.html

An activity is considered to be integral part of your duties, if:

It is made necessary by the nature of the work performed
It fulfills mutual obligations between you and your employer
It directly benefits the employer in the operation of its business
It is closely related to your other duties
The time spent engaged in such activities is reasonable and is not insubstantial or insignificant

I don't understand how this doesn't all into that classification...

[Methais]

Sorry.. but you are not working, you don't get paid. Pretty simple concept I would think.

The difference between the security check and walking from your desk to the door or being on the road is during the security check you're being compelled to stay there, detained, whatever you wanna call it.


Cavity searches take time, Methais, and if they paid their employees to do these searches, well, that's prostitution.

Not if they film it.

[Wrathbringer]

You know.. it's ALSO your time while you are driving to and from work, or while you are waiting in traffic to leave.

Should they pay you for THAT time as well? I mean, it's your time.

I can't think of any place that pays you for the time for going thru a security check. When I worked at Circuit City, and we checked purses and backpacks before employees left, it was always after they punched out as well.

Sorry.. but you are not working, you don't get paid. Pretty simple concept I would think.

I consider the security check, as just part of going from and to your job. I am SURE we have office workers here that clock in and out at their desk... if it takes 10 min for you to go from your desk to the doors of the building, do you feel you should get paid for that 10 min travel time? Or do you literally have a punch out place right at the door and you only clock out the second you leave? and that last 10 min of work time you weren't working? because it's the same thing.

Also.. Amazon doesn't have to worry about unions... 90% of their workers are thru a temp agency during the holiday rush, which is the only time the security lines are ever an issue. But if you don't take metal objects on the floor.. you spend like.. .5 seconds going thru the express lines. I always laugh at the people taking off their steel tip boots... they even tell people NOT to wear those.

I personally charge for my time from the moment I leave the driveway until the moment I pull back in to the driveway. That said, I agree with you that it's amazon's right and if people don't like it, they can work elsewhere.

[Parkbandit]

I personally charge for my time from the moment I leave the driveway until the moment I pull back in to the driveway. That said, I agree with you that it's amazon's right and if people don't like it, they can work elsewhere.

This is not the case for most working people.

If this security process takes 15 minutes - 30 minutes.. then that should be on the employer's time. If this process takes 5 minutes or less.. suck it up or find another job.

[Fallen]

Look at it this way, if you left your job 5 minutes early would it be a big deal? How about 30+ minutes early every day? Yes? Then maybe the employer should be held to the same standard.

[Wrathbringer]

Look at it this way, if you left your job 5 minutes early would it be a big deal? How about 30+ minutes early every day? Yes? Then maybe the employer should be held to the same standard.

By who? The government? Or the employees via attrition due to policy if it's that bad?

[Fallen]

By who? The government? Or the employees via attrition due to policy if it's that bad?

You're one of those no minimum wage types, i'm assuming. No child labor laws? No OSHA requirements? If your job site is unsafe ...just find a new job, right?

Let's just go ahead and nix the whole department of labor. I'm sure everything will work itself out.

[Wrathbringer]

You're one of those no minimum wage types, i'm assuming. No child labor laws? No OSHA requirements?

If your job site is unsafe ...just find a new job, right?

Yeah, because that's exactly what I said. Oh, wait, no, no it wasn't. When we're discussing those topics, you'll see where I stand on them. I asked what I thought was a simple and respectful question and you respond with generalities?

[Fallen]

Yeah, because that's exactly what I said. Oh, wait, no, no it wasn't. When we're discussing those topics, you'll see where I stand on them. I asked what I thought was a simple and respectful question and you respond with generalities?

I believe that these types of issues should be addressed by policy and regulation, yes. Pointing to other examples of PESKY GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE goes to show that regulation is, in fact, necessary. Saying, "Just find a new job!" could be applied to child labor laws and OSHA requirements as well.

If we are drawing lines in where government should step in, I believe the aspect of being forced to stay at work under threat of termination while unpaid falls on the side of the line which should be covered by policy/regulation, but that's just me.

[Wrathbringer]

I believe that these types of issues should be addressed by policy and regulation, yes. Pointing to other examples of PESKY GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE goes to show that regulation is, in fact, necessary. Saying, "Just find a new job!" could be applied to child labor laws and OSHA requirements as well.

We're talking about a few minutes of one's time here, not mine safety or underage sweatshops. No one is dying or being injured/endangered by this policy. I think the policy stinks, and if I worked there and found it excessive, I'd change jobs myself, not wait for government to change my workplace.

[Methais]

We're talking about a few minutes of one's time here, not mine safety or underage sweatshops. No one is dying or being injured/endangered by this policy. I think the policy stinks, and if I worked there and found it excessive, I'd change jobs myself, not wait for government to change my workplace.

The article said it takes like 20 minutes.

That's more than just a few minutes of one's time, especially when it's over something like "JUST MAKING SURE YOU'RE NOT A THIEF!!!!!!11"

[Wrathbringer]

The article said it takes like 20 minutes.

That's more than just a few minutes of one's time, especially when it's over something like "JUST MAKING SURE YOU'RE NOT A THIEF!!!!!!11"

So the bar is 20 minutes for you. It'll be different for everyone. My bar would be 5 minutes. If it took longer than that and they refused to pay me for that time, I'd get a new job or stand in line sharting until they sped things along. Simple as that. Probably both, as I consider it.

[Fallen]

We're talking about a few minutes of one's time here, not mine safety or underage sweatshops. No one is dying or being injured/endangered by this policy. I think the policy stinks, and if I worked there and found it excessive, I'd change jobs myself, not wait for government to change my workplace.

You've drawn the line for yourself at 5 minutes. How long should an employer be able to keep you without pay under risk of termination as a matter of policy? Should they legally be able to keep you for longer than an hour without pay?


So the bar is 20 minutes for you. It'll be different for everyone. My bar would be 5 minutes. If it took longer than that and they refused to pay me for that time, I'd get a new job or stand in line sharting until they sped things along. Simple as that. Probably both, as I consider it.

You have to understand that when employers on a scale of Amazon or Walmart (or whomever) adopt this policy, it won't be easy for hundreds/thousands of people to quit and leave their jobs, right? It's an option for some, but not all. Especially for unskilled labor.

[Sorcasaurus]

Am I misreading it, or is the case limited to only the temp employees (the temp agency was the defendant) that worked there? Are the workers employed by Amazon subject to the same wait times, and how are they handled?

If the Amazon employees are or are or are not paid for the wait time, it would set the standard for the job and the Temp company should be bound by the same practice. Are they even subject to the same searches?

[AnticorRifling]

First they came for the seconds and I said nothing because the seconds didn't matter to me, then they came for the minutes and still I said nothing...

[Wrathbringer]

Where would you draw the line? At an hour? How long should an employer be able to keep you without pay under risk of termination? Honest question.

The bar for me would be five minutes, I imagine. I'm willing to give that if it's a nice place to work. An employer should be willing to define the terms of your employment up front. If one agrees to them, then an accord is reached and there's no issue. If you're not fond of the terms, you've a right to look elsewhere. This is one of those situations where we need more common sense, not more legislation.

[Fallen]

First they came for the seconds and I said nothing because the seconds didn't matter to me, then they came for the minutes and still I said nothing...

My worry is job/regulatory (SHARP, HIPPA, Fire extinguisher, etc etc etc) training. I bet employers would love to have all the crappy job training required on your own time.

[Fallen]

The bar for me would be five minutes, I imagine. I'm willing to give that if it's a nice place to work. An employer should be willing to define the terms of your employment up front. If one agrees to them, then an accord is reached and there's no issue. If you're not fond of the terms, you've a right to look elsewhere. This is one of those situations where we need more common sense, not more legislation.

Where do you see the downsides in legislation stating that you cannot be kept at work without being paid?

[Wrathbringer]

My worry is job/regulatory (SHARP, HIPPA, Fire extinguisher, etc etc etc) training. I bet employers would love to have all the crappy job training required on your own time.

If employees are still willing to work there despite such a policy, why do you care?

[Fallen]

If employees are still willing to work there despite such a policy, why do you care?

I don't want to have to find a new job because my employer is free to adopt really shitty practices. I would rather be afforded the very sane and logical protection that if you're keeping me at work, you're paying me. I'm failing to see the downside in such a policy. What, will we suddenly lose out to the liberal forced labor policies of China and Pakistan?

[Wrathbringer]

Where do you see the downsides in legislation stating that you cannot be kept at work without being paid?

Well, if amazon deemed the searches necessary and were unable to speed the process, Amazon would be forced to pay the people for their time and that money comes from somewhere. Perhaps they lay off people or stop hiring to get that money, or maybe they increase their prices to cover it. None of those things are upsides. That's the thing about legislation. There are always downsides. Some apparent, some not so apparent. Legislation should be our last recourse, not our first.

[Fallen]

Well, if amazon deemed the searches necessary and were unable to speed the process, Amazon would be forced to pay the people for their time and that money comes from somewhere. Perhaps they lay off people or stop hiring to get that money, or maybe they increase their prices to cover it. None of those things are upsides. That's the thing about legislation. There are always downsides. Some apparent, some not so apparent. Legislation should be our last recourse, not our first.

I agree there are lines where policy should end and common sense should take over. I just firmly believe that keeping employees unpaid definitely falls on the policy/legislation side of that line.

[Wrathbringer]

I don't want to have to find a new job because my employer is free to adopt really shitty practices. I would rather be afforded the very sane and logical protection that if you're keeping me at work, you're paying me. I'm failing to see the downside in such a policy. What, will we suddenly lose out to the liberal forced labor policies of China and Pakistan?

I don't think it's realistic to expect to legislate for every eventuality that may inconvenience a worker in the workplace. It's 20 minutes. If you don't want a new job, don't get one. If you do, then do. Why the governmental third party is necessary here is beyond me.

[Parkbandit]

The article said it takes like 20 minutes.

That's more than just a few minutes of one's time, especially when it's over something like "JUST MAKING SURE YOU'RE NOT A THIEF!!!!!!11"

I agree. If it honestly takes 20 minutes from the time you get into this line to the time you exit the door, then that 20 minutes should be paid for.

[Androidpk]

According to the Bureau of Personnel Management the average number of work days in the US is 261. At 20 minutes a pop that comes out to an additional 87 hours of unpaid overtime.

[Wrathbringer]

According to the Bureau of Personnel Management the average number of work days in the US is 261. At 20 minutes a pop that comes out to an additional 87 hours of unpaid overtime.

However, once you factor in a couple of daily 20 minute bathroom/angry birds breaks, we're still coming out ahead, tho, right?

[AnticorRifling]

According to the Bureau of Personnel Management the average number of work days in the US is 261. At 20 minutes a pop that comes out to an additional 87 hours of unpaid overtime.

And depending on where you work getting out the door at 5p versus 520p is the difference between a 30min commute versus a 60min commute.

[Methais]

So the bar is 20 minutes for you. It'll be different for everyone. My bar would be 5 minutes. If it took longer than that and they refused to pay me for that time, I'd get a new job or stand in line sharting until they sped things along. Simple as that. Probably both, as I consider it.

I didn't say my bar is 20 minute. I said that's what the article said.

5 minutes would be about my bar too before they can go shart themselves.

[zzentar]

While agree that the people should be paid for an avg 20 minute exit time from work each day, I have to think that they are told this when they are applying for the job and accept those terms at hire.

Let me play devil's advocate and give another example:

If you are a civilian working on a military base, you have to go through the base gates and this easily can take 10 to 20 mins both in and out and can also involve a random search of your vehicle. Those people are not paid for that time but they knew that it was part of the job when they started.

~Zz

[AnticorRifling]

While agree that the people should be paid for an avg 20 minute exit time from work each day, I have to think that they are told this when they are applying for the job and accept those terms at hire.

Let me play devil's advocate and give another example:

If you are a civilian working on a military base, you have to go through the base gates and this easily can take 10 to 20 mins both in and out and can also involve a random search of your vehicle. Those people are not paid for that time but they knew that it was part of the job when they started.

~Zz

I've never seen anyone stopped at the gates on the way out.

[Tenlaar]

I can't think of any place that pays you for the time for going thru a security check. When I worked at Circuit City, and we checked purses and backpacks before employees left, it was always after they punched out as well.

Well the cigarette packaging plant that I worked at had us (meaning the supervisors) check every employee on our shift with a metal detector before they left. They lined up in the building, we checked them, they went over to the door where the time clock was and out they went. Only after all floor workers were gone did we clock out and leave. There were regularly 400+ people on a shift.

I guess it turns out your experiences really aren't universal truths after all. Crazy, right?

[Tisket]

Legislation should be our last recourse, not our first.

Because employers have historically proven to be careful with their employees financial and physical health and well being long before things like occupational safety regulations and what not.

God, you are such a moron.

[Archigeek]

I agree that they should get paid for the time if the employer is requiring them to be there. I also think we should do away with the exemption of many jobs from overtime pay requirements. Actually I'd be happy without overtime pay, but if you're working you should get paid. There are a ton of workers who work more than 40 hours, but only get paid for 40, because their job title is exempt from the requirement to pay them.

[Tgo01]

Kind of surprised this was a unanimous decision.

I can understand employers having a security thing and I could even understand them not having to pay if it's a reasonable wait; like 5 minutes. But 40 minute unpaid wait to leave the building sounds like something straight out of a third world banana republic.

[Wrathbringer]

Because employers have historically proven to be careful with their employees financial and physical health and well being long before things like occupational safety regulations and what not.

God, you are such a moron.

Quiet, wench.

[Wrathbringer]

I've never seen anyone stopped at the gates on the way out.

Then it must not happen, amirite?

[Jarvan]

You've drawn the line for yourself at 5 minutes. How long should an employer be able to keep you without pay under risk of termination as a matter of policy? Should they legally be able to keep you for longer than an hour without pay?



You have to understand that when employers on a scale of Amazon or Walmart (or whomever) adopt this policy, it won't be easy for hundreds/thousands of people to quit and leave their jobs, right? It's an option for some, but not all. Especially for unskilled labor.

Someone last night tried to walk out with an 80$ pair of beats ear buds. He was upset that security was even checking him. The lines have really changed from 20 min to maybe more like 5 min or so.

Here is one potential problem with signing out after security... if you are scheduled to say.. 6:15 Am, how do you know how long it will take you to get through security? Do you leave your work area 5 min early? 10? 20? Ok, you leave 10 min early say... then it takes you 1 min to go through security, now do you stand around for 9 min until you punch out?

Oh btw.. now your package doesn't arrive in time because 2k people left 10 min early.

[Wrathbringer]

Someone last night tried to walk out with an 80$ pair of beats ear buds. He was upset that security was even checking him. The lines have really changed from 20 min to maybe more like 5 min or so.

Here is one potential problem with signing out after security... if you are scheduled to say.. 6:15 Am, how do you know how long it will take you to get through security? Do you leave your work area 5 min early? 10? 20? Ok, you leave 10 min early say... then it takes you 1 min to go through security, now do you stand around for 9 min until you punch out?

Oh btw.. now your package doesn't arrive in time because 2k people left 10 min early.

Does amazon have a paddy wagon waiting outside at the end of each shift for all the thieves?

[Latrinsorm]

So the bar is 20 minutes for you. It'll be different for everyone. My bar would be 5 minutes. If it took longer than that and they refused to pay me for that time, I'd get a new job or stand in line sharting until they sped things along. Simple as that. Probably both, as I consider it.Nice try. If you got a new job you wouldn't still be in line at Amazon. QED, buster.

[Methais]

Here is one potential problem with signing out after security... if you are scheduled to say.. 6:15 Am, how do you know how long it will take you to get through security? Do you leave your work area 5 min early? 10? 20? Ok, you leave 10 min early say... then it takes you 1 min to go through security, now do you stand around for 9 min until you punch out?

You're scheduled 9-5. You leave at 5, get done with security at whenever, clock out at that time.

That was a tough one.


But then they'll have to pay them overtime!!!!!

Still better than having people steal $7823904723890 of stuff, and the overtime would be minutes worth.

[caelric]

I agree. If it honestly takes 20 minutes from the time you get into this line to the time you exit the door, then that 20 minutes should be paid for.

It's not often that PB agrees with something ClydeR posts, but in this case, it appears he does, and I do, as well. If a requirement of my work is that I wait in line 20 minutes each day for a security check, then I damn well better get paid for that time and clock out after I am through the line.

Conversely, if I decide to live 90 minutes from my place of employment, that's a personal choice each person can make/not make, and they should not get paid for commuting time. A partially grey area is civillians working on a military base, not able to live on said base, and waiting in lines at the gate. Gets a bit tricky there, but I would say that they decided to apply for employment on a military base, with known disruptions in entrance procedures.

Of course, when you talk about salaried employees, all this gets thrown out the window.

[Fallen]

I agree with those saying that they have employees clock out on the other side of security. I bet you'd be amazed at how efficient security would become once the onus was on the employer.

As for the working on base issue, from personal experience employers face the same lines getting in that employees do. They're fairly understanding if lines run long. I've certainly never heard of anyone getting in trouble for it, but that's just my anecdotal observation.

[Tgo01]

I agree with those saying that they have employees clock out on the other side of security. I bet you'd be amazed at how efficient security would become once the onus was on the employer.

Yeah really. Those 40 minute lines would be down to 30 seconds.

[Tgo01]

What really gets me is the way the supreme court phrased this.

Employers only have to pay for what is "integral and indispensable" to the job they were hired to do. So like...if I were hired to cook and only cook then one day they asked me to wait tables does that mean they don't have to pay me since that wasn't an "integral and indispensable" part of the job I was hired for?

I look at it like this; my employer can ask me to do anything they want (within reason of course, no law breaking or the like) and I should have to comply as long as I'm getting paid for it. As soon as my employer no longer pays me for it then I should have the right to refuse of what they request of me.

[caelric]

What really gets me is the way the supreme court phrased this.

Employers only have to pay for what is "integral and indispensable" to the job they were hired to do. So like...if I were hired to cook and only cook then one day they asked me to wait tables does that mean they don't have to pay me since that wasn't an "integral and indispensable" part of the job I was hired for?

I look at it like this; my employer can ask me to do anything they want (within reason of course, no law breaking or the like) and I should have to comply as long as I'm getting paid for it. As soon as my employer no longer pays me for it then I should have the right to refuse of what they request of me.


Most employment contracts I am familiar with generally define the job duties (and in some cases strictly and specifically lay them out) and if an employer asks you to do something outside of those duties you have the right to refuse to do that, with no repercussions. Of course, with an at-will contract, you can get fired at anytime for anything (or nothing), so that does change things significantly.

This often comes into play with government contracts for a contract employee to do XX. That employee can not be ordered to do YY, even if XX is completely finished, and the employee is sitting around doing nothing.

[Tgo01]

Most employment contracts I am familiar with generally define the job duties (and in some cases strictly and specifically lay them out) and if an employer asks you to do something outside of those duties you have the right to refuse to do that, with no repercussions. Of course, with an at-will contract, you can get fired at anytime for anything (or nothing), so that does change things significantly.

This often comes into play with government contracts for a contract employee to do XX. That employee can not be ordered to do YY, even if XX is completely finished, and the employee is sitting around doing nothing.

Well yeah. If it's a contract where your duties are clearly defined then you should only have to do that. I'm talking about some place like a McDonald's or Target; it would be hard to get shit done at places like that if a cashier could only ever work a register or someone who was hired to stock shelves only ever stocked shelves.

[caelric]

Roger, got it. Those would also likely be 'at-will' contracts.

[Whirlin]

I agree. If it honestly takes 20 minutes from the time you get into this line to the time you exit the door, then that 20 minutes should be paid for.
I agree with PB.

/Thread.

[loxe]

i am a union pipeline worker, and in the morning we park our cars at the warehouse and we bus from the warehouse to the right-of way. Our time ends in the evening when we leave the right-of-way, even if it is a 2 hour or more bus ride back to the warehouse. (longest i have personally ever had was 150 miles from right-of-way to the warehouse)

[Fallen]

At my job they get around specificity of contracts by adding the line, "and other duties as assigned."

[Tisket]

Quiet, wench.

If this is intended to disprove my contention that you are a moron then all you have succeeded in proving is what a stupid cunt you truly are.

Way to go.

[Methais]

If this is intended to disprove my contention that you are a moron then all you have succeeded in proving is what a stupid cunt you truly are.

Way to go.

I get a boner every time you say cunt.

[Thondalar]

When we close the restaurant at night, all employees have to be clocked out so I can run my end-of-day paperwork...but they're not allowed to leave by themselves, only in groups of three or more, due to company security policies. This results in having 2 or 3 people sitting around off the clock, unable to leave until I turn everything off and set the alarm and stuff. I generally back up their clock-out time in the computer to cover the 10 or 15 minutes they are stuck there off the clock, but that's not a company requirement.

However, much like I'm sure Amazon does, we go over the company security procedures with every new employee, and they have to agree to those terms before accepting employment. Don't like it, don't work there.

[Tgo01]

When we close the restaurant at night, all employees have to be clocked out so I can run my end-of-day paperwork...but they're not allowed to leave by themselves, only in groups of three or more, due to company security policies. This results in having 2 or 3 people sitting around off the clock, unable to leave until I turn everything off and set the alarm and stuff. I generally back up their clock-out time in the computer to cover the 10 or 15 minutes they are stuck there off the clock, but that's not a company requirement.

However, much like I'm sure Amazon does, we go over the company security procedures with every new employee, and they have to agree to those terms before accepting employment. Don't like it, don't work there.

I just don't even see how something like this can be legal. You're off the clock and the company can force you to just sit there and twiddle your thumbs?

[Gelston]

I just don't even see how something like this can be legal. You're off the clock and the company can force you to just sit there and twiddle your thumbs?

According to the Supreme Court they can. I guess they can't force you to stay, but I imagine you'll lose your employment.

[Wrathbringer]

I just don't even see how something like this can be legal. You're off the clock and the company can force you to just sit there and twiddle your thumbs?

They don't force you. You're either willing to put up with it or you aren't.

[Tgo01]

According to the Supreme Court they can. I guess they can't force you to stay, but I imagine you'll lose your employment.

Yeah, it's just crazy. I really can't believe this was a unanimous decision. I've never had a job where the company tried to tell me I had to do something while I was off the clock.


They don't force you. You're either willing to put up with it or you aren't.

Okay let me rephrase. Forcing someone to do something without being compensated for their time or they'll be fired.

[Wrathbringer]

If this is intended to disprove my contention that you are a moron then all you have succeeded in proving is what a stupid cunt you truly are.

Way to go.

Feisty old gal! I'm a genius, so...yeah. I was just telling you to be quiet. You don't follow instructions very well.

[Thondalar]

According to the Supreme Court they can. I guess they can't force you to stay, but I imagine you'll lose your employment.

It would be a violation of the security agreement you sign as a condition of employment, and yes, you would lose your job.

[Wrathbringer]

It would be a violation of the security agreement you sign as a condition of employment, and yes, you would lose your job.

conditions for employment! The nerve of these people thinking they can place conditions upon my employment! I'm entitled to this job and I'm entitled to it catering to me! Right guys?

[Tgo01]

conditions for employment! The nerve of these people thinking they can place conditions upon my employment! I'm entitled to this job and I'm entitled to it catering to me! Right guys?

They can put all the conditions for employment they want, as long as they pay me for my time.

[Thondalar]

They can put all the conditions for employment they want, as long as they pay me for my time.

I think you're missing the part where you voluntarily agree to not being paid for that period of time in order to get the job. It's sorta like waving your right to remain silent. If you voluntarily give up something, you are no longer allowed to claim it. Fairly simple concept.

[Tgo01]

I think you're missing the part where you voluntarily agree to not being paid for that period of time in order to get the job. It's sorta like waving your right to remain silent. If you voluntarily give up something, you are no longer allowed to claim it. Fairly simple concept.

You can't legally sign away certain rights, I just happen to think this should be one of those things; you can't sign away your time to an employer without being paid.

[Tgo01]

You can't legally sign away certain rights, I just happen to think this should be one of those things. You can't sign away your time to an employer without being paid.



Thread: Supreme Court Rules for Employers

the ignorance is strong in you


Care to explain?

[zzentar]

You can't legally sign away certain rights, I just happen to think this should be one of those things; you can't sign away your time to an employer without being paid.

Ok, try this.... Its a blizzard outside and you have to leave for work 2 hours early. Does Mother nature owe you 2 hours pay? Or did you agree to the terms of employment that said you have to be here by this time and after your shift you have to go through the frisking?

[Tgo01]

Ok, try this.... Its a blizzard outside and you have to leave for work 2 hours early. Does Mother nature owe you 2 hours pay? Or did you agree to the terms of employment that said you have to be here by this time and after your shift you have to go through the frisking?

That depends; did my employer cause the blizzard?

[ClydeR]

I think you're missing the part where you voluntarily agree to not being paid for that period of time in order to get the job. It's sorta like waving your right to remain silent. If you voluntarily give up something, you are no longer allowed to claim it. Fairly simple concept.

Brilliant idea. You could be either a tycoon or a Supreme Court Judge.

I could use your idea to avoid having to pay the federally mandated -- and in my opinion unconstitutional -- minimum wage. Hire people to operate the cash register. As a condition of their employment, require them to make hamburgers for free when there's no customer at the cash register, but don't pay them for hamburger making time, just for cash register operating time. Genuinely ingenious! Affordable, delicious hamburgers.

[Methais]

That depends; did my employer cause the blizzard?


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ufmGXTLfujE/U9AWMUAl8fI/AAAAAAAAUXY/BqXTuzIjaGM/s1600/he's+right+you+know.jpg

[Methais]

Suppose the security check took 4 hours instead of whatever it is. Would you people that are supporting this ruling still be in favor of it?

[zzentar]

Suppose the security check took 4 hours instead of whatever it is. Would you people that are supporting this ruling still be in favor of it?

No, I would not work there. I also, in an exact comparison, would not work someplace where I had a 4 hour commute.

[Thondalar]

Suppose the security check took 4 hours instead of whatever it is. Would you people that are supporting this ruling still be in favor of it?

Yes, because if it took 4 hours, they wouldn't have any employees and it wouldn't matter. Zzentar has a good point too, though...should an employer pay for your commute?

This all boils down to personal choice, and that's the crux of the scotus ruling. The company can make whatever conditions of employment they want. You have the right to not work there if you don't like it.

[Thondalar]

You can't legally sign away certain rights, I just happen to think this should be one of those things; you can't sign away your time to an employer without being paid.

Well yeah, you can, actually.

[Tgo01]

Well yeah, you can, actually.

Alright I tried to clarify that post of mine already but it's still ambiguous so I'll restate it.

You can't legally sign away certain rights, I just happen to think this should be one of those things. You shouldn't be able to sign away your time to an employer without being paid.

[Thondalar]

Alright I tried to clarify that post of mine already but it's still ambiguous so I'll restate it.

You can't legally sign away certain rights, I just happen to think this should be one of those things. You shouldn't be able to sign away your time to an employer without being paid.

And I think able-minded adults should be allowed to make whatever decision about their employment that they want.

[Tgo01]

And I think able-minded adults should be allowed to make whatever decision about their employment that they want.

Apparently the entirety of the supreme court agrees with you. Just hope this doesn't open up a can of worms.

[Hightower]

It strikes me that your commute is up to you. You choose where you live in relation to where you work. The employer doesn't choose it for you, and when they do they generally pay for it. At least, that's been my experience. This is the employer's choice. They should have to pay for it. And if they don't want to pay for it, they could find ways to mitigate the cost. For instance, stagger the worker shifts by 15 minutes. Or pay salary instead of hourly.

[Methais]

Yes, because if it took 4 hours, they wouldn't have any employees and it wouldn't matter. Zzentar has a good point too, though...should an employer pay for your commute?

This all boils down to personal choice, and that's the crux of the scotus ruling. The company can make whatever conditions of employment they want. You have the right to not work there if you don't like it.

How much unpaid time would you be willing to deal with before quitting?

[Thondalar]

It strikes me that your commute is up to you. You choose where you live in relation to where you work. The employer doesn't choose it for you, and when they do they generally pay for it. At least, that's been my experience. This is the employer's choice. They should have to pay for it. And if they don't want to pay for it, they could find ways to mitigate the cost. For instance, stagger the worker shifts by 15 minutes. Or pay salary instead of hourly.

You know what else is up to you? What job you choose to work.

[Thondalar]

How much unpaid time would you be willing to deal with before quitting?

Personally? Hard to say. I sometimes already feel that I work a lot "off the clock" because of my salary arrangement, but in this case I have to just look at it like they're paying me 24 hours a day and I do whatever needs to be done to get the job done. I could go into other industries, or even some other companies in this industry, that do things differently...but I accepted the conditions of my employment when I signed on. If those conditions changed after starting my employment, I would have to evaluate that on a case-by-base basis. In this case, people knew what they were signing up for, and did so willingly.

[Warriorbird]

You know what else is up to you? What job you choose to work.

If you believe that corporations shouldn't be restricted from any shady practices this certainly works for you. Simultaneously you're likely against unionization and employees fighting back.

[Wrathbringer]

If you believe that corporations shouldn't be restricted from any shady practices this certainly works for you. Simultaneously you're likely against unionization and employees fighting back.

I'd love to hear scotus response when you told them this. I imagine it would go something like, "LOLWUT?"

[Parkbandit]

If you believe that corporations shouldn't be restricted from any shady practices this certainly works for you. Simultaneously you're likely against unionization and employees fighting back.

WB MEME ALERT LEVEL 5!

[Sorcasaurus]

Personally? Hard to say. I sometimes already feel that I work a lot "off the clock" because of my salary arrangement, but in this case I have to just look at it like they're paying me 24 hours a day and I do whatever needs to be done to get the job done. I could go into other industries, or even some other companies in this industry, that do things differently...but I accepted the conditions of my employment when I signed on. If those conditions changed after starting my employment, I would have to evaluate that on a case-by-base basis. In this case, people knew what they were signing up for, and did so willingly.

I haven't read the specific details around it, but sounds like this was something that changed. It was either implimented, or the wait time increased at the holidays with increased staff. Do you think people should be protected from their employer changing terms? Would it be a breach/change of your employment agreement if your employer changed their security procedure to 1 person manually searching everyone before they leave, and it added 30 minutes to your entry/exit into the building.

If it was a change, you may not have the option to change employment the next day etc. Long term, sure you could find another job, but would you feel you should be paid for the new time the employer is requiring you to put in until you do?

Edit: To tailor it to your example earlier, knowing it's hypothetical because you pay them for their time already. If you changed your security policy from what you enforce now to having them there for an hour while you check their pockets, should you be required to pay them for the difference in time between the two policies?

[Fallen]

I haven't read the specific details around it, but sounds like this was something that changed. It was either implimented, or the wait time increased at the holidays with increased staff. Do you think people should be protected from their employer changing terms? Would it be a breach/change of your employment agreement if your employer changed their security procedure to 1 person manually searching everyone before they leave, and it added 30 minutes to your entry/exit into the building.

If it was a change, you may not have the option to change employment the next day etc. Long term, sure you could find another job, but would you feel you should be paid for the new time the employer is requiring you to put in until you do?

If your employer violates the terms of your contract there's no need for crazy rules or regulations, just go to a new job.

[AnticorRifling]

Yes, because if it took 4 hours, they wouldn't have any employees and it wouldn't matter. Zzentar has a good point too, though...should an employer pay for your commute?

This all boils down to personal choice, and that's the crux of the scotus ruling. The company can make whatever conditions of employment they want. You have the right to not work there if you don't like it.

Your commute (that thing that you do outside of work) is totally the same as being at work. Excellent point.

[Sorcasaurus]

If your employer violates the terms of your contract there's no need for crazy rules or regulations, just go to a new job.

There are legal protections against wrongful termination. Allowing companies to change/violate contracts at will without responsibility/repercussions would circumvent/violate those already existing regulations. It appears SCOTUS doesn't agree with me on this though, so I guess they see differently and I'm wrong...

I'm sure most people did/would find a new job, but there is the short term transition that they should be held accountable for. Even if you quit the day they changed the policy, unless you walked out on the spot, there would still be time spend unpaid.

Also, I feel Amazon is catching a lot of unneeded bad press for this. The court case was against the temp agency they hired additional help through. They(edit: the temp company) were unwilling to pay their contracted help for the security procedure in Amazon's warehouse. I have no love for Amazon's employment practices, but I don't see anywhere that they aren't paying their own full time employees for the security check point time.

[Bobmuhthol]

Saw that Jarvan posted really early in this thread about working at Amazon seasonally. Just wanted to remind you, Jarvan, that I haven't forgotten about all your bullshit re: me not knowing what I was talking about and why doesn't anyone pay me for my investment advice if I'm so smart.

My bill rate is $75/hr now. Anyway, happy holidays bro.

[AnticorRifling]

Saw that Jarvan posted really early in this thread about working at Amazon seasonally. Just wanted to remind you, Jarvan, that I haven't forgotten about all your bullshit re: me not knowing what I was talking about and why doesn't anyone pay me for my investment advice if I'm so smart.

My bill rate is $75/hr now. Anyway, happy holidays bro.

Why is your rate so cheap?

[Fallen]

There are legal protections against wrongful termination. Allowing companies to change/violate contracts at will without responsibility/repercussions would circumvent/violate those already existing regulations. It appears SCOTUS doesn't agree with me on this though, so I guess they see differently and I'm wrong...

I'm sure most people did/would find a new job, but there is the short term transition that they should be held accountable for. Even if you quit the day they changed the policy, unless you walked out on the spot, there would still be time spend unpaid.

Also, I feel Amazon is catching a lot of unneeded bad press for this. The court case was against the temp agency they hired additional help through. They(edit: the temp company) were unwilling to pay their contracted help for the security procedure in Amazon's warehouse. I have no love for Amazon's employment practices, but I don't see anywhere that they aren't paying their own full time employees for the security check point time.

Oh, my bad. I was in a rush and I guess I didn't lay it on thick enough. I think this ruling should really be the start to a far more competitive America. How can we hope to compete in this country with a MINIMUM wage that is higher than all but 15 countries IN THE WORLD? We live in a nation of people who have the right to pursue whatever job they want, wherever they want. Why not allow the job creators themselves set what they are willing to pay? It's so simple. Those people who want the job will take the job. They're working, aren't they? Then it must be a fair wage for them. All that savings will be used to create more positions, hire more people, and provide the best value to their customers.

Another area we could improve is by allowing people to work for as long as they want in a workday. Why should employers be forced to pay overtime? Do you know how many people would rather have the opportunity to work for as many hours as they can, but aren't allowed due to stupid rules forcing companies to pay them more if they hit some completely arbitrary number of hours per day/week? A work day is a work day is a work day. Do away with these uncompetitive guidelines. Your shift starts when it starts and goes until you're told you can go home. Don't like it? DON'T WORK THERE. Stop telling companies how to run their business.

Don't even get me started on lunch and bathroom breaks.

[Sorcasaurus]

Oh, my bad. I was in a rush and I guess I didn't lay it on thick enough. I think this ruling should really be the start to a far more competitive America. How can we hope to compete in this country with a MINIMUM wage that is higher than all but 15 countries IN THE WORLD? We live in a nation of people who have the right to pursue whatever job they want, wherever they want. Why not allow the job creators themselves set what they are willing to pay? It's so simple. Those people who want the job will take the job. They're working, aren't they? Then it must be a fair wage for them. All that savings will be used to create more positions, hire more people, and provide the best value to their customers.

Another area we could improve is by allowing people to work for as long as they want in a workday. Why should employers be forced to pay overtime? Do you know how many people would rather have the opportunity to work for as many hours as they can, but aren't allowed due to stupid rules forcing companies to pay them more if they hit some completely arbitrary number of hours per day/week? A work day is a work day is a work day. Do away with these uncompetitive guidelines. Your shift starts when it starts and goes until you're told you can go home. Don't like it? DON'T WORK THERE. Stop telling companies how to run their business.

Don't even get me started on lunch and bathroom breaks.

sounds legit.


Too legit to quit.

http://cdn.content.compendiumblog.com/uploads/user/d0acc5ee-5d24-48b9-a55a-f862314bfebd/0e9df5b3-1e3a-4801-9c9b-47c6a43cd39d/Image/001af1ad3fa2d0d49bb73ca25cef2075.png

[Wrathbringer]

Oh, my bad. I was in a rush and I guess I didn't lay it on thick enough. I think this ruling should really be the start to a far more competitive America. How can we hope to compete in this country with a MINIMUM wage that is higher than all but 15 countries IN THE WORLD? We live in a nation of people who have the right to pursue whatever job they want, wherever they want. Why not allow the job creators themselves set what they are willing to pay? It's so simple. Those people who want the job will take the job. They're working, aren't they? Then it must be a fair wage for them. All that savings will be used to create more positions, hire more people, and provide the best value to their customers.

Another area we could improve is by allowing people to work for as long as they want in a workday. Why should employers be forced to pay overtime? Do you know how many people would rather have the opportunity to work for as many hours as they can, but aren't allowed due to stupid rules forcing companies to pay them more if they hit some completely arbitrary number of hours per day/week? A work day is a work day is a work day. Do away with these uncompetitive guidelines. Your shift starts when it starts and goes until you're told you can go home. Don't like it? DON'T WORK THERE. Stop telling companies how to run their business.

Don't even get me started on lunch and bathroom breaks.

I get that you're being facetious, but all that sounds good to me.

[Fallen]

I get that you're being facetious, but all that sounds good to me.

I know. That's what I was shooting for. Taking completely terrible ideas and framing them in a way that "make sense". You could do the same with child labor laws and OSHA requirements too.

Remember that first post of mine you responded to? Guess I was on the right track.

[Wrathbringer]

I know. That's what I was shooting for. Taking completely terrible ideas and framing them in a way that "make sense". You could do the same with child labor laws and OSHA requirements too.

Remember that first post of mine you responded to? Guess I was on the right track.

Yeah, yeah, and you want daddy government to spoon feed everyone and guarantee their employment while punishing the evil job providers. :jerkit:

[Parkbandit]

Oh, my bad. I was in a rush and I guess I didn't lay it on thick enough. I think this ruling should really be the start to a far more competitive America. How can we hope to compete in this country with a MINIMUM wage that is higher than all but 15 countries IN THE WORLD? We live in a nation of people who have the right to pursue whatever job they want, wherever they want. Why not allow the job creators themselves set what they are willing to pay? It's so simple. Those people who want the job will take the job. They're working, aren't they? Then it must be a fair wage for them. All that savings will be used to create more positions, hire more people, and provide the best value to their customers.

Another area we could improve is by allowing people to work for as long as they want in a workday. Why should employers be forced to pay overtime? Do you know how many people would rather have the opportunity to work for as many hours as they can, but aren't allowed due to stupid rules forcing companies to pay them more if they hit some completely arbitrary number of hours per day/week? A work day is a work day is a work day. Do away with these uncompetitive guidelines. Your shift starts when it starts and goes until you're told you can go home. Don't like it? DON'T WORK THERE. Stop telling companies how to run their business.

Don't even get me started on lunch and bathroom breaks.

I've never been such an abused victim when looking for meager employment.... what's it like?

Must be so difficult to have no real skills that you have no choice in where you work and are forced to take whatever the "man" graces you with.

[Fallen]

I've never been such an abused victim when looking for meager employment.... what's it like?

Must be so difficult to have no real skills that you have no choice in where you work and are forced to take whatever the "man" graces you with.

I dunno. Ask everyone who applies to jobs at most mass employers. You know, a large percentage of the US workforce.

But hey, they're not you, so fuck 'em, right?

[Parkbandit]

I dunno. Ask everyone who applies to jobs at most mass employers. You know, a large percentage of the US workforce.

But hey, they're not you, so fuck 'em, right?

I've worked for many "mass employers" in my lifetime... so your 'everyone' might just be more projection on your part.

Tell us where the big mean company touched you.

https://www.myactsofsedition.com/wp-content/uploads/doll-where-did-he-touch-you-child-abuse-creepy.jpg

[Fallen]

I've worked for many "mass employers" in my lifetime... so your 'everyone' might just be more projection on your part.

Tell us where the big mean company touched you.

https://www.myactsofsedition.com/wp-content/uploads/doll-where-did-he-touch-you-child-abuse-creepy.jpg

Apparently, we shouldn't ask those employees at Amazon. They're just takers anyway.

[EasternBrand]

What really gets me is the way the supreme court phrased this.

Employers only have to pay for what is "integral and indispensable" to the job they were hired to do. So like...if I were hired to cook and only cook then one day they asked me to wait tables does that mean they don't have to pay me since that wasn't an "integral and indispensable" part of the job I was hired for?

That's not quite the rationale for the decision. At issue was the language of the Portal to Portal Act, which exempts employers from paying for activities that are preliminary or postliminary to the "principal activities [i.e., activities that are "integral and indispensable" to the job for which you've been hired] which occur either prior to the time on any particular workday at which such employee commences, or subsequent to the time on any particular workday at which he ceases, such principal activity or activities." So this only has to do with activities that are related to, but not part of, the principal activity, and which are either performed before or after the primary work. It does not have to do with separate activities, like waiting tables after you've been hired to cook. I can't speak to the corpus of employment law, but I'll bet there's a separate provision or judicial decisions about situations like that.

[crb]

Yeah... If you want me to waive my right about search and seizure, I should be getting paid for that. I don't get the reasoning behind this ruling.

True story, the government has no right to search you, that is what the Constitution protects against. But a third party to which you've voluntarily chosen to associate can certainly search you. Your freedom to avoid being searched is to choose to voluntarily disassociate yourself with that third party.

[Thondalar]

That's not quite the rationale for the decision. At issue was the language of the Portal to Portal Act, which exempts employers from paying for activities that are preliminary or postliminary to the "principal activities [i.e., activities that are "integral and indispensable" to the job for which you've been hired] which occur either prior to the time on any particular workday at which such employee commences, or subsequent to the time on any particular workday at which he ceases, such principal activity or activities." So this only has to do with activities that are related to, but not part of, the principal activity, and which are either performed before or after the primary work. It does not have to do with separate activities, like waiting tables after you've been hired to cook. I can't speak to the corpus of employment law, but I'll bet there's a separate provision or judicial decisions about situations like that.

This is a lot of the issue here, and it's one you'll find quite often in the politics folder. A little information is a terrible thing. The armchair activists here love to read a headline and flip out.

[crb]

Oh, my bad. I was in a rush and I guess I didn't lay it on thick enough. I think this ruling should really be the start to a far more competitive America. How can we hope to compete in this country with a MINIMUM wage that is higher than all but 15 countries IN THE WORLD? We live in a nation of people who have the right to pursue whatever job they want, wherever they want. Why not allow the job creators themselves set what they are willing to pay? It's so simple. Those people who want the job will take the job. They're working, aren't they? Then it must be a fair wage for them. All that savings will be used to create more positions, hire more people, and provide the best value to their customers.

Another area we could improve is by allowing people to work for as long as they want in a workday. Why should employers be forced to pay overtime? Do you know how many people would rather have the opportunity to work for as many hours as they can, but aren't allowed due to stupid rules forcing companies to pay them more if they hit some completely arbitrary number of hours per day/week? A work day is a work day is a work day. Do away with these uncompetitive guidelines. Your shift starts when it starts and goes until you're told you can go home. Don't like it? DON'T WORK THERE. Stop telling companies how to run their business.

Don't even get me started on lunch and bathroom breaks.

I still can't tell if this is sarcasm myself. Because ya, minimum wage simply tells low productivity workers it is illegal for them to have a job. A work week limit tells people who have jobs they're not allowed to work more than week for the same employer. All those things reduce employment. The bathroom breaks was perhaps jumping the shark though.

[crb]

IMO this is perhaps best described as commuting. Your employer does not need to pay you for your commute. If your employer puts the employee parking lot a 30 minute walk from where you clock in at, he doesn't need to pay you for that walk. And if you don't like it, you can seek employment elsewhere.

[Thondalar]

I know. That's what I was shooting for. Taking completely terrible ideas and framing them in a way that "make sense". You could do the same with child labor laws and OSHA requirements too.

Once you let go of the belief that a bureaucracy can make better decisions than you, you'll be a happier person.

[Fallen]

Once you let go of the belief that a bureaucracy can make better decisions than you, you'll be a happier person.

You're right, I should place all my trust in the almighty job creators.

[Tgo01]

IMO this is perhaps best described as commuting. Your employer does not need to pay you for your commute. If your employer puts the employee parking lot a 30 minute walk from where you clock in at, he doesn't need to pay you for that walk. And if you don't like it, you can seek employment elsewhere.

Surely you can see the difference between making someone walk 30 minutes from their car to someone in a sense being held in their place of employment against their will.

[Androidpk]

You're right, I should place all my trust in the almighty job creators.

If you don't then trickle down economics will never work!

[Bobmuhthol]

Why is your rate so cheap?

Because I'm W2, it's over 100 for my company.

[EasternBrand]

IMO this is perhaps best described as commuting. Your employer does not need to pay you for your commute. If your employer puts the employee parking lot a 30 minute walk from where you clock in at, he doesn't need to pay you for that walk. And if you don't like it, you can seek employment elsewhere.

It's not at all like commuting, which is why the case was decided under section 254(a)(2), and not 254(a)(1), which specifically exempts employers from paying for commuting time. By way of example, things that the Court has decided are compensable include the time meatpackers spent to sharpen their knives, and the time battery-plant employees had to shower after work to detoxify their clothing. And the Court found noncompensable the time spent by poultry-plant employees waiting to don protective gear. I guess they thought that this was more like the last case, but personally I don't see how any of these cases are at all compatible. The logic that has arisen in this line of cases is, in my opinion, pretty tortured.

[crb]

Surely you can see the difference between making someone walk 30 minutes from their car to someone in a sense being held in their place of employment against their will.

Are they though? Against their will? My take was that the employees wanted to be there, else why didn't they just sleep in that day?

[crb]

It's not at all like commuting, which is why the case was decided under section 254(a)(2), and not 254(a)(1), which specifically exempts employers from paying for commuting time. By way of example, things that the Court has decided are compensable include the time meatpackers spent to sharpen their knives, and the time battery-plant employees had to shower after work to detoxify their clothing. And the Court found noncompensable the time spent by poultry-plant employees waiting to don protective gear. I guess they thought that this was more like the last case, but personally I don't see how any of these cases are at all compatible. The logic that has arisen in this line of cases is, in my opinion, pretty tortured.

I'll take your word for it, I was just giving my opinion, I didn't even read the actual ruling.

I'll admit I was actually surprised by this decision, I expected it to go the other way.

I will say this though, it was unanimous. How often does SCOTUS do that?

[Tgo01]

Are they though? Against their will? My take was that the employees wanted to be there, else why didn't they just sleep in that day?

Yes, against their will. I would consider the threat of being fired to be held against their will.

As far as the employee taking the job in the first place? I don't know, maybe when they were told about the job it was just something in passing "Oh yeah, you'll have to be checked by security on your way out." Or maybe the first week or two the line was like 2 minutes then slowly grew to 40 minutes. That's the funny thing about jobs; everyone is free to work or not work at a place but once you start working you usually start getting obligations to go along with it (health care, car payment, car insurance, rent) so it's not always so easy to just say "Ah fuck it, bye!"

Someone mentioned earlier that Amazon could have staggered the work day so people are clocking out like every 5 minutes for an hour instead of everyone clocking out at once and having to wait in a long line so even if supreme court ruled against Amazon it still wouldn't have affected them very much but it's going to continue to affect employees if Amazon doesn't change shit.

[Androidpk]

>Yes, against their will. I would consider the threat of being fired to be held against their will.

It's like you're picking up Back's slack lately. Bravo.

[Tgo01]

>Yes, against their will. I would consider the threat of being fired to be held against their will.

It's like you're picking up Back's slack lately. Bravo.

Thanks :newbie:

[crb]

Yes, against their will. I would consider the threat of being fired to be held against their will.

Then what do you consider an employee's threat to quit? It has to be a two way street right?



That's the funny thing about jobs; everyone is free to work or not work at a place but once you start working you usually start getting obligations to go along with it (health care, car payment, car insurance, rent) so it's not always so easy to just say "Ah fuck it, bye!"

Not having a savings, not living in a prudent financial matter, these are not your new employer's fault.

[EasternBrand]

I will say this though, it was unanimous. How often does SCOTUS do that?

About 40% - 60% of cases in the past few terms have been unanimous decisions, although usually at the lower end of that spectrum.

[Jarvan]

I'll break down some examples of what Amazon was like the first year the new building opened when I was there, and now.

Year 1 -

There was one entrance and exit. With 3 metal detectors. If you beeped, you had to go into a line to be wanded by a security guard. If you didn't you just went right through.
Your 15 min break would start at say 9:15. You had to be working right up until 9:15 otherwise you were out of compliance. You had to be already working at 9:30 otherwise you were out of compliance. If you were at one end of the warehouse on the third floor, and wanted to go to the break room.. it was a 5 min walk. So you had a 5 min break.
Your lunch break would start at 12:00 for example. You could not stop working UNTIL 12:00. Then you walked to punch out. You punched out. did whatever for lunch. You had to be back at the "stand up" (aka meeting) at 12:30. if you were not logged into your system by 12:30 .. you were out of compliance. Once again.. up to 5 min walking time to get to/from lunch room and clock out points. Then walking back to the stand up area.. lunches could be as short as 20 min really. You would have to sign back in at 12:25 if you wanted to be there on time.
There was 15 cameras in the warehouse... 1 pointed at each door, that's it. People could steal shit so easily it wasn't funny. Someone pulled a fire alarm, then walked out with a box of 30 Ipods. 300.00 bucks a piece. We had a fire alarm pulled at least 2 times a week for 2 months... HOURS waiting outside in the cold for them to make sure the place was clear and no fire. Not fun in shorts and minus zero degree weather.

Now -

2 Entrances and exits during peak time. 5 metal detectors per side, and 2 guards with wands for people that beep. Lines are practically non existent because people have learned not to take metal object into the warehouse for no reason.
15 min breaks are still the same.. but now there are multiple "break areas" throughout the warehouse, just a tv, some chairs, and some snack machines at most, but it's better then nothing.
Lunch break starts at 12:00, but you are timed from when you punch out, not when they send you. the system literally won't let you sign in before 30 min. it says how much time you have to wait. Stand up now starts approx 5 min after the end of the lunch period ends.
There are now 10,000 cameras in the warehouse where I work. No more false fire alarms.


It MAY have been 20 min in the past.. but I can't really remember a time it was. 5 min.. yes. 20, I don't think so. Not at mine. I never waited in line though, because I used the express lane where you just walk through, you don't take stuff out for the guards to check. (Thank you airport ready TSA belt)

[EasternBrand]

There was one entrance and exit. With 3 metal detectors. If you beeped, you had to go into a line to be wanded by a security guard. If you didn't you just went right through.
Your 15 min break would start at say 9:15. You had to be working right up until 9:15 otherwise you were out of compliance. You had to be already working at 9:30 otherwise you were out of compliance. If you were at one end of the warehouse on the third floor, and wanted to go to the break room.. it was a 5 min walk. So you had a 5 min break.
Your lunch break would start at 12:00 for example. You could not stop working UNTIL 12:00. Then you walked to punch out. You punched out. did whatever for lunch. You had to be back at the "stand up" (aka meeting) at 12:30. if you were not logged into your system by 12:30 .. you were out of compliance. Once again.. up to 5 min walking time to get to/from lunch room and clock out points. Then walking back to the stand up area.. lunches could be as short as 20 min really. You would have to sign back in at 12:25 if you wanted to be there on time.
There was 15 cameras in the warehouse... 1 pointed at each door, that's it. People could steal shit so easily it wasn't funny. Someone pulled a fire alarm, then walked out with a box of 30 Ipods. 300.00 bucks a piece. We had a fire alarm pulled at least 2 times a week for 2 months... HOURS waiting outside in the cold for them to make sure the place was clear and no fire. Not fun in shorts and minus zero degree weather.


Was this your orientation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS42yIDQX6s

[Hightower]

I'll break down some examples of what Amazon was like the first year the new building opened when I was there, and now.

Year 1 -

There was one entrance and exit. With 3 metal detectors. If you beeped, you had to go into a line to be wanded by a security guard. If you didn't you just went right through.
Your 15 min break would start at say 9:15. You had to be working right up until 9:15 otherwise you were out of compliance. You had to be already working at 9:30 otherwise you were out of compliance. If you were at one end of the warehouse on the third floor, and wanted to go to the break room.. it was a 5 min walk. So you had a 5 min break.
Your lunch break would start at 12:00 for example. You could not stop working UNTIL 12:00. Then you walked to punch out. You punched out. did whatever for lunch. You had to be back at the "stand up" (aka meeting) at 12:30. if you were not logged into your system by 12:30 .. you were out of compliance. Once again.. up to 5 min walking time to get to/from lunch room and clock out points. Then walking back to the stand up area.. lunches could be as short as 20 min really. You would have to sign back in at 12:25 if you wanted to be there on time.
There was 15 cameras in the warehouse... 1 pointed at each door, that's it. People could steal shit so easily it wasn't funny. Someone pulled a fire alarm, then walked out with a box of 30 Ipods. 300.00 bucks a piece. We had a fire alarm pulled at least 2 times a week for 2 months... HOURS waiting outside in the cold for them to make sure the place was clear and no fire. Not fun in shorts and minus zero degree weather.

Now -

2 Entrances and exits during peak time. 5 metal detectors per side, and 2 guards with wands for people that beep. Lines are practically non existent because people have learned not to take metal object into the warehouse for no reason.
15 min breaks are still the same.. but now there are multiple "break areas" throughout the warehouse, just a tv, some chairs, and some snack machines at most, but it's better then nothing.
Lunch break starts at 12:00, but you are timed from when you punch out, not when they send you. the system literally won't let you sign in before 30 min. it says how much time you have to wait. Stand up now starts approx 5 min after the end of the lunch period ends.
There are now 10,000 cameras in the warehouse where I work. No more false fire alarms.


It MAY have been 20 min in the past.. but I can't really remember a time it was. 5 min.. yes. 20, I don't think so. Not at mine. I never waited in line though, because I used the express lane where you just walk through, you don't take stuff out for the guards to check. (Thank you airport ready TSA belt)


So, it sounds like they've adapted their facilities and policies. That's good. Personally, I think the policies you describe for the first year are ridiculous and unacceptable, and that may explain the court case.

[Danaandim]

I think it's settled law that To/From time (commute time) is the responsibility of the employee even in the cases where the company provides transport, such as to/from a remote lot. However, I believe that I read that the security check is part of the employment contract making it in effect part of the job because the employer is making it so. Also, they have no requirement to minimize the time that is spent in line unpaid. So if they want to have one guard doing the checks with 100s of people in line, the resulting unpaid time could go through the roof. While the employees could quit, they couldn't sue for any material damages given the ruling on this case.

The ironic thing about this ruling and the reason why SCOTUS made this a unanimous decision is that Thomas, in his ruling said that any injustice inherent in this situation could be solved by arbitration.... As if he EVER wanted anything to go through union arbitration proceedings!

[Thondalar]

You're right, I should place all my trust in the almighty job creators.

No, you should place your trust in yourself.

[Thondalar]

I'll take your word for it, I was just giving my opinion, I didn't even read the actual ruling.

I'll admit I was actually surprised by this decision, I expected it to go the other way.

I will say this though, it was unanimous. How often does SCOTUS do that?

And that's really the crux of it. I think if everyone here actually read the ruling, and understood the wording of it, they would realize it's not actually as earth-shattering of a decision as they seem to think it is.

[Jarvan]

So, it sounds like they've adapted their facilities and policies. That's good. Personally, I think the policies you describe for the first year are ridiculous and unacceptable, and that may explain the court case.

Yes they did. Altho... 20+ min waiting in line for security even the first year, would have only been if multiple people set off the alarm and you had to wait to be checked with the wand.

Staggered leaving times wouldn't work. The place is going pretty much 24/7 during peak. Days and nights work an 11 hour shift, which means as the night outbound team is leaving, a day inbound team is coming in. Since inbound starts 30 min before outbound. Also, talk about wasted time, they make employees do stretches at each standup to help reduce risk of strains and such while working. Stand up is roughly 10 min of time where they give you the daily info, updates etc etc.

If you stagger starts, you will end up doing a number of stand ups, which reduces the manager's productivity, not to mention just slow everything down.

Before you are hired to work there, you are informed about the security checkpoint when leaving, and are told to not take any electronic device on the floor. They also tell you to leave any metal objects in your coat or lunch bag, as it wastes time at the end of shift... but some people just don't listen.

It's funny.. and sad. You CAN'T have cell phones on the floor... (cause they sell cell phones for one). And yet, every single new group of employees.. there is always one that tries to take a cell phone on the floor.

[ClydeR]

It's not at all like commuting, which is why the case was decided under section 254(a)(2), and not 254(a)(1), which specifically exempts employers from paying for commuting time. By way of example, things that the Court has decided are compensable include the time meatpackers spent to sharpen their knives, and the time battery-plant employees had to shower after work to detoxify their clothing. And the Court found noncompensable the time spent by poultry-plant employees waiting to don protective gear. I guess they thought that this was more like the last case, but personally I don't see how any of these cases are at all compatible. The logic that has arisen in this line of cases is, in my opinion, pretty tortured.

Stop playing the game where we pretend that the Supreme Court makes its rulings on the basis of law. It's cute, but you know better.

Law is a fig leaf for the Supreme Court. Supreme Court judges rule on the basis of their political beliefs and then clothe their written opinions in law. Instead of trying to figure out how the cases are "compatible," just look at the dates when they were decided. Fifty years ago, the court thought it was supposed to protect worker compensation. Today, the court realizes that it is more important to protect the people who create jobs.

Politics > Ideology > Law

[Thondalar]

Stop playing the game where we pretend that the Supreme Court makes its rulings on the basis of law. It's cute, but you know better.

Law is a fig leaf for the Supreme Court. Supreme Court judges rule on the basis of their political beliefs and then clothe their written opinions in law. Instead of trying to figure out how the cases are "compatible," just look at the dates when they were decided. Fifty years ago, the court thought it was supposed to protect worker compensation. Today, the court realizes that it is more important to protect the people who create jobs.

Politics > Ideology > Law

Certainly this has a lot to do with it...we expect our Justices at all levels to be inhuman, and this is simply not possible. Some measure of bias will always present itself, because humans are humans. The end result is a tangled web of semantics where the spirit of the law means less than the word of the law. I could blame this on trial lawyers twisting every word of every statute to fit their particular litigation, but it's greater than that. Words mean things...and humans in a position to do so endeavor constantly to twist those words to their own end.

It's why we have thousands of laws we don't need, and a tax code so convoluted your accountant doesn't even know how to handle it.

[Androidpk]

Certainly this has a lot to do with it...we expect our Justices at all levels to be inhuman, and this is simply not possible. Some measure of bias will always present itself, because humans are humans. The end result is a tangled web of semantics where the spirit of the law means less than the word of the law. I could blame this on trial lawyers twisting every word of every statute to fit their particular litigation, but it's greater than that. Words mean things...and humans in a position to do so endeavor constantly to twist those words to their own end.

It's why we have thousands of laws we don't need, and a tax code so convoluted your accountant doesn't even know how to handle it.

That's why we need unbiased AI running things.

[Thondalar]

The ironic thing about this ruling and the reason why SCOTUS made this a unanimous decision is that Thomas, in his ruling said that any injustice inherent in this situation could be solved by arbitration.... As if he EVER wanted anything to go through union arbitration proceedings!

People against this ruling based on the headline will disagree with it regardless, but I think it's incredibly telling that it was a unanimous decision. To continue the line that it was the wrong decision would mean that all current members of the Scotus are in the pocket of big business and hate workers, including the ones that have voted favorably for workers in other cases.

[caelric]

That's why we need unbiased AI running things.

Who watches the watchman?

[Thondalar]

Who watches the watchman?

Citizens are supposed to, but we're apathetic for the most part.

[Androidpk]

Citizens are supposed to, but we're apathetic for the most part.

Don't forget irrational.

[Latrinsorm]

Certainly this has a lot to do with it...we expect our Justices at all levels to be inhuman, and this is simply not possible. Some measure of bias will always present itself, because humans are humans. The end result is a tangled web of semantics where the spirit of the law means less than the word of the law. I could blame this on trial lawyers twisting every word of every statute to fit their particular litigation, but it's greater than that. Words mean things...and humans in a position to do so endeavor constantly to twist those words to their own end.Only with the right tone. :D