Literary elites v. Amazon: yes, it's class warfare

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by murg

Going from memory, they all entered into consent agreements: The Bell System broke up into the baby bells; Microsoft has various editions of Windows, with and without Internet Explorer and Media Player, and doesn't default search to Bing; and I don't remember what IBM agreed to, but it agreed to something because Bill Gates was afraid that Microsoft would become as cautious as IBM after running afoul of the monopoly laws.

The Microsoft case was overturned on appeal and the case was sent to a new judge when it was determined that the original judge had violated judicial guidelines for conduct. At that point, the DOJ backed off their initial demands that Microsoft be broken up and basically the was a consent agreement that Microsoft sin no more. I believe that the IBM anti trust case was dismissed, at least if we are talking about the case from the 70's.

Judge Green broke up AT&T into the Baby Bells (and then made it his life's work to continue managing AT&T and the Baby Bells until he retired at which point wiser heads took over and all the restrictions on AT&T and the Baby Bells was removed), but then again, that was a special situation since AT&T was a regulated monopoly.

[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

The Obama administration is siding with the company. Justice Department attorney Curtis Gannon argued that the security screenings were not "integral and indispensable to the workers' jobs. He cited a 1947 Labor Department opinion letter that makes no distinction between searches for general security and those to prevent theft, finding neither requires pay.

Justice Stephen Breyer said if he was in the workers' situation, he'd look to the Labor Department.

"They are the ones who are in charge of this," Breyer said. "And they are saying you lose."

[DiapDealer]

I fear our society has grown too accustomed to being paid simply because their body is in a certain location. Especially when I encounter outrage at what wouldn't even register as a blip in my workday.

[Fbone]

This "sham marriage" amuses me.

Are dowries illegal in the US?
What is the legal definition of marriage?
At what time does a marriage become real?

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I fear our society has grown too accustomed to being paid simply because their body is in a certain location. Especially when I encounter outrage at what wouldn't even register as a blip in my workday.

There's a difference between being paid by the hour and being salaried.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

There's a difference between being paid by the hour and being salaried.

Not that I see how that enters into what I said ... but: which of those are you imagining I am?

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Not that I see how that enters into what I said ... but: which of those are you imagining I am?

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?

In any event...and I'm sure that this will not be well-met, either--if I had to PAY security people to stand around and check OTHER employees, to ensure that the latter group wasn't stealing from me/my company, I'd find it outrageous to then have insult added to injury by being expected to pay the employees' for the time they have to expend, while I pay the security costs of ensuring that they are NOT stealing from me.

Is someone here really going to argue that Amazon instituted these controls, and the expense therefor, without having damned good reason for it? Because, what, they like torturing workers? Pah and codswallop. If the losses hadn't been significant, they NEVER would have done this. The idea that the employer has to be double-whammied, first by paying for all the added costs to ensure that his employees can't/don't steal from him, and second, by paying those self-same employees for that 25-30 minutes a day it takes for him to ensure their honesty...ye gods, the world really has turned on its head. It's a remarkable world we live in, in which everyone argues that jobs are good and great and wonderful...whilst at the same time loathing, holding in contempt and seeking ways to constantly harangue and damage the very entities that create and provide those jobs. Utter cognitive dissonance. Do people really think that jobs come from the Jobs Fairy?

/rant.

Hitch

[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

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by shalym

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

Yes, and the fact that Amazon employs so much of its warehouse workforce indirectly is another reason that Amazon is an other-than-stellar employer.

Originally Posted by Hitch

In any event...and I'm sure that this will not be well-met, either--if I had to PAY security people to stand around and check OTHER employees, to ensure that the latter group wasn't stealing from me/my company, I'd find it outrageous to then have insult added to injury by being expected to pay the employees' for the time they have to expend, while I pay the security costs of ensuring that they are NOT stealing from me.

I don't know of evidence that they do steal more than the warehouse workers at places like Costco, or even WalMart, about which I'm not reading of such problems. But if it is true that Integrity Staffing Solutions workers steal more than the industry norm, maybe one small part of it is that if they steal from Amazon, they aren't stealing from their employer, but from a labor company giving little benefits or security.

From a moral standpoint, it comes down to how long the workers are being delayed in picking up their kids from day care after the shift is complete. From my link in #227, you would get the idea that it's a matter of who's telling the truth -- Amazon, whose spokesperson says there is "little or no wait," or workers like Jesse Buck who say 25 minutes. But I just found this, from a local paper, that reconciles the competing claims -- it was bad, but it got better because of the lawsuit:

http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2014/1...ning/16932631/

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 DiapDealer

I fear our society has grown too accustomed to being paid simply because their body is in a certain location.

You must live somewhere in the EU

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by shalym

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


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

That is how authors work.
Piecework, really.

I doubt Patterson's co-writers get paid hourly, just for showing up and fighting off block.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

You must live somewhere in the EU

Nope. Just your run-of-the-mill, US-heartland, hourly-laborer who finds it humorous that most of those who are appalled at the "treatment" of Amazon workers are those who've forgotten (or never experienced) what manual labor in exchange for pay is. With the exception of the handful of vocal malcontents who've allowed others to talk them into filing these frivolous lawsuits on their behalf, of course.

"For less than the price of a cup of coffee per day, you too can help poor, uneducated laborers throw off the shackles of their evil oppressors who work them so hard that salty liquid oozes from the pores of their skin. Please give generously, and show these poor schlubs that there are employers out there who are willing to exploit them in brand-new and exciting ways that don't involve sweat and sore muscles. Ways that don't disappear with a cold beer and a hot shower but, still ... they give you a chair with wheels and an insignificant raise to go with it. So at least there's that."

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by shalym

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

I realize it wouldn't be reported upon nor discussed with such vehemence here at MR and elsewhere were that the entire truth of the case. The only entity anyone cares about, here, is Amazon. The Giant Great Evil of all Time and Space, Amazon. ;-) Honestly, around here, you'd think we were discussing The Master in some Whovian drama.

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

Same for me, really, even if it's more pieces than I can personally do. It's how we survive...a book at a time. I wish it were otherwise, with some invisible sugar daddy in the sky taking care of me for all those hours I'd love to "not-work," but it isn't. At least an author can hope/pray for royalties, down the road, in a pseudo-passive-income sort of way. THAT might be a lovely thing, but...for all intents and purposes, company or not, I'm a piece-worker. I don't have an issue with it.

Hitch

[murg]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I fear our society has grown too accustomed to being paid simply because their body is in a certain location. Especially when I encounter outrage at what wouldn't even register as a blip in my workday.

You should be paid for all time spent under the direct control of the employer. If there is a security check to exit the building, you should be paid for that time, as the security check is not optional and the time is not yours to do with as you please.

In the same logic, if there is inadequate access to the exiting streets, and there is a 5 minute backlog to get out of the parking lot, that time is not paid.

Then again, if Amazon's (or whomsoevers) argument is that the security checks are not an essential part of the worker's duties, then the workers should be able to bypass the security checks.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by murg

You should be paid for all time spent under the direct control of the employer. If there is a security check to exit the building, you should be paid for that time, as the security check is not optional and the time is not yours to do with as you please.

Yada, yada. It seems the Supreme Court is likely going to disagree with you.

It would be nice if I were paid for that time (were I one of the workers involved), but it's a not a freaking hardship or anything. Nothing to go all Supreme-Court-legislative over. Up TO 25 minutes... meaning often less. Big whoop. Plan for it. I B.S. (on site) for longer than that after punching out most days anyway.

"See you at the pub in 15, Ralph?"
"You got it, Fred."

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It seems the Supreme Court is likely going to disagree with you.

Their ruling will concern the bare minimum a company can get away with, whereas my post was about what a good company would do.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Nothing to go all Supreme-Court-legislative over.

I agree. The three judge appeals panel ruled unanimously for the workers, and it could have ended right there.