Supreme Court stops Amazon workers lawsuit

[pidgeon92]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't know how it is in the US, but certainly in the UK, unpaid overtime, especially in professional jobs, is more the norm than the exception.

Same here. My salaried jobs were 50-60 hours per week.

Then there are those like my husband, who travel Mon-Fri almost every week. He doesn't get any special dispensation for all that time spent away from home.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I was a clock puncher. Meetings and clothing changes were done on company time. Mandatory training and re-certification tests were also done on company time. I did absolutely zero company activity off the clock.

Those kinds of jobs are slowly withering and being replaced by professional, salaried jobs. And the law accomodates both.

There are plenty of companies that pay for things the law doesn't require but once the grievance lands in the courts it is what the law *requires* that prevails.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by rcentros

As far as just going to get another job ... much easier said than done in today's economy.

While I agree with you entirely, I do feel obligated to point out that standing on a street corner with a cardboard sign claiming to be a disabled Vietnam vet would have better hours, better pay and better working conditions. And if you can beat the guy currently there in a knife fight, there's always a corner available.

[Apache]

According to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), all employers conducting business in the United States are required to pay their workers at least $7.25 per hour. Not all employees are paid by the hour, though. Some of them are paid per shift, per piece, or on commission. However, no matter how they are paid, their total hours worked and wages paid must equal out to at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

In 1990 Nordstrom Department Stores was sued by several hundred of it's employees for pressuring it's employees to work off the clock.
And this year they paid 7.65 million dollars in a class action lawsuit involving unpaid overtime
Apache

[taustin]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Obviously not.
They're Amazon, after all.

Other companies can and do.

And they break the law when they do so. In California, the company would be brutalized out of business by the state.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't know how it is in the US, but certainly in the UK, unpaid overtime, especially in professional jobs, is more the norm than the exception.

Varies greatly by state. Enforcement, that is; federal law is pretty clear. Unpaid overtime is illegal, period, everywhere in the US. (The trick is to fudge the definition of overtime, as this case shows.) Some states, like California, are pretty rigid in their enforcement, as several large companies have found out (like Walmart).

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Those kinds of jobs are slowly withering and being replaced by professional, salaried jobs. And the law accomodates both.

There are plenty of companies that pay for things the law doesn't require but once the grievance lands in the courts it is what the law *requires* that prevails.

Depends on the field. I worked for a closed shop union hospital and never saw any movement to get the staff off the clock. From my point of view, the union did a fairly good job of protecting us from employer abuse.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Depends on the profession but the phrase "and other duties as assigned" is common in the engineering world. "Crunch time" is similarly common in the gaming software world. SiliValley startups thrive on young singles because they will happily put in 80-plus hours a week for their stock option bonuses.

Not everybody is paid by the clock.

Salaried exempt status is widely abused, it is true. Doesn't make it legal, but most states are lax in enforcement and most employees don't have the money to sue when the potential judgment is a fraction of what the lawyers will cost. There's a reason programmers have to make at least $83,000/year to be exempt in California.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pidgeon92

Google the exact headline to get past the paywall:

Supreme Court Stops Amazon Workers’ Suit About Overtime

Doesn't work anymore. At least, not always, for instance I don't think it works with Firefox at all anymore, works erratically with Chrome but I am not installing Chrome on my main computer* just for this.


(* -- with its 27 GB HDD and 5 GB free space ATM...)

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by rcentros

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.

You call it "punishment".

I call it "fundamental reality of life".

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid it's the way society works. Why do we have border controls at airports which cause long delays to every honest traveller? Because of the possible crimes of a few. Why are there ticket inspectors on trains, which make travel more expensive for everyone? Because of the possible crimes of a few.

Precisely; I would just add, that that does not make it "punishment".

[pidgeon92]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Doesn't work anymore. At least, not always, for instance I don't think it works with Firefox at all anymore, works erratically with Chrome but I am not installing Chrome on my main computer* just for this.

You're right about Firefox. It does work with Chrome and Safari.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

You call it "punishment".

I call it "fundamental reality of life".

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.

Precisely; I would just add, that that does not make it "punishment".

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

[eschwartz]

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.

I think I have figured it out.

Really, Amazon is spending all this money for the giggles, because they like being mean to their workers. There wasn't any theft, that was just an excuse.

Okay, I'm convinced. Amazon SHOULD be paying them wages, if part and parcel of working for Amazon is to sit through these inscrutable psychology experiments.

I wonder how much the APA is paying for this?

[Rizla]

Amazon are so cheap.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Amazon are so cheap.

Oh, OK then, that must mean we're wrong. Glad we got that cleared up then, thanks!