[shalym]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Re pwalker8's last post, I'd like (depending on the issue) to see Amazon start losing court cases, but they still seem to be on a legal roll. To people who try to judge companies by how they treat their workers, this is disheartening:

Workers at Amazon Warehouses Will Probably Lose Supreme Court Pay Case

You do realize that this was a case against Integrity Staffing Solutions, and not a case against Amazon, right?

Originally Posted by Hitch

Indeed. Is a person simply occupying space, for X hours a day, entitled to $Y/hour for all that time, even if they don't do what they're paid for? And why is the answer to that question any different for the salaried, managerial employee? Why is anyone "entitled" to be paid for time that they don't work?

Sorry: I don't understand this comment, as it pertains to Diap's statement. Neither salaried nor hourly-wage employees should be entitled to be paid for doing nothing, just because they are at their place of employment, or have clocked in but not clocked out, etc. In many ways--and this will certainly outrage some here, no doubt--the old "piece rate" system was the fairest--work done and work paid. The workers who worked harder, earned more. Those who worked less, earned less. It was a true measure of value received for value earned. Why should Annie on the assembly line earn the same as Susie, if Susie does half the work of Annie?

Hitch

That's exactly how I work--I get paid by the project. If I get it done faster, then I can start another project sooner and make more money. Why would anyone work to the best of their abilities if they knew that Susie slacker at the next desk was making the same amount as them?

Shari