Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, because the security is not part of the employers requirment being imposed on the employee, it is a requirement of the FAA/TSA. If the employer establishesthe security procedures and the employee is still under the control of the employer while awaiting or undegoing securty screening, they are to be paid for that time.
If the employer controls the uniform and changing location to the employer's faciity, the employee's paid time is when they enter the facility and proceed to change. The employer is considered to be excercising control over the employee if that employee has no choice but to change at work.
If the employer does not place a restriction on where the person changes into the uniform, (home, work, in their car, out on the street), the employee is not under the control of the company and is not paid for changing at work by their own choice.
A slight delay as in "incidental" is not the same as procedures and logistics that ineffect, holds a person under the control of a company. Incidential would be if you have to swipe a card to exit the facility or show it to a person even though you clocked out. But thats not the same as waiting in a line for your tuen to be screened.
As for the elevator and stop light, do you really need to scrape the bottom of the logic barrel to find some nonsense to try and make your case?
This is not even Amazon's first dance on the floor. They lost before and they will lose again. I just don't get it.
Probably the only explaination is they save a ton of money by not paying the workers. Even after being sued, paying legal fees, back pay and fines, they still come out ahead because only a small percentage actually seek legal help to get what they are owed. I bet that for every $1 they pay out due to a lawsuit, they are saving $100 by not paying the rest.
The fact they are repeat offenders will properly raise punitive damages, fines, etc.
Think airport. Is a concessionaire inside the secured area required to begin paying it's employees when they arrive at the security checkpoint?
You understand the difference between your example and the lawsuit, right? The airport isn't the concessionaire's "premise". The "premise" is the "premise", which in this example, is wholly contained within a distinct secure area.
Employers don't have to pay employees just because the employer is in a distant part of a municipality that requires people to drive 35mph instead of 75mph. The issue with Amazon is the "premise" and the fact that people spend up to an extra 60 unpaid minutes per day restricted to the premise without pay (not "the surrounding area" or "the neighborhood"). It's not about the surrounding areas, or the way people get to the premise, or any other thing.
I don't care for it. They are doing quite well recently pay a living wage and respect work/life balance, not just a punchline. It's different if you make the bigger money.
The stuff some of you are posting about working at Amazon is nothing like I'm experiencing. I get decent breaks, lunch time, etc. It's required by law and no one where I work is expected to work hours and hours without breaks and lunches. That's insane.
The stuff some of you are posting about working at Amazon is nothing like I'm experiencing. I get decent breaks, lunch time, etc. It's required by law and no one where I work is expected to work hours and hours without breaks and lunches. That's insane.
What state are you in?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.