Supreme Court stops Amazon workers lawsuit

[taustin]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I can believe that there's been some delays along the way, but I simply don't believe the time spent is consistently non-trivial. Just like warehouse temperatures, isolated incidents get blown out of proportion.

The court documents say "up to 25 minutes," but the news coverage (as you might expect) does not give details of how often it is that long, or what the average time is.

But sometimes, things are as egregious as they sound. Amazon has always had a reputation of being a shitty place to work.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by taustin

Did you spend an hour or more doing those things? My understanding is that in this case, the time spend waiting to be searched is not trivial.

Well, then...

I guess that the employees who were stealing from Amazon--enough to cause them to implement this draconian, expensive measure--should have been more considerate of their fellow workers--not to mention the company that was, indirectly, paying them--before they decided to steal SO MUCH that this sort of measure was required to deal with it.

Nor do I, as an Amazon buyer, want to have to pay more for items, to cover the costs of the losses that Amazon will, invariably, add in markup to the prices. Having suffered from some very severe doses of the dishonesty of the human race in the past years, since the advent of my current business, I have precisely ZERO SYMPATHY with thieves. That they inconvenienced their fellow workers--because now they've stolen THEIR time from THEM--that's simply a different type of thieving.

Perhaps we should bitch about a world in which people are so disgustingly dishonest that these types of measures are required, instead of bitching about the companies that are forced to deal with it to protect themselves? Or perhaps those employees that knew that their fellow workers were stealing, but did nothing about it, should feel bad that THEY have, with their complicit silence, forced Amazon and its subcontractor to take this time from them? Why is NONE of this the fault of those who caused it, rather than those who are struggling to deal with it?

Hitch

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by taustin

The court documents say "up to 25 minutes," but the news coverage (as you might expect) does not give details of how often it is that long, or what the average time is.

Other than reporting on the conflicting claims, that would be difficult. A reporter would probably have to get a job in the warehouse. This wouldn't have been an important enough story for that, even in the old days before the web, and the great recession, hollowed out newsrooms.

According to earlier news coverage on the case:

Amazon.com spokeswoman Kelly Cheeseman said workers now have "little or no wait" to get through the security screening.

Talking to reporters after the hearing, Thierman said that's because the company added security screeners when the appeals court ruled in the workers' favor.

Originally Posted by cfrizz

I don't have a problem with it. Don't like it, find another job where you don't have to do it.

Amazon warehouse workers do often try to find other jobs. Now that they face, once again, being unsure when they can get to the day care to pick up their child, the importance of following your advice increases. I hope alternative jobs for the unskilled increase at at least the same rate.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Well, then...

<bunch of stuff blaming people we have no reason to suspect have done anything wrong.

Unless you believe in a massive conspiracy on the part of every single employee at Amazon to steal from their employer, you are sanctioning Amazon depriving employees of (apparently) a half hour of their lives without pay despite having done nothing wrong.

Nobody is complaining that Amazon has implemented the security measures. Only that they are not paying people for the time it takes. For the Supreme Court to say that something you will be fired for not doing[1] is not integral to the job is just stupid. It's a sign of the ubiquitous tolerance of corruption these days, at all levels of government.

[1]At best - I suspect that if you really flatly refused, they'd call the cops on you.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It's not outrageous, it's how the law is written and has been since the 30's.

Where does it say that?

The 1947 Portal-to-Portal Act -- an update of 1938’s Fair Labor Standards Act, which established a minimum wage and overtime requirements -- says employers aren’t required to compensate workers for time spent getting to and from their workstations. In 1956, the Supreme Court said workers had to be paid for time spent changing in and out of protective gear at a car-battery manufacturing plant -- ruling that workers are entitled to compensation for “integral and indispensable” activities occurring just before or after the work shift.

Since the security checks were mandatory for continued employment, then they should be done on company time. But obviously, you and SCOTUS see it differently than the 9th Circuit and myself. It's a matter of interpretation. Anyway, we're done discussing this since neither of us will change our position on this issue.

Thanks for playing.

[tubemonkey]

Amazon doesn’t comment on pending litigation, said spokeswoman Kelly Cheeseman. “Data shows that employees walk through post-shift security screening with little or no wait,” Cheeseman said.

If that's true, then why doesn't Amazon place the time clocks at the end of the security checks? What have they got to lose?

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Nor do I, as an Amazon buyer, want to have to pay more for items, to cover the costs of the losses that Amazon will, invariably, add in markup to the prices.

As indicated in my last post, all sides on the lawsuit agree that, because of Amazon's contractor losing at the appeals court level in April 2013, the problem staff faced stopped. Any such markup for hiring more security people (or speeding staff through with fewer searches) has been in place for well over a year. If this markup was onerous, I think you would no longer be an Amazon buyer.

There are alternatives to hiring more security people, or lowering search standards, if a company wants to speed the line. Because of staggered work times, I can't recall ever facing a significant security line where I work.

[Doonge]

Just pointing out that the website linked is member-only.

An alternative link, or a warning would be nice.

Best regards.

[pidgeon92]

Originally Posted by Doonge

Just pointing out that the website linked is member-only.

An alternative link, or a warning would be nice.

Best regards.

Google the exact headline to get past the paywall:

Supreme Court Stops Amazon Workers’ Suit About Overtime

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by taustin

Did you spend an hour or more doing those things? My understanding is that in this case, the time spend waiting to be searched is not trivial.

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.

[taustin]

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.

What the average is, the news coverage hasn't made clear, but the court documents say "up to 25 minutes." If that's common, that's just not reasonable.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

If that's true, then why doesn't Amazon place the time clocks at the end of the security checks? What have they got to lose?

Bingo!

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Outrageous ruling! If it's required for continued employment, then pay 'em.

Absolutely agree.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

I don't have a problem with it. Don't like it, find another job where you don't have to do it.

We all know that some people would be helping themselves to the merchandise if these screenings weren't in place.

So everyone should be "punished" for the possible crimes of a few? I never agreed with that in elementary school and I don't agree with it now.

As far as just going to get another job ... much easier said than done in today's economy. This is the sort of thing that resulted in unions in the first place. Maybe that should be the Amazon employees next step.

If they're at work, they should be paid for it. Period.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by rdjack21

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

Again, everyone punished because one person was a thief. What is this, kindergarten?