SCOTUS says employers don't have to pay for time in security lines

[JustinTime]

http://http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/09/us-usa-court-workers-idUSKBN0JN1P820141209

SCOTUS rules 9-0 in favor of Amazon and against employees who spend up to a half hour a day waiting in security lines at Amazon processing facilities.

What are you opinions?

A lot of people think this is like driving to work, a necessary activity for the job which you do not get paid for, therefore you should not be paid to stand in security lines to be checked.

My opinion is that once you are doing activities the employers demands you do, on the employers property, its work and you should be paid.

 

[Danke]

They could organize and put that pay into their contract.

 

[angelatc]

My opinion is that once you are doing activities the employers demands you do, on the employers property, its work and you should be paid.

First, my opinion is that if you think they should be paying you, then go find another job. If you take a job and they tell you that you will be searched after you sign out, then don't take the job if that bothers you. If they change the terms of the job after you already work there, then feel free to find another job.

My other opinion is that worker / employer relations isn't the proper role of the federal government.

And yet another opinion is...9-0. All 9 justices agreed that the law as written did not support the premise. Even the most liberal justices resisted the opportunity to legislate from the bench. Kudos.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

First, my opinion is that if you think they should be paying you, then go find another job. If you take a job and they tell you that you will be searched after you sign out, then don't take the job if that bothers you. If they change the terms of the job after you already work there, then feel free to find another job.

My other opinion is that worker / employer relations isn't the proper role of the federal government.

And yet another opinion is...9-0. All 9 justices agreed that the law as written did not support the premise. Even the most liberal justices resisted the opportunity to legislate from the bench. Kudos.

If the employer changes the terms of a contract after said contract has been finalized, you are offering that the party who violated the contract should be ignored by the person affected, and that said affected person should simply find another contract that might be upheld?

What am I missing?

 

[angelatc]

If the employer changes the terms of a contract after said contract has been finalized, you are offering that the party who violated the contract should be ignored by the person affected, and that said affected person should simply find another contract that might be upheld?

What am I missing?

Employment is at will. Unless you're union, there is no contract.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Employment is at will. Unless you're union, there is no contract.

If someone says, "You're perfect for the job. I want to hire you," doing X, Y, Z, and, "the pay will be," X, Y, or Z, (benefits, whatever) and the person offered the position feels that said terms are agreeable, is it not a contract?

When you are offered a position and sign that the terms are agreeable, what, precisely, is that? Is it simple semantics on why I don't quite get it or a lack of education? Every job I've held, I've signed what any person would consider as a contract. It would be beneficial for employers to offer contracts as well as for the employee, especially in today's atmosphere. Even in the world of true free trade, I couldn't imagine not contracting employment in some way. "You certify you can do this, that, the other." If at the least for insurance purposes.

Please expound.

 

[angelatc]

If someone says, "You're perfect for the job. I want to hire you," doing X, Y, Z, and, "the pay will be," X, Y, or Z, (benefits, whatever) and the person offered the position feels that said terms are agreeable, is it not a contract?

When you are offered a position and sign that the terms are agreeable, what, precisely, is that? Is it simple semantics on why I don't quite get it or a lack of education? Every job I've held, I've signed what any person would consider as a contract. It would be beneficial for employers to offer contracts as well as for the employee, especially in today's atmosphere. Even in the world of true free trade, I couldn't imagine not contracting employment in some way. "You certify you can do this, that, the other." If at the least for insurance purposes.

Please expound.

Look at it from the inverse. When the employer says, "You're perfect for the job. I want to hire you to do X,Y and Z...." are you obligated to show up forever at the same rate of if you accept? Well, you actually are because you offer contract labor. But for most of us, we can at any time tell our boss to go choke a goat and walk out the door with no legal repercussions.

We can leave at will. They can dismiss us at will. That's "at will."

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Look at it from the inverse. When the employer says, "You're perfect for the job. I want to hire you to do X,Y and Z...." are you obligated to show up forever at the same rate of if you accept? Well, you actually are because you offer contract labor. But for most of us, we can at any time tell our boss to go choke a goat and walk out the door with no legal repercussions.

We can leave at will. They can dismiss us at will. That's "at will."

If the contract stipulated a set time for employment, yes, you would be, and yes the employee should have legal repercussions for violating a contract of that nature.

As I am seeing it, it is the employer who is, on whim, sometimes (even often times), offering a position of employment with certain stipulations outlined in what is effectively a contract.

I do think that if someone says they'll do X, Y, or Z, or if they claim they are certified to do X, Y, or Z, that there should be consequences if they either do not do X, Y, or Z, or if they are unable to do the tasks they've contracted that they can do.

Certainly the entire system has been bastardized by and large by government interference, but I'm still failing to envision a contract-less system with regards to employment.

 

[angelatc]

If the contract stipulated a set time for employment, yes, you would be, and yes the employee should have legal repercussions for violating a contract of that nature..

We have already spent way too much time on this. The employee did not have a contract, therefore it was at will. The end.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

We have already spent way too much time on this. The employee did not have a contract, therefore it was at will. The end.

Well that's one way to 'win' a debate, I suppose.

We spoke about this topic a little while back, but as I recall, it did not touch upon these specifics (perhaps it did, I truly don't remember every angle of the discussion).

I am more sympathetic to your view than most. I understand you are jaded, and I don't know everything. It just seemed like the discussion could have been fruitful.

In any case, carry on.

 

[specsaregood]

First, my opinion is that if you think they should be paying you, then go find another job. If you take a job and they tell you that you will be searched after you sign out, then don't take the job if that bothers you. If they change the terms of the job after you already work there, then feel free to find another job.

While I agree with you in spirit, I disagree with the actual situation. If an employee is required to be there on the site and can't leave until they go through security they SHOULD be getting paid for that time. I would think that is what a GOOD employer would do, it is what I would do. I certainly wouldn't work under those conditions unless I had no other choice.

But I agree with the ruling that the government has no right to say they must be paid; but the employee must also be free to leave and not be searched (and employer free to fire them for doing so) otherwise I would think it is unlawful detainment.

 

[surf]

If an employee is required to be there on the site and can't leave until they go through security they SHOULD be getting paid for that time.

I agree with this sentiment, and i'd be surprised if anyone here that has employees wouldn't also. the hope, from my perspective, is that Amazon's practice will bite them in the ass both as an employer and from a bad publicity perspective.

that said, i'm also pleased that the SCOTUS ruled correctly.

 

[JustinTime]

First, my opinion is that if you think they should be paying you, then go find another job. If you take a job and they tell you that you will be searched after you sign out, then don't take the job if that bothers you. If they change the terms of the job after you already work there, then feel free to find another job.

My other opinion is that worker / employer relations isn't the proper role of the federal government.

And what if the employer is in financial trouble and decides not to pay their employees at all? Do you think employees are just SOL and cant take their employer to court?

And yet another opinion is...9-0. All 9 justices agreed that the law as written did not support the premise. Even the most liberal justices resisted the opportunity to legislate from the bench. Kudos.

It shows our government is run by corporatists.

 

[JustinTime]

While I agree with you in spirit, I disagree with the actual situation. If an employee is required to be there on the site and can't leave until they go through security they SHOULD be getting paid for that time. I would think that is what a GOOD employer would do, it is what I would do. I certainly wouldn't work under those conditions unless I had no other choice.

But I agree with the ruling that the government has no right to say they must be paid; but the employee must also be free to leave and not be searched (and employer free to fire them for doing so) otherwise I would think it is unlawful detainment.

Its insane your employer can keep you on-site, not allow you to leave, and people think they shouldn't have to pay you.

 

[roho76]

http://http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/09/us-usa-court-workers-idUSKBN0JN1P820141209

SCOTUS rules 9-0 in favor of Amazon and against employees who spend up to a half hour a day waiting in security lines at Amazon processing facilities.

What are you opinions?

A lot of people think this is like driving to work, a necessary activity for the job which you do not get paid for, therefore you should not be paid to stand in security lines to be checked.

My opinion is that once you are doing activities the employers demands you do, on the employers property, its work and you should be paid.

Doesn't an employer demand you get to work and on time in order to work there? This is the same thing. I'm sure you have to walk across the parking lot to get to the time clock. quite honestly this is a waste of the supreme courts time. What the hell are they doing having an opinion about this one way or another. Don't like get another job and when enough people quit them maybe Amazon will rethink their policy on this.

 

[specsaregood]

Its insane your employer can keep you on-site, not allow you to leave, and people think they shouldn't have to pay you.

Where does it say that they are not allowed to leave? ie: being detained? As I said, they should be free to leave without going through security, but the employer should be free to fire them for doing so.

 

[CaptUSA]

Its insane your employer can keep you on-site, not allow you to leave, and people think they shouldn't have to pay you.

They can't. You are free to leave. But then you will not have a job tomorrow.

At will employment, folks!

What if a company relocated 30 minutes away? Some employees may have an extra unpaid hour of travel and extra gas money to keep working there. Others may lose their ability to use public transportation to get to work. Are we really suggesting that the company should be paying their employees for this?!

Companies are free to change employment policies any time they want. If you don't have a contract, employees can decide whether or not they like those policies and make decisions based on the new information.

It shows our government is run by corporatists.

Perhaps. But, sometimes those "corporatists" are the only thing standing between you and absolute tyranny. This is one of those times.

 

[specsaregood]

the hope, from my perspective, is that Amazon's practice will bite them in the ass both as an employer and from a bad publicity perspective.

Actually from the article, the OP is misleading when he says "SCOTUS rules 9-0 in favor of Amazon and against employees" as from the article:

Amazon, the world's largest online retailer, is not directly involved in the case.

This was actually a lawsuit against a subcontracted organization amazon does business with, not amazon itself.

 

[JustinTime]

Actually from the article, the OP is misleading when he says "SCOTUS rules 9-0 in favor of Amazon and against employees" as from the article:

This was actually a lawsuit against a subcontracted organization amazon does business with, not amazon itself.

Its Amazon's security routine though.

 

[JustinTime]

They can't. You are free to leave. But then you will not have a job tomorrow.

At will employment, folks!

Hourly workers are paid for their time. Once you are on their property, doing things they demand you do, the employer is using the employees time and should pay for it.

But, sometimes those "corporatists" are the only thing standing between you and absolute tyranny. This is one of those times.

Nah, they're one in the same.