Supreme Court stops Amazon workers lawsuit

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by taustin

Then you just want to punish people you agree have nothing wrong.



Not really. First, there's a difference between protesting and rioting, the former being legal, the latter being a very serious crime. Second, the point the protesters want to make is that it is all policemen, because there is an institutional corruption. Those who do not violently violate people's rights tolerate those who do, even though they are legally obligated to arrest corrupt cops, too. Whether you agree with them or not, they are making an entirely different point. Amazon agrees that most employees are not stealing from them.

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.

Also, any extra time the cops spend dealing with protestors (or rioters) is on the clock, because the police have a very influential union. So your example actually supports me, not you.

Let's try this a different way, and then I'll give up, because it's obvious to me that you don't see my point:

1. Amazon contracted employees--let's say a small number--steal from Amazon warehouses. These thieves are a subset of the major set, "all Amazon contract employees," that committed these acts.
1b. Two cops in the US are involved in purportedly racially-charged deaths of black men. This is a subset of the major set "all policepersons in America" that committed these two acts.
2. Investigations are held (presumably, by Amazon as well as by two grand juries). In this case, the various Grand Juries are one set, and Amazon is the equivalent set.
3. In Ferguson, NY, and elsewhere, people are dissatisfied with the results, and protest, asking for different methodologies, policing, etc., to achieve the results that they want. Regardless of the fact that only a subset committed the acts that sparked the protests, the protestors want things done to, for, etc., the ENTIRE set of Police Officers, to prevent further bad acts happening to men of color--not merely the subset.
3b . At Amazon, Amazon is dissatisfied with the results, and looks to institute different methodologies, policing, etc., to achieve the results that THEY want. Regardless of the fact that only a subset committed the acts that sparked the theft investigations, Amazon want things done to, for, etc., the ENTIRE set of contract employees, to prevent further theft--not merely the subset.
4. Certainly, some things will come out of this, due to the protests, the President, and the AG, that will affect all police, as a whole. This may be cop-cams; it might be differing Grand Jury systems--but I think it's safe to say that there will be consequences that will affect the police, NATIONWIDE. The entire SET is affected by this.
4a. Amazon institutes anti-theft policies and practices that affect the contract employees, as a WHOLE. The entire SET is affected by this.

Neither the sets of "all the police" nor "all the Amazon contract employees" were involved in what sparked the consequences. Nonetheless, the emotional involvement in the protests makes people think that it's perfectly justified and okay. You've argued that point quite eloquently, yes? That the behavior of the police subset, affecting the major set, "all police," is okay, but that this same logic does not apply to Amazon's situation? Why--because the police-protests are emotionally charged, but the Amazon employees are just a tired argument on a message board?

But logically: what, exactly, is the difference between the two? That the dispute is "constitutional?" You seem to think I'm talking about whether or not rioting is constitutional, and I'm not. I wasn't talking--at ALL--about the protests, the protestors, what they've done, what they haven't done. I'm simply talking about the logic and psychology of how perception alters logical processes. How what's sauce for the goose (the police who aren't racists, or involved in racially-charged situations, or whom have never hurt nor damaged nor shot anyone) isn't, apparently, sauce for the gander (the rest of the Amazon employees that didn't steal anything).

Peaceful protest is constitutionally protected. Rioting is not. When you equate them, as you do, with "marching/rioting," you are being either dishonest, or clueless. They are not.

There are no constitutional issues in the Amazon lawsuit. Neither Amazon's right to search employees as they leave, nor the employees' expectation to get paid for the time that take, is a constitutional issue. Peaceful protest is a constitutional issue. Rioting is a criminal offense.

Three entirely different issues.

The word I'm thinking of is "straw man." As in, you are attributing to me a position I have never claimed, and do not agree with. Riots should be suppressed by any means necessary, and I do mean any means. The difference between riots, insurrection and armed revolt are more semantics than anything else. Violent crime is never acceptable.

As I said, it's a logic argument. Now I'm thinking straw man. I've made precisely zero argument about riots versus protests. You missed my point entirely. You obviously believe that the protests are completely justified, even though they've been sparked by the actions of a few. I'm simply saying that just because you are emotionally engaged in what's happened, does not, from a logic standpoint, make the behaviors different. The relative importance of one issue, and the relative "unimportance" (nationwide, it seems) of the two issues doesn't change the facts.

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.

No, it's not, not even a little bit, and it's very dishonest of you to claim it is. A sure sign that you have nothing to dispute what I've actually said. Next bullet point on the "how to argue on the internet" is to call me a Nazi.

I wasn't at all dishonest. You attributed to me an entire argument that I never made. Had I known it would be so grossly misconstrued, I would have prefaced it with "logic argument," to make it clear. The next thing I know, someone here will be calling me a racist, just because I tried to make a point by using something that is prominently featured in the headlines. So let me be clear: I was saying precisely NOTHING about the marchers, rioters, etc.; I was simply talking about how ascribing consequences to the members of a SET, based on the actions of some subset of the set, is commonplace. (Just like: all travelers are not terrorists, but all travelers are subjected to scrutiny, BECAUSE, some teeny subset of travelers ARE terrorists, or would-be terrorists).

Now: since that seemed to put people so utterly out of whack, let's not discuss Ferguson, et al, any further. Quite honestly, I thought that the logic comparison was going to be instantly obvious, and I'm rather surprised that it wasn't. Hopefully, having now BELABORED it to death, what I was trying to say is clear.

Hitch

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Hitch

You missed my point.

No, actually, I didn't. You claim that a) three completely different situations are actually two different situations, and that b) they are the same. They're not. They are, in fact, completely different.

Repeating your claim won't - ever - make it true.

The people protesting police misconduct are claiming that all police are corrupt. Nobody, not even Amazon, is claiming that all employees are thieves.

If you do not see the difference, then you are not worth any further discussion. And no, I didn't bother to read the rest of your post, because it's all based on the error above.

[RHWright]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

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.

In general, there is more to whether a position is defined as exempt or non-exempt than than the terms of employment or contract. In addition to FLSA, state laws may add further twists.

See: http://employment.findlaw.com/wages-...employees.html

I am not a lawyer or HR professional, so I wouldn't want to interpret beyond that.

[cfrizz]

OUTSTANDING COMMON SENSE POST!!! Karma heading your way!

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

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by taustin

No, actually, I didn't. You claim that a) three completely different situations are actually two different situations, and that b) they are the same. They're not. They are, in fact, completely different.

Repeating your claim won't - ever - make it true.

The people protesting police misconduct are claiming that all police are corrupt. Nobody, not even Amazon, is claiming that all employees are thieves.

If you do not see the difference, then you are not worth any further discussion. And no, I didn't bother to read the rest of your post, because it's all based on the error above.

Wow...

I sure am glad I wasted all those study hours in Logic and Language, and Ethics, in school!

You did completely miss the point of my post. It has nothing to do with what the people who are PROTESTING are CLAIMING. (Although I admit: I'm pretty gobsmacked to think that those folks really believe that ALL police are corrupt. That's pretty mind-blowing--but not the point.)

It has to do with perception, and how the acts of some affect the outcome for all. Like I said: it's a logic exercise. I see now that there's no reason to continue the effort.

ETA: @Cfrizz: THANK YOU! MUCHO!

Hitch

[Rizla]

I think standing inline unpaid after working minimum wage on a very short-term contract is okay, as long as it's not happening to me

[Doonge]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Wow...

I sure am glad I wasted all those study hours in Logic and Language, and Ethics, in school!

You did completely miss the point of my post. It has nothing to do with what the people who are PROTESTING are CLAIMING. (Although I admit: I'm pretty gobsmacked to think that those folks really believe that ALL police are corrupt. That's pretty mind-blowing--but not the point.)

It has to do with perception, and how the acts of some affect the outcome for all. Like I said: it's a logic exercise. I see now that there's no reason to continue the effort.

ETA: @Cfrizz: THANK YOU! MUCHO!

Hitch

Just jumping while the train is still running, but could you point to me examples of situations where the acts of some do not affect the outcome for all (absolute zero)?
I fail to see the relevance of that distinction.

It seems to me there's always a compromize to be made?

edit: it seems it's your entire point, so in fact I agree with you and the question should be asked to taustin.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Wow...

I sure am glad I wasted all those study hours in Logic and Language, and Ethics, in school!

Pity you didn't spend them on reading comprehension, instead, yeah.

[cfrizz]

There is no such thing as a compassionate corporation...it is ALL about the money and stock price! The sooner you learn and accept that, the better off you will be.

So if you are a responsible adult, just realize the only one who cares about you on the job is YOU. Do the best work you are capable of but don't give them any extra, because all they will do is expect you to continue do more and give you nothing in return.

This is also the reality of todays workplaces.

Originally Posted by taustin

...People who throw things at you seem to be more compassionate than Amazon is towards its employees.

[murg]

Originally Posted by taustin

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees.

Actually, we have no idea if the Supreme Court agrees or disagrees.

The Supreme Court has merely decided to not hear the case. Because the case is not one with Constitutional issues.

Labour law is the responsibility of the federal congress or the various states. The Supreme Court is saying that it is up to these bodies to change the legislation.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

There is no such thing as a compassionate corporation...it is ALL about the money and stock price!

This obscures that some are a lot worse than others.

Here's are two good reads in support of that idea:

http://longform.org/posts/dish-netwo...any-in-america

http://longform.org/posts/the-surviv...tor-fitzgerald

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by Rizla

I think standing inline unpaid after working minimum wage on a very short-term contract is okay, as long as it's not happening to me

Of course, as long as one of those poor pathetic minimum wage earners on a short-term contract contract committed a crime then they deserve whatever happens to them.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

There is no such thing as a compassionate corporation...it is ALL about the money and stock price! The sooner you learn and accept that, the better off you will be.

Corporations are run by people. Some people use that as an excuse to abuse the hell out of employees. But privately held corporations at least have the option to not be assholes.

Originally Posted by cfrizz

So if you are a responsible adult, just realize the only one who cares about you on the job is YOU. Do the best work you are capable of but don't give them any extra, because all they will do is expect you to continue do more and give you nothing in return.

This is also the reality of todays workplaces.

Places you've worked at, perhaps. It's not a universal truth. I work with good people who do care about other people, rather than being sociopaths.

[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.

The middle-classes owes their position to the sacrifices of the labor movement of the past, yet many are sympathetic to the Supreme Court's decision and to Amazon's flagrant disrespect for workers. Workers in the West are more productive than ever before, but share less of the profits than any time since the last world war. Middle-class RIP.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Doonge

Just jumping while the train is still running, but could you point to me examples of situations where the acts of some do not affect the outcome for all (absolute zero)?
I fail to see the relevance of that distinction.

It seems to me there's always a compromize to be made?

edit: it seems it's your entire point, so in fact I agree with you and the question should be asked to taustin.

Doonge:

Yes, exactly. It seems that I should have used a less-emotionally-charged issue to make my point, but I forget sometimes that I'm on a public forum where not everyone has had to learn to distinguish between facts and opinion, emotions and logic, as part of their education. (Of course: it helps to have a natural inclination toward logic.)

It was a simple logic/mathematical exercise: Set A does X, subset of A does Y, and Z is the result for the entire set of A. I thought it was pretty obvious, but clearly, some people would rather be angry than strive for comprehension.

You are precisely correct: there are no absolute zero outcomes. ;-)

Hitch