Amazon Warehouse Worker Case Accepted by Supreme Court

[aGameOfThrones]

The U.S. Supreme Court will use a case involving workers at Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN) warehouses to consider whether companies must pay employees for time spent undergoing security searches.

The justices today agreed to review a federal appeals court decision that allowed a lawsuit over security lines designed to prevent employee theft at Amazon warehouses in Nevada. The suit was filed by former employees of Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc., which provides temporary workers for Amazon.

Corporate groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, urged the court to take up the appeal, saying the issue has widespread significance. Similar claims are being pressed directly against Amazon and against CVS Pharmacy Inc. and Apple Inc.

The employees, Jesse Busk and Laurie Castro, said workers had to spend as much as 25 minutes after their shifts ended to pass through metal detectors.

The high court case centers on the Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires compensation for pre- and post-shift activities that are “integral and indispensable” to an employee’s principal activities.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...ase-accepted-by-supreme-court.html?cmpid=yhoo

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Who the hell would work at a shithole like that? I'd soon live under a bridge.

 

[LibertyEagle]

It's an honest job. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Reason]

Who the hell would work at a shithole like that? I'd soon live under a bridge.

A shithole like Amazon?

WTF are you talking about?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

A shithole like Amazon?

WTF are you talking about?

If that's their policy, then it's a shithole.

 

[Occam's Banana]

The U.S. Supreme Court will use a case involving workers at Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN) warehouses to consider whether companies must pay employees for time spent undergoing security searches.

Here we have yet another terrible & tragic instance of market failure. "There oughtta be a law ..."

Why shouldn't courts also require employers to remunerate employees for time & expenses (such as fuel) involved in commuting to work?
(And while they're at it, maybe SCOTUS can finally do something about those infernal cellophane wrappers they put around CD jewel cases ...)

 

[kcchiefs6465]

A shithole like Amazon?

WTF are you talking about?

Have you ever worked for Amazon?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Geez, people. It's an honest job. Not everyone has engineering degrees and no one "owes" anyone a cushy job.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Geez, people. It's an honest job. Not everyone has engineering degrees and no one "owes" anyone a cushy job.

Who are you quoting?

 

[oyarde]

I am kind of surprised they are not already compensating people for that time...... they should have seen this coming , easier just to pay people for time .

 

[ClydeCoulter]

They'll probably put more scanners in or offset working hours (time of departure) if the ruling is that they have to pay for the time in line.

This could have been avoided if they had considered the worker as they would like to be considered. Hey, the golden rule...

 

[jbauer]

Who the hell would work at a shithole like that? I'd soon live under a bridge.

No need for a bridge, just go down to the local health and human services building and sign up for free food, housing, utilities and most importantly a free phone!!!!

 

[jbauer]

Here we have yet another terrible & tragic instance of market failure. "There oughtta be a law ..."

Why shouldn't courts also require employers to remunerate employees for time & expenses (such as fuel) involved in commuting to work?
(And while they're at it, maybe SCOTUS can finally do something about those infernal cellophane wrappers they put around CD jewel cases ...)

So you think a corporation should be able to require you to do "work" without compensation? After all whose bottom line is being protected by the security search. As for travel, you have the ability to live as close as you'd like to the building you work. Heck get a tent and sleep right outside the security fence.

Amazon, and all other companies owe the workers for that time. I wouldn't dream of asking one of our employees to work for free, nor would I have done it when I was an hourly employee. In fact I fought the law and the law lost at my first job when I was 16 or 17 or something like that. The restaurant wanted to hold mandatory meetings for the entire staff (unpaid). I clocked in when I came in. They found out. I told them I would not be getting ready for work, driving to town, listening to them for an hour and not be paid for atleast the time I was present at the meeting. They changed their policy after that....and held less and more productive meetings.

 

[angelatc]

Geez, people. It's an honest job. Not everyone has engineering degrees and no one "owes" anyone a cushy job.

I know. What on Earth is wrong with the youth of today? It's a freaking warehouse job. Lots of men have made a career out of running them.

As for the case, I assume that Amazon will lose. Pretty much anything an employer requires you to do has to be paid. I can't believe that this case has gone all the way to SCOTUS.

 

[angelatc]

So you think a corporation should be able to require you to do "work" without compensation?

I like the way you changed the word employer to "corporation. That's a tell.

Yes, I think an employer should be able to require you to work without compensation. You know why? Because nobody would.

This scenario is roughly the same. Say Amazon claims that they're working you 8 hours a day, paying you $10 an hour. But you have a 15 minute stop on your way out the door at night after you clock out. So you really aren't getting that full $10 an hour, and because you aren't stupid, you know that.

But it's' worth it to you.

Wait - it isn't worth it to you? Then obviously you already quit.

 

[klamath]

The problem I see is that the employees are basically held hostage while they are being screened.

 

[angelatc]

If that's their policy, then it's a shithole.

Because Amazon controls inventory lossage by screening the workers that a temporary agency sends them, it's a shithole? You've obviously never worked with temps.

You get some of the nicest most normal people you'll ever meet, but you also get people who didn't even bother to sober up from the previous night. It's a total crap shoot.

 

[angelatc]

The problem I see is that the employees are basically held hostage while they are being screened.

This does nothing to change that. I think that by agreeing to the screening as a condition of employment you aren't being held hostage. You agreed to those terms when you agreed to take the job.

 

[jbauer]

This does nothing to change that. I think that by agreeing to the screening as a condition of employment you aren't being held hostage. You agreed to those terms when you agreed to take the job.

Where's the limit? At what point does an employer have to recognize the employees rights? Or are you suggesting that the employer can do whatever they like as long as the employee either puts up with it or quits?

 

[TonySutton]

I don't understand the problem. If these people are not happy with job requirements they can go elsewhere.

BUT, here is the part everyone has missed. Amazon was taken to court by the TEMP AGENCY. Do you know why? Because the temp agency gets paid by Amazon for HOURS WORKED. If the temp agency wins this case then Amazon has to pay the temp agency for these extra hours. The temp agency skims their profit off the top and pays the workers. So who is the big winner? the worker? *Buzzzzz* nope, the temp agency? *ding ding* we have a winner!