Supreme Court stops Amazon workers lawsuit

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by taustin

What you seem to be saying is that because you know a couple of people whose employers don't abuse exempt status, nobody else does either.

.

No, that is not what I'm saying.

I *am* saying there are entire industries where timeclock politics are not an issue.
That the law as written and common practices all over allow for different work ethics and lifestyles other than "put in the hours and collect the paycheck", that not every business breaks down to a never-ending battle between the "timeclock proletariat" and "leering exploiters". I am saying that there are plenty of people who get more out of work that just a paycheck.

And I'm not talking of just a few people I know personally; if I went that route I'd have to list hundreds in dozens of professions all over the country. Just look at employment listings: an achievement-based work ethic is so prized it is become a buzz word in recruitment --"self-starter". Self-starters are a minority but they are valued. It is expensive to hire slavemasters cracking whips to keep the oarsmen rowing. Better to hire people who enjoy rowing.

The issue at stake is what the law may or not demand, but the law's demands on either side are simply the absolute minimum society expects of people. Expecting more than that from politicians and bureaucrats is fruitless. The law says you have to get paid for doing your job. Everything else is discretionary and negotiable, not mandatory.

SCOTUS ruled nine-zip.
That really says it all; that access control security is, in the eyes of the law, not part of the job. (It applies to suppliers and visitors, not just employees, after all.)

As usual, if you don't like the law, have it changed.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

As usual, if you don't like the law, have it changed.

More like, if you don't like this particular interpretation of the law, change it so it's more specific by including a laundry list of activities considered “integral and indispensable” to the job. Hopefully, that should preclude a trip through the court system for interpretation.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

access control security is, in the eyes of the law, not part of the job. (It applies to suppliers and visitors, not just employees, after all.)

Employees like Jeff Bezos?

As for non-supplier visitors, I think that by the time Amazon started having fulfillment center tours, the labor contractors were already operating under the changes forced by the April 2013 appeals court loss. So recent visitors wouldn't have been affected.

Also, I expect that visitors rarely leave during the change of shift crunch. So even if customer visitors get the same search, it may not be the same wait.

If someone here has been on the tour, and can describe when and how they were searched for contraband, please do.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by rcentros

The Supreme Court has been wrong before.

While I agree with you in principle, unfortunately, legally, they can't be wrong on constitutional issues because their rulings literally define what the Constitution says. The Constitution says so.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I know Amazon is no worse (probably better) than most others but, when they're wrong, I have no problem pointing that out. I've never felt driven to become a groupie of any corporation.

One of the drawbacks of publicly traded corporations (and to a much, much lesser degree, all corporations) is that the law requires the people who run one to care about money, and only money. This is a strong incentive to screw over anybody they believe will be more profitable to screw over than not. All big corporations tend to do so, unless they have a really extraordinary person in charge.

I feel limited sympathy for Amazon's employees, though. I would never work for them, under any circumstances. I really, honestly would prefer to beg for food on a street corner. People who throw things at you seem to be more compassionate than Amazon is towards its employees.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

No, that is not what I'm saying.

Hence, use of the term "seem to be."

Originally Posted by fjtorres

I *am* saying there are entire industries where timeclock politics are not an issue.

What you are saying is that you find it acceptable to take away "up to 25 minutes per day" of all employee's time to prevent a very small percentage of them from doing something wrong. You're not alone in that feeling.

But many people find that repulsive and disgusting. And abusive.

Unfortunately, for Amazon's employees, the Supreme Court is in your camp.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by taustin

While I agree with you in principle, unfortunately, legally, they can't be wrong on constitutional issues because their rulings literally define what the Constitution says. The Constitution says so.

When a later SC reverses a previous SC decision, was the first court wrong, or did the Constitution change?

But seriously, while I know what you mean, they can certainly be "Wrong" with a capital W.

Originally Posted by taustin

I feel limited sympathy for Amazon's employees, though. I would never work for them, under any circumstances. I really, honestly would prefer to beg for food on a street corner. People who throw things at you seem to be more compassionate than Amazon is towards its employees.

On what do you base this? The Amazon employees I've spoken to seem to be quite happy with their employer.

For the record, I think the waiting in line should be on the clock.
If the SC disagrees, and Amazon doesn't change, and the employees are that unhappy about it, and especially if you're correct in your opinion of Amazon, why don't they quit and go work for a more compassionate company? These are all at-will employees, I presume?

[taustin]

Originally Posted by ApK

When a later SC reverses a previous SC decision, was the first court wrong, or did the Constitution change?

There are other possibilities. There's the whole "living document" theory, after all, and society changes. Government has to deal with the real world, today, not some idealized dream, or how it was in the past.

Originally Posted by ApK

But seriously, while I know what you mean, they can certainly be "Wrong" with a capital W.

Wrong is a judgment word, and as such, a statement of opinion. And it's a very emotionally loaded word. The SC makes mistakes, and reverses itself within a few years - but not very often. Most of the time, when they reverse a previous decision, it's because conditions have changed. The original ruling was right for its time, but society has changed, and somebody has figured out how to game the system to their own advantage, making the original ruling a bad idea now. I have some personal knowledge of one such case, but it's completely off topic here.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by taustin

While I agree with you in principle, unfortunately, legally, they can't be wrong on constitutional issues because their rulings literally define what the Constitution says. The Constitution says so.

Even when they say they were wrong? Eg the Dred Scott decision?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by taustin

Wrong is a judgment word, and as such, a statement of opinion. And it's a very emotionally loaded word. The SC makes mistakes, and reverses itself within a few years - but not very often. Most of the time, when they reverse a previous decision, it's because conditions have changed. The original ruling was right for its time, but society has changed, and somebody has figured out how to game the system to their own advantage, making the original ruling a bad idea now. I have some personal knowledge of one such case, but it's completely off topic here.

Indeed. My point was merely that the value judgment of right and wrong does not always coincide with the issue of Constitutionality.

You replied to rcentros' comment about right and wrong with a statement about the SC's authority on Constitutionality.

For example, the SC at one time may have been correct in upholding slavery as Constitutional, but it was always wrong.

So I didn't think your reply to rcentros was on target.
The SC did NOT disagree about it being wrong, they only disagreed about it being unconstitutional.
Amazon should do it because it's right, not because the SC says they have to.

And I don't mean just because it's "right" in the moral sense, I mean because it's the right way to keep a quality workforce, same as having a good benefits package or offering lots of vacation time.

ApK

[taustin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Even when they say they were wrong? Eg the Dred Scott decision?

They can, and occasionally do, reverse themselves, yes. Until they do, the original decision is the law of the land, And when they do, the new decision is the law of the land.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by ApK

Indeed. My point was merely that the value judgment of right and wrong does not always coincide with the issue of Constitutionality.

Which is to say, you agree with tme.

Originally Posted by ApK

You replied to rcentros' comment about right and wrong with a statement about the SC's authority on Constitutionality.

Pardon the hell out of me for trying to say something meaningful in the real world. (An no, opinions are not, other than on a personal level.)

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Barcey

It's the unfortunate reality that there is some employee theft and it's the cost of doing business. It's interesting that you automatically assume that all employees are responsible for the actions of a few. If a convenience store is robbed in your neighborhood are all the residents at fault because they didn't report it. Is it ok for the store owner to setup a barricade and search everyone's car when they leave the neighborhood? I don't believe it's ok to inconvenience the masses.

It's not OK that there is employee theft and it hurts the business bottom line. Any measures the company decides to take to minimize the impact should be at the company's expense.

What makes you think that I think that "all" employees are responsible for the acts of a few? I don't. But unfortunately, like everything else in real life, actions have consequences.

So, then, the direct corollary of your argument is, all those folks marching and rioting over the Grand Jury decisions in Ferguson and Brooklyn are also wrong, correct? Because it's not OK to blame all policeman, police forces, etc., for the actions of a few? That is precisely the same situation. If you think that the marchers, etc., are justified in blaming all cop shops, and marching/rioting to protect themselves from those few bad cops, then you have to think that Amazon is justified in protecting itself from a few bad apples (pun intended).


SAME exact situation.

Hitch

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Hitch

What makes you think that I think that "all" employees are responsible for the acts of a few? I don't. But unfortunately, like everything else in real life, actions have consequences.

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

Originally Posted by Hitch

So, then, the direct corollary of your argument is, all those folks marching and rioting over the Grand Jury decisions in Ferguson and Brooklyn are also wrong, correct? Because it's not OK to blame all policeman, police forces, etc., for the actions of a few? That is precisely the same situation.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Hitch

If you think that the marchers, etc., are justified in blaming all cop shops, and marching/rioting to protect themselves from those few bad cops, then you have to think that Amazon is justified in protecting itself from a few bad apples (pun intended).

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.

Originally Posted by Hitch

SAME exact situation.
Hitch

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.

[eschwartz]

Sorry. Not the same thing at all.