Supreme Court stops Amazon workers lawsuit

[murg]

Originally Posted by Rizla

It is the Government's place to regulate these types of abuses of labor by corporations. I think it was Eisenhower who used the military to protect striking workers from corrupt police trying to break up strikes. The last person to be sentenced to be hung, drawn and quartered was a labor activist in England. The tragedy is that the Supreme Court let this happen. As I far as I remember, the Supreme Court now contains a number of members who were selected by Bush. No surprise there then.

And the Supreme Court agrees with you.

They have held the position that it is the Government's place to regulate labour issues. And the branch of Government that should be doing the regulating is the Legislative branch.

Also, the US Supreme Court has not power to prevent the hanging, drawing and quartering of a labour activist in England.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by murg

And the Supreme Court agrees with you.

Oh, really? Perhaps you could provide a link documenting that?

Originally Posted by murg

Also, the US Supreme Court has not power to prevent the hanging, drawing and quartering of a labour activist in England.

I fail to see the relevance of your sentence to my post.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Oh, really? Perhaps you could provide a link documenting that?

[B]

I fail to see the relevance of your sentence to my post.

It's the way the two sentences were structured:

The last person to be sentenced to be hung, drawn and quartered was a labor activist in England. The tragedy is that the Supreme Court let this happen. As I far as I remember, the Supreme Court now contains a number of members who were selected by Bush. No surprise there then

I knew what you meant, but I think that the other poster was looking at the first two sentences as a construct.

Vis-à-vis the Supreme Court:

Actually, 2 members were appointed by Obama; two by Clinton; two by GW Bush; two by GHW Bush (one of whom, mind you, is Souter--that well-known conservative firebrand, LOL--NOT, for those who don't follow SCOTUS); Reagan appointed Scalia and Kennedy. This is, if you look at it, regardless of who appointed whom, one of the most-balanced courts that has existed in decades.

Hitch

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Hitch

You missed my point. I'm not talking about whether the protesters are rioting, or marching, or wearing tutus. I'm talking about logic. I'm talking about a person, persons, or corporation, viewing the actions of X% of a given group, as something that has to be addressed. If the results of the marches, riots, yadda, in Ferguson, are something like a major change to the Grand Jury system, nationwide, OR, cameras on cops, OR, any other systemic change, then ALL the cops will be affected by (arguably) the actions of a few. THAT was my point.

Not whether or not a riot is the same thing as a march. It boggles me that anyone would read what I wrote and think that this was the argument I was making. It's a LOGIC ARGUMENT.

...

I'm surprised, in fact, that you would think that I would make any such argument. I'm not talking about whether or not rioting, versus marching, is legal or not. I'm simply talking about the LOGIC. Because, while one is hopelessly emotionally-charged, the situations are the SAME. The sets, subsets, actions thereupon, etc., are identical.

Speaking of making one's point: you've made mine. You became so instantly distressed when I mentioned the protests that you misread my post, and attributed to ME actions, discussions, intent, etc., that I never said. Nor implied. Not even REMOTELY. I didn't equate "rioting" with marching. I was simply talking about the LOGIC, which, it seems, was utterly lost in the aether.

I am still trying to figure out who said anything about Ferguson before you, that you think you caught them in a contradiction (going back to your first post on the matter).

Regardless -- they have every right to protest, and do all that is in their (legal) power to pin the blame on all cops. Not because they have an intrinsic right to blame all for the actions of the few (which they actually aren't saying at all) but because as taustin said, they have a special constitutional override that allows peaceful protest regardless, so you cannot bring anything from there.

Whether they have a right to blame all cops under the idea of blaming all for the actions of the few, is an entirely separate issue and bringing in Ferguson adds no relevance whatsoever (because that isn't what Ferguson is about).

And again, they are actually saying that all cops are complicit in the matter, so it's a rather funny proof to bring. (Actually, maybe not. You could and did say the same thing about Amzon employees, right? )

It might be better if you brought a logical argument that was logical as opposed to covered in a haze of emotions...

Instead you lost yourself utterly in the aether.

Note: Your original post was far more confusing, and you seemed to assume everyone else would instantly know exactly what was going through your mind when you referenced a highly emotional issue in a logical argument without any explanation.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I am still trying to figure out who said anything about Ferguson before you, that you think you caught them in a contradiction (going back to your first post on the matter).

Sorry--what makes you think that I thought that? I never said anyone said ANYTHING about "Ferguson," (which I'll use herein to describe all the protests, etc.), nor contradicted themselves about it. Where do you see that? If I implied it, I'll retract it, but I never thought anyone had said, or contradicted something they'd said, ABOUT Ferguson. It was, in fact, @Barcey who said:

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.

To which I had, simply, replied that using that logic, the protestors were "wrong" because they were protesting about the entire SET of "all police officers" when the acts were committed by a few. That's all I said. That logically, if the subset of "some cops" can have an effect on the set of "all cops," that "some bad employees" can have an effect on the set of "all employees." It's LOGIC.

Regardless -- they have every right to protest, and do all that is in their (legal) power to pin the blame on all cops. Not because they have an intrinsic right to blame all for the actions of the few (which they actually aren't saying at all) but because as taustin said, they have a special constitutional override that allows peaceful protest regardless, so you cannot bring anything from there.

Why does everyone here think I said anything to the contrary, about "rights to protest?" Or, for that matter, about Ferguson, AT ALL, in that context? I realize that not everyone took L&L, but I thought I'd explained what I was doing, fairly clearly.

Whether they have a right to blame all cops under the idea of blaming all for the actions of the few, is an entirely separate issue and bringing in Ferguson adds no relevance whatsoever (because that isn't what Ferguson is about).

Again--you're misconstruing my entire POINT. I simply used the SETS of All Cops and All Amazon Employees as equivalents. I used the SUBSETS of "cops who did bad things" and "Amazon employees who did bad things" as equivalents. I used the protestors as a causative effect, upon the SET of "All Cops" and the bad acts of the thieves as the causative effect, upon the SET of "all Amazon Employees." I then said, if the protestors have an effect, that affects the set of ALL COPS, it will be no different, LOGICALLY, than the effect of "theft screening" on the set of ALL AMAZON EMPLOYEES.

And I had hoped--wrongly, it turns out--that they would realize that the sets/subsets comparison simply showed that the acts of SOME (some cops, some bad employees) affect the outcomes for MANY (possibly all cops, all Amazon warehouse employees). That's it. How ANYONE here got to, I was condemning the PROTESTORS, or anything like it, I'm damned if I know.

And again, they are actually saying that all cops are complicit in the matter, so it's a rather funny proof to bring. (Actually, maybe not. You could and did say the same thing about Amzon employees, right? )

It might be better if you brought a logical argument that was logical as opposed to covered in a haze of emotions...

Instead you lost yourself utterly in the aether.

Note: Your original post was far more confusing, and you seemed to assume everyone else would instantly know exactly what was going through your mind when you referenced a highly emotional issue in a logical argument without any explanation.

At what point, exactly, did I NOT explain that I was talking about SETS AND SUBSETS? What "haze of emotion," other than those who read it, and read it incorrectly? AT no time--never--did I say ANYTHING about the people who were protesting. I never said that they were right, wrong, that they had NO right to protest (how did any of you come up with THAT, other than filtered through an emotional haze?), or that rioting and protesting were the same/different. Honestly, I'm GOBSMACKED that any of you could even derive that.

I'll give up on this now, because it's obvious to me that some of the readers here aren't able to divorce their emotions about a topic to simply look at it as cause/effect or action/reaction, or as logical corollaries. I thought it was a fairly simple logical case, that would--simply because it IS so emotional--demonstrate sets/subsets actions/consequences. I didn't realize that the emotional impact of whether or not "all cops are BAD," (nor the irony that making THAT leap, from the acts of some, over the lifetime of the existence of the set of "all cops," simply PROVES my exemplar corollary.) would make it impossible for some of the readers of the forum to follow it. I am, apparently, the only one who sees this: it's "Okay" to blame ALL COPS, for the actions of a subset of theirs, but it's NOT OK to blame "all Amazon warehouse employees," for a subset of theirs, all determined by how someone FEELS about cops or Amazon--as ironic.

Done now. Since the blindly emotional reaction to both Ferguson AND Amazon have completely wrecked the discussion, I see no purpose in continuing it.

Hitch

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Sorry--what makes you think that I thought that? I never said anyone said ANYTHING about "Ferguson," (which I'll use herein to describe all the protests, etc.), nor contradicted themselves about it. Where do you see that? If I implied it, I'll retract it, but I never thought anyone had said, or contradicted something they'd said, ABOUT Ferguson.

Your argument was an attempt to convince people that because they think Ferguson is justified, therefore so, by the same logic, is Amazon. But who says they agree Ferguson is justified? Argument == falls flat.

It was, in fact, @Barcey who said:

To which I had, simply, replied that using that logic, the protestors were "wrong" because they were protesting about the entire SET of "all police officers" when the acts were committed by a few. That's all I said. That logically, if the subset of "some cops" can have an effect on the set of "all cops," that "some bad employees" can have an effect on the set of "all employees." It's LOGIC.

And Ferguson is a case where they are saying that ALL cops were complicit in the act, aiding and abetting the cops who actually physically performed the acts. That is the basis for their belief that ALL cops should be dealt with, for whatever given value of dealt with.

Why does everyone here think I said anything to the contrary, about "rights to protest?" Or, for that matter, about Ferguson, AT ALL, in that context? I realize that not everyone took L&L, but I thought I'd explained what I was doing, fairly clearly.

Again--you're misconstruing my entire POINT. I simply used the SETS of All Cops and All Amazon Employees as equivalents. I used the SUBSETS of "cops who did bad things" and "Amazon employees who did bad things" as equivalents. I used the protestors as a causative effect, upon the SET of "All Cops" and the bad acts of the thieves as the causative effect, upon the SET of "all Amazon Employees." I then said, if the protestors have an effect, that affects the set of ALL COPS, it will be no different, LOGICALLY, than the effect of "theft screening" on the set of ALL AMAZON EMPLOYEES.

And I had hoped--wrongly, it turns out--that they would realize that the sets/subsets comparison simply showed that the acts of SOME (some cops, some bad employees) affect the outcomes for MANY (possibly all cops, all Amazon warehouse employees). That's it. How ANYONE here got to, I was condemning the PROTESTORS, or anything like it, I'm damned if I know.

At what point, exactly, did I NOT explain that I was talking about SETS AND SUBSETS? What "haze of emotion," other than those who read it, and read it incorrectly? AT no time--never--did I say ANYTHING about the people who were protesting. I never said that they were right, wrong, that they had NO right to protest (how did any of you come up with THAT, other than filtered through an emotional haze?), or that rioting and protesting were the same/different. Honestly, I'm GOBSMACKED that any of you could even derive that.

I'll give up on this now, because it's obvious to me that some of the readers here aren't able to divorce their emotions about a topic to simply look at it as cause/effect or action/reaction, or as logical corollaries. I thought it was a fairly simple logical case, that would--simply because it IS so emotional--demonstrate sets/subsets actions/consequences. I didn't realize that the emotional impact of whether or not "all cops are BAD," (nor the irony that making THAT leap, from the acts of some, over the lifetime of the existence of the set of "all cops," simply PROVES my exemplar corollary.) would make it impossible for some of the readers of the forum to follow it. I am, apparently, the only one who sees this: it's "Okay" to blame ALL COPS, for the actions of a subset of theirs, but it's NOT OK to blame "all Amazon warehouse employees," for a subset of theirs, all determined by how someone FEELS about cops or Amazon--as ironic.

Done now. Since the blindly emotional reaction to both Ferguson AND Amazon have completely wrecked the discussion, I see no purpose in continuing it.

Hitch

And like I asked, did you really think bringing an inflammatory emotional issue into a logical argument is going to sway people who didn't accept the logic in the first place???? That is all I am trying to say...

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Your argument was an attempt to convince people that because they think Ferguson is justified, therefore so, by the same logic, is Amazon. But who says they agree Ferguson is justified? Argument == falls flat.

Because I've been PM'ed, by someone, asking me to explain something further, I shall, below. I never said that Ferguson was justified. In fact that was entirely my question: if you (generic you) think that the Ferguson protests and goals are justified, THEN, one cannot argue against the actions taken by Amazon (as being UNFAIR, because everyone was "punished" for the acts of a few). THAT was my point. The ENTIRE point, mind you.

And Ferguson is a case where they are saying that ALL cops were complicit in the act, aiding and abetting the cops who actually physically performed the acts. That is the basis for their belief that ALL cops should be dealt with, for whatever given value of dealt with.

And like I asked, did you really think bringing an inflammatory emotional issue into a logical argument is going to sway people who didn't accept the logic in the first place???? That is all I am trying to say...

ACTUALLY, yes. I thought that, being MR'ers, they were equipped to parse logic from strictly emotional responses.


One last attempt, because of the request via PM:

• The intent of the Protestors, or of Amazon, does not matter.
• The belief as to the guilt/innocence of the entire set of "all amazon warehouse workers" or "all policemen" does not matter.
• Amazon determined to create an environment in which NO Amazon warehouse worker could steal from the warehouse.
• The protestors are determined to create an environment, through changes to Policing/GJ policy, to ensure that No COP can commit another act like those that have sparked the protests, or at least, not and be no-billed.
• Whether Amazon thinks some, many, most, or all, of their warehouse employees are stealing from them, is irrelevant to the logic argument.
• Whether the protestors think that some, many, most or all of the police are corrupt, or bigoted, or commit violent acts against young men of color, is irrelevant to the logic argument.
• Because the demonstrable, provable FACTS are that a) some, not all, Amazon warehouse employees stole from the warehouses, and b) some policemen committed acts--not ALL policemen--that have sparked the protests. You understand that the beliefs of Amazon or the protestors have no actual impact on the extent of the outcome, as we are discussing it here? Nor whether or not the protestors "believe" that all police are corrupt?

What IS relevant is what I stated:

• Amazon chooses to ensure that no employee at the warehouse is in a position to steal from them.
• They have taken steps, to ensure this, that affects ALL of the "set" of "All Amazon warehouse employees/contractors."
• The Protestors want to ensure that measures are in place to ensure that no policeman can hurt/kill another young man of color.
• The steps that they hope will be put in place will affect ALL of the set of "All policeman."

Thus, again: what Amazon thinks or believes is not relevant; what the protestors THINK, about all/the majority/some of the policemen, is not relevant. If the protestors at Ferguson truly believe that "all" cops are corrupt--it still does not matter. What does matter is that any actions that result (copcams, etc.) will affect ALL cops. What Amazon has done affects ALL the warehouse workers.

Just as, the US (and other countries) don't think that ALL travelers are terrorists, but, nonetheless, we are ALL screened for bombs and other devices. Perhaps this simple analogy, used by someone else, will be adequately unemotional as to finally drive the point home. Whether or not the US thinks that 0.10% of the travelling public are possible terrorists, 50%, or even possibly 100%--that is irrelevant to the outcome.The outcome is simply that the actions taken to prevent the acts of terrorists affect ALL travelers-just as the screening affects ALL warehouse workers and cop-cams and other new implementations of (whatever it will be) will affect ALL cops.

The fact that folks can't divorce their wild emotional reactions to something like this, and dissect it dispassionately, is the same reason that people make crap decisions, post regurgitated and blatantly wrong posts all over the net; post memes that are utterly factually incorrect, etc.

However, the true gist of my point was completely lost, which is, now, QUITE obviously, that the standard applied isn't the same. It is, apparently, perfectly OK for the protestors to desire that ALL cops are impacted unilaterally, because some of the participants in the thread clearly think that the police are BAD and the protestors are "in the right." However, when it's Amazon, it's NOT okay that all employees are impacted unilaterally, because the participants in the thread clearly think that Amazon is BAD, and their beleaguered employees are "in the right." There's a double-standard, all based ENTIRELY on the emotional response to the participants. It's blatant cognitive dissonance.

As long as the perception of the players in the scenario--of ANY kind = "bad," well then, it doesn't matter if logically, someone took the exact opposite stand, in terms of right/wrong, on another issue. It's all RELATIVE, and the "relative" part is neither logical, nor based in good versus evil, or right versus wrong; it's situational ethics, based entirely on someone's instinctive and gut reaction to who's "bad" and who isn't.

So, now: I officially give up on this thread.

Hitch

[DuckieTigger]

@Hitch, it is too bad that you are giving up. I can clearly understand your frustration in having to explain everything multiple times. It was even more on topic than you might have thought: it is the fault of ALL warehouse employees that did the theft AND merely knew about it and let it happen.

[wizwor]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

I didn't realize it was that long. No, I just remember impatiently waiting to clock in-I got to work about 2 minutes to 7, and most of the time I was able to clock in by 7.

It wasn't...

The workers alleged they could spend 20 to 25 minutes in unpaid time waiting in long lines to leave their shifts because there weren’t enough screeners.

alleged as in there is no evidence of
could as in it may never have actually happened
20-25 minutes which is between 1/3 and 1/2 the time in the quote

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

@Hitch, it is too bad that you are giving up. I can clearly understand your frustration in having to explain everything multiple times. It was even more on topic than you might have thought: it is the fault of ALL warehouse employees that did the theft AND merely knew about it and let it happen.

It's not about fault at all. It's about a company trying to implement loss mitigation processes and who pays. It's assuming that the majority of the lost inventory is walking out with employees and then putting a process in place to screen the employees. I believe it should be incumbent on the company to pay for that and since they are paying making it as efficient as possible. Another option would be to increase the number of security cameras and security staff that monitors them. Should the employees pay for that? Another option would be to increase security staff who search garbage bins and shipping bays. Should the employees pay for that? Trying to make it about fault is not logical.

[tubemonkey]

Not only should employees pay for security, but they should be required to turn their paychecks over to Amazon in exchange for scrip to be used in the company store.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Barcey

It's not about fault at all. It's about a company trying to implement loss mitigation processes and who pays. It's assuming that the majority of the lost inventory is walking out with employees and then putting a process in place to screen the employees. I believe it should be incumbent on the company to pay for that and since they are paying making it as efficient as possible. Another option would be to increase the number of security cameras and security staff that monitors them. Should the employees pay for that? Another option would be to increase security staff who search garbage bins and shipping bays. Should the employees pay for that? Trying to make it about fault is not logical.

Yes it is logical. The employees that have to suffer because of some (many?) should get their pitchforks ready to burn the dumb people that ruined it for everybody. And I am not talking about Amazon, but those that chose to steal. It could have been dealt with quite differently if the honest workers would have stuck together and tell on the dishonest ones. For example random checks could have been implemented first - say 10% of all employees gets checked every day. And if anything is found then you get fired on the spot. Where I work we occasionally have a problem with workers staying at work. They simply walk out during a break never to be seen again. Once it gets out of hand , the company switches temp agencies - especially if that agency fails to get replacements in.

I also believe that there should be mandatory drug screenings for people that receice unemployment or welfare benefits. It doesn't make sense that those doing drugs on welfare get protected because the others would cry wolf if they get inconvenienced.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by Hitch

It's the way the two sentences were structured:



I knew what you meant, but I think that the other poster was looking at the first two sentences as a construct.

Vis-à-vis the Supreme Court:

Actually, 2 members were appointed by Obama; two by Clinton; two by GW Bush; two by GHW Bush (one of whom, mind you, is Souter--that well-known conservative firebrand, LOL--NOT, for those who don't follow SCOTUS); Reagan appointed Scalia and Kennedy. This is, if you look at it, regardless of who appointed whom, one of the most-balanced courts that has existed in decades.

Hitch

Ah, I see. Thanks. I should be more careful with my paragraph composition in future for those who can't see the meaning obviously intended. Still not sure if the poster misunderstood me or is being sarcastic. The former, I fear.

[Doonge]

Personally, I don't even care about the principles involved, because in my ignorance, I'm assuming that if all the protests and the money thrown at the Justice system would force Amazon to pay the supplemental time caused by the security measures, nothing stops Amazon from reinstating their equilibrium by controlling worker's hourly wage within a few years.

If the 20 minutes represents 4% of the day working time, and if it can be said that Amazon is forced, by law, to pay its workers 4% more at the time of the judgement, what exactly prevents them from engineering a 4% drop in the future?

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Yes it is logical. The employees that have to suffer because of some (many?) should get their pitchforks ready to burn the dumb people that ruined it for everybody. And I am not talking about Amazon, but those that chose to steal. It could have been dealt with quite differently if the honest workers would have stuck together and tell on the dishonest ones. For example random checks could have been implemented first - say 10% of all employees gets checked every day. And if anything is found then you get fired on the spot. Where I work we occasionally have a problem with workers staying at work. They simply walk out during a break never to be seen again. Once it gets out of hand , the company switches temp agencies - especially if that agency fails to get replacements in.

I also believe that there should be mandatory drug screenings for people that receice unemployment or welfare benefits. It doesn't make sense that those doing drugs on welfare get protected because the others would cry wolf if they get inconvenienced.

The "fault" is emotional and not logical because we don't really know who is at fault. For all I know it could be the managers smuggling out product and blaming the employees or it could be security (who will guard the guards). Yes the probability is that there are some employees stealing product but probability is not fact.