Supreme Court stops Amazon workers lawsuit

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by Hitch

And here's the REAL insult on top of injury: some people not only think it's reasonable that Amazon was forced to implement (at their expense, no doubt!) such draconian security measures, but then should ALSO have to pay the employees for the privilege of ensuring that they, those self-same employees, don't STEAL FROM THEM.



I mean, really?



Amazon should be the party penalized, because the employees are thieves? By PAYING those employees? For the honor of what--because the employees stole so much that they had to take security measures? So that the thieving behavior should be REWARDED?



"Oh, gosh, employee Jane Doe, we're sorry that you and your fellow workers stole so much merchandise from us that we had to spend [a hundred thousand] bucks, train security people, pay them, etc., to stand here and scan you, to prevent you from stealing from US. But don't you worry, we're going to REWARD you by paying for you to stand in this line, the one that exists to keep you from stealing!" Irony much?



Oh, hells, no. That's wrong on so many levels it's hard to discuss. It's AMAZON that was stolen from, and its customers. It's AMAZON that had to pay for the equipment to screen for thieving employees. It's AMAZON that has to pay, train, etc., the security employees to carry out the security tasks. It's AMAZON that has to eat the costs of all the theft that happened that was the trigger for this in the first place. Why on EARTH should Amazon now have to eat the costs of rewarding those employees--the same ones that stole so much that this ever even HAPPENED--to stand in a line that is the DIRECT result of their own actions? This is grown-up world, folks. Cause and effect. Bad behavior, meet consequence.















Agreed. PUNISHMENT would have been if Amazon had fired the entire subcontractor, because s/he hired "bad employees" and EVERYONE lost their job. Now, THAT would have been punishment. Having to stand in a line for a few minutes a day, INSTEAD of losing their jobs? Seems like a perfectly reasonable trade-off to me. If it were me, and my job, and my fellow workers' behavior had jeopardized MY job to that extent, I would have a) turned them in, or b) turned them in, AND called the cops. I certainly wouldn't have the nerve to bitch, or try to SUE, because I got to KEEP my job, but was slightly inconvenienced as the quid pro quo for keeping that job.



Hitch

It's the unfortunate reality that there is some employee theft and it's the cost of doing business. It's interesting that you automatically assume that all employees are responsible for the actions of a few. If a convenience store is robbed in your neighborhood are all the residents at fault because they didn't report it. Is it ok for the store owner to setup a barricade and search everyone's car when they leave the neighborhood? I don't believe it's ok to inconvenience the masses.

It's not OK that there is employee theft and it hurts the business bottom line. Any measures the company decides to take to minimize the impact should be at the company's expense.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by taustin

Salaried exempt status is widely abused, it is true. Doesn't make it legal, but most states are lax in enforcement and most employees don't have the money to sue when the potential judgment is a fraction of what the lawyers will cost. There's a reason programmers have to make at least $83,000/year to be exempt in California.

It's not always abuse.
It is a tradeoff. Legally, they call it terms of employment and it is usually spelled out in the employment agreement. Those startup employees working 80-100 hours signed up voluntarily. Many of them are millionaires by the time they're 30. More own their houses free and clear by 40. And in silivalley that means something. Not everybody, but a lot.
Others decide the lifestyle is not for them and move on. The resume looks mighty good elsewhere so they're still ahead of the game.

My brother was a mechanical engineer running the maintenance dept at a refinery. Once a year, the place shut down for maintenance for a week. Double shift for everybody. Mechanics and techs got overtime but not him. Not a problem. Because the rest of the year when things were humming, he'd get extra daytime with his kids. Two vacations a year. A nice salary and house. No time clock. And in many businesses it is, frankly, a status symbol; you are trusted to do your job and earn your keep without the monitoring of a punch card. And if it means taking an hour here and there to run errands or go to the doctor nobody blinks. The job getting done and done well is what matters. Sometimes it takes 10 hours, sometimes five. No sitting in the office twiddling thumbs if everything is covered so starting the weekend early is perfectly fine.

My sister runs the entire food and beverage dept at a high end tourist resort. Certified chef among other qualifications. 50 hour weeks are normal for her. 60 hours common. It's not required of her but it *is* what her work ethic demands of her. The salary is good; her satisfaction at being among the best in her business is even better. She knows every job in her department and can and will do it at the drop of a hat as needed. Not everybody is cut out for that but she is a natural at it. She takes pride in her achievements and that comes from her value system. She is hardly unique. Most professionals are similarly driven.

Exempt status *can* be abused, by the employer *and* the employee. But not every practice is an abuse. Different companies and different jobs have different cultures and practices. You live up to it or move on.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't know how it is in the US, but certainly in the UK, unpaid overtime, especially in professional jobs, is more the norm than the exception.

This is interesting but not all that relevant to Amazon US warehouse jobs. Lots of these Integrity Staffing Solutions workers are part-time and hoping to get more hours. They are juggling multiple part-time jobs and thus need to know when their Amazon shift will end. Unpredictable work times plus low wages are an all too common American combination.

There was a time, in the US, when workers at a company as big as Amazon would almost surely be unionized. There would be little need to sue for something like this, because it would be handled through bargaining. In much of the EU, that's still true. But Integrity Staffing Solutions workers can't effectively unionize, because Amazon would then just contract with a different labor supply shop. To me, it's a difficult situation we have.

Originally Posted by Hitch

It's AMAZON that has to pay, train, etc., the security employees to carry out the security tasks.

It's Integrity Staffing Solutions that has to pay and train so many security employee because AMAZON wouldn't allow a staggered shift system to reduce the volume of workers hitting security at any one time.

Originally Posted by Hitch

employees--the same ones that stole so much

My guess is that Amazon executives put the search requirement into their worker services contracts from the start. Do you have any evidence that Amazon ever had a high, or even average, level of shrinkage by US retail standards?

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It's not a straw man argument. The point is where do you draw the line?

You pay people for being on the job -- standing in line, waiting to leave. Line drawn.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

My guess is that Amazon executives put the search requirement into their worker services contracts from the start. Do you have any evidence that Amazon ever had a high, or even average, level of shrinkage by US retail standards?

I KNEW IT I KNEW IT! I was right!

Thank you for backing me up.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I think I have figured it out.

Really, Amazon is spending all this money for the giggles, because they like being mean to their workers. There wasn't any theft, that was just an excuse.

Okay, I'm convinced. Amazon SHOULD be paying them wages, if part and parcel of working for Amazon is to sit through these inscrutable psychology experiments.

I wonder how much the APA is paying for this?

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid it's the way society works. Why do we have border controls at airports which cause long delays to every honest traveller? Because of the possible crimes of a few. Why are there ticket inspectors on trains, which make travel more expensive for everyone? Because of the possible crimes of a few.

None of which has anything to do with forcing your employees to stand in line, on their own time, while they are on your work site.

As for "this is how society works" -- nothing ever changes if folks don't change how "society works." Next step, Amazon employees should unionize, if Amazon can't be reasonable about this, they need to have it beaten into them.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't know how it is in the US, but certainly in the UK, unpaid overtime, especially in professional jobs, is more the norm than the exception. My "official" working week is 37h; in reality I probably do on average 5-10h a week more than that, and a lot more when there's an important project that has to get done.

Are you working on salary or by the hour?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by rcentros

None of which has anything to do with forcing your employees to stand in line, on their own time, while they are on your work site.

Why does it make a difference whether it is your employees or your customers you "victimize" this way?

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by pidgeon92

Same here. My salaried jobs were 50-60 hours per week.

Key word here being "salaried." Normally salaried workers agree to unpaid overtime when they're hired. Completely different than hourly workers.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by taustin

There's a reason programmers have to make at least $83,000/year to be exempt in California.

Salaried workers and hourly workers work under completely different circumstances. Salaried workers usually make quite a bit more for their "free" overtime.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

You call it "punishment".

I call it "fundamental reality of life".

I call it a "fundamental load of BS." Again, the "reality of life" is what you make it. Let's see what happens when/if Amazon employees threaten to unionize. I'll bet Amazon could figure out how to move that time clock to the outside of the screening line double quick.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I think I have figured it out.

Really, Amazon is spending all this money for the giggles, because they like being mean to their workers. There wasn't any theft, that was just an excuse.

I think I have it figured out ... Amazon could skin kittens alive and force their employees to watch without pay and you would find a way to apologize for them.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Why does it make a difference whether it is your employees or your customers you "victimize" this way?

In the case of airports it's the government, not any company that inconveniences airline customers. And there's a difference between supplying what's supposed to be security against terrorism and forcing everyone to be screened to protect Amazon's bottom line. Employee theft is not a new thing. Deal with it in the way they've always dealt with it. Don't force your employees to give up hundreds of hours of unpaid time for the crimes of the few. It's fundamentally unfair and it amounts to theft -- Amazon stealing from their employees (employees sell their time).

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

My brother was a mechanical engineer running the maintenance dept at a refinery. Once a year, the place shut down for maintenance for a week. Double shift for everybody. Mechanics and techs got overtime but not him. Not a problem. Because the rest of the year when things were humming, he'd get extra daytime with his kids. Two vacations a year. A nice salary and house. No time clock. And in many businesses it is, frankly, a status symbol; you are trusted to do your job and earn your keep without the monitoring of a punch card. And if it means taking an hour here and there to run errands or go to the doctor nobody blinks. The job getting done and done well is what matters. Sometimes it takes 10 hours, sometimes five. No sitting in the office twiddling thumbs if everything is covered so starting the weekend early is perfectly fine.

My sister runs the entire food and beverage dept at a high end tourist resort. Certified chef among other qualifications. 50 hour weeks are normal for her. 60 hours common. It's not required of her but it *is* what her work ethic demands of her.

I could never do that. I valued my off time way too much. I worked a 40 hour week (4 on, 3 off) with 7 weeks vacation. For the year, that translated into 180 days of work and 185 days of off time.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Hitch

It's AMAZON that was stolen from,

So, in your opinion, if Amazon is stolen from, it's OK for them to steal form others who did not steal from them?

Two wrongs make a right?