Supreme Court stops Amazon workers lawsuit

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by 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?

There's also nothing stopping the workers from spending that 4% of their working day thinking of creative ways to get compensated for the wasted time (equilibrium if you will). More likely the good employees will find employment elsewhere and you'll be stuck with workers with no other options. Justice is better than escalations by either party.

[Doonge]

Originally Posted by Barcey

There's also nothing stopping the workers from spending that 4% of their working day thinking of creative ways to get compensated for the wasted time (equilibrium if you will). More likely the good employees will find employment elsewhere and you'll be stuck with workers with no other options. Justice is better than escalations by either party.

I get your point, and overall I think the whole affair is quite sad because it creates tension between the employer and the employees.

However, what you said about workers working less, or the better workers leaving, could happen now without the protest and everything.
I see no link at all in regard with justice, as "escalation" will happen, regardless of the outcome.

This can be spinned many different ways once you start invoking principles. For instance, you can "argue" that Amazon "punishes" honest workers for the misdeeds of some. But spin the other side and one could say Amazon would "reward" "honest" workers for their apathy (or for nothing), through giving workers the option to stay longer and be paid more per day overall, for the same work, or work a little less and leave same time than before. This would be a reward based, at best, on no achievement at all.

Personally, I think it's easier to, indeed, pay the worker by hour, including the time they spend in the security layout, because that's a simpler system overall. But as the average productivity falls (because time spent in the security layout isn't productive), adjust the rate accordingly. Which means that Amazon should have preemptively done what its workers demand, and should have adjusted rates.
It also means, imho, that bringing justice into this is shortsigthed, especially considering the lawyers fees (from both the workers and Amazon), and considering the brand damage that is being done.

[taustin]

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.

And it is not the fault of those who stole nothing and were unaware of anyone who did. But they lose the same amount of time every day. And almost certainly outnumber the ones you blame by an order of magnitude.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by wizwor

It wasn't...



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

That you haven't seen any evidence - and there's no reason you would - does not mean it doesn't exist. And when people are alleging under penalty of perjury, they do tend to be a bit careful about what they allege. (And their lawyers are generally pretty careful about having something to back up their claims, since they can get in a lot of trouble for filing bogus lawsuits. Barratry is a crime in most states.)

[taustin]

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.

Presumes that they are aware of the theft, and who is responsible. Which seems like a real leap, to me. If the security people whose job it is can't catch the thieves, why would you think that the other warehouse employees who would not be doing their actual job if they are looking for thieves would be any better at it?

[DiapDealer]

If they paid employees for the time spent waiting on security screenings, how would they determine when it would be OK to start lining up? Would they work their entire shift and have the time in line be all overtime? Would they knock off early and estimate how long it would take to get everyone through before OT would apply? Or some of both: line up early, pay OT when things run long? Either way, I don't see how you'd avoid the fight to be last in line, the loitering in the bathroom, the search for lost keys by those looking to suppliment their income by taking more time to get through the screening than the time they were complaining about having to wait in the first place.

"Oh noes!! Someone pulled the fire alarm during the security screening. I'm going to get cheated out of 15 minutes of dawdle-pay today!"

And if screening wait time were a flat time/rate, the first ones through would be paid the same as the ones who were last in line and waited longer. Where's the fairness in that?

It'd be a nightmare every day just getting people to line up to GET the screening started.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by 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?

Depends on whether or not they're paying more than minimum wage to begin with.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

If they paid employees for the time spent waiting on security screenings, how would they determine when it would be OK to start lining up? Would they work their entire shift and have the time in line be all overtime? Would they knock off early and estimate how long it would take to get everyone through before OT would apply? Or some of both: line up early, pay OT when things run long? Either way, I don't see how you'd avoid the fight to be last in line, the loitering in the bathroom, the search for lost keys by those looking to suppliment their income by taking more time to get through the screening than the time they were complaining about having to wait in the first place.

"Oh noes!! Someone pulled the fire alarm during the security screening. I'm going to get cheated out of 15 minutes of dawdle-pay today!"

And if screening wait time were a flat time/rate, the first ones through would be paid the same as the ones who were last in line and waited longer. Where's the fairness in that?

It'd be a nightmare every day just getting people to line up to GET the screening started.

Those same factors apply to any waiting during the work day. Elevators, cleaning stations, waiting for equipment, etc.
They apply to the normal line to punch out, even if there were no additional screening time.
Handle dawdlers the same as you'd handle dawdlers during any other part of the work day.

If it's on the clock, then it's in Amazon's interest to make the process as efficient as possible.
Also, don't be so sure about the fight to be last in line. Most people want to go home at the end of the day.

ApK

[taustin]

Originally Posted by ApK

Also, don't be so sure about the fight to be last in line. Most people want to go home at the end of the day.

And in order to actually make any difference, you'd have to dawdle for fifteen minutes, which isn't all that hard for an employer to police.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Barcey

Yes the probability is that there are some employees stealing product but probability is not fact.

Think they would try to pull that in court? Put them all on the stand under oath. Would be interesting if Amazon had proof that some workers stole, but not enough to account for all stolen stuff.

[obs20]

Originally Posted by rdjack21

This has been going on for a long time and not just at Amazon. Back when I worked in manufacturing we had a similar policy and we did not get paid for the time it took to get through screening either.

I remember one time they caught this person electroplating his belt buckle with gold I think they got a few ounces before they were caught. It was that kind of stuff that caused the inspections to begin with.

So no I don't have a problem with it.

If the cheap SOB's paid for the screening they could have saved the cost of the gold.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ApK

Also, don't be so sure about the fight to be last in line. Most people want to go home at the end of the day.

Not in my 40+ years experience of holding various non-union labor positions. If there's a system to be gamed for personal gain, then it WILL be gamed. Usually by the very same people who were screaming the loudest about the "injustice" and "wrongness" of it all in the first place. The ones who "just want to go home," already do so (and will continue to do so); quietly. Wondering what all the fuss from the loud-mouth, dead-beat trouble-makers is about THIS time. They know how things work. They abide if they can, they move on if they can't. Why? Because they know that nobody ever gets paid for every second they work ... and nobody ever works for every second they get paid. They keep the ledger sheet balanced according to whatever generally accepted accounting principles their conscience dictates and they shut the hell up.

EDIT: Those same workers also get a big kick out of hearing what people years and miles removed from manual labor think about how manual laborers are treated ("Wait, you mean you actually perspire?! O. M. G.").

[eschwartz]

@Hitch, thanks for the explanation. FWIW, I do agree with you, I just thought the whole Ferguson thing was less clear than it could've been...

(And no, MR'ers are not intrinsically any more equipped to parse logic than the rest of the internet. Sad but true. The internet is the internet. Bias is everywhere.)

Originally Posted by Barcey

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.

It isn't about fault. It is about consequences.

Probability is all we can go by, when the alternative is to simply do nothing at all and just Take It... and unfair though it might be (along with the other 99.99999999999% of Life, the Universe, and Everything), Amazon is within their rights to do so.

Originally Posted by taustin

And it is not the fault of those who stole nothing and were unaware of anyone who did. But they lose the same amount of time every day. And almost certainly outnumber the ones you blame by an order of magnitude.

Originally Posted by taustin

Presumes that they are aware of the theft, and who is responsible. Which seems like a real leap, to me. If the security people whose job it is can't catch the thieves, why would you think that the other warehouse employees who would not be doing their actual job if they are looking for thieves would be any better at it?

In order for Amazon to give a hoot about the whole situation, it would have to have become a significant enough problem to be noticeable.

It is not unreasonable to think that a significant proportion of the workers were directly culpable. And it is not unreasonable to think they would be more cautious while the security people were right next to them. The workers have a greater chance by far to see something than the security guards.

And people who see things happening that shouldn't be and are quiet about it, are aiding and abetting the perpetrators. (Whether that be potential: Amazon worker-thieves, or Ferguson cops-who-hate-blacks, or what have you.)

[frahse]

Amazon claimed that the process took much less than what was claimed.

I guess if it is a real problem for the workers, they could get a better job somewhere else.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

It isn't about fault. It is about consequences.

How can there be consequences unless someone has assigned/assumed fault?

My point is that it should be about neither. Assuming blame or fault is an emotional response. If you knew who did it you could take it to law enforcement and deal with the problem.

The fact is that there are losses in running a business. Inventory goes missing, inventory doesn't sell and products get returned. Compare this to product returns. Some products are returned fraudulently. Do you think it's OK for Amazon to implement a two week waiting period before they give you a credit while they do a background check with other stores on your returns history? Is it OK for them to charge you for that background check? They could probably reduce their losses by doing so? Should they have to just take the losses and process your credit immediately. Why is it OK to treat all employees as thieves but not all customers as frauds?