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.
Arent most federal employees salary employees? I could be wrong but if they are, then the effects really have minimum effect upon the government.
Even if they are hourly though, I dont give a rats ass if the government needs to pay their employees for their time. I'd expect them to, so to suggest that because this is far reaching to the government and thus the employees should lose is asinine.
Well, I am 'salaried', based upon 40 hours per week. If I work more than 40 hours, I am entitled to overtime (if there is money for overtime, and my overtime is approved in advance).
Of course, I am not in the type of business (Federal) that requires security measures upon my leaving. When I clock out, I leave without hinderance (I do stand in line to enter work, but I do not expect to be paid for that time, nor does my contract provide for such).
However, there are Federal employees who are subject to egress security (such as those who work in 'sensitive' areas). I believe the Obama administration (see brief to Court) takes the position that said employees should not be compensated for their time spent in line to depart work, or even to enter work. It is not 'integral and indispensible' to the work they are being paid to perform (which appears to be the legal standard the Court is looking at).
So, if I am delayed for 15 minutes each day departing work (due to egress security measures), that would mean 75 minutes of overtime per week, if I must be compensated for such time.
It is an interesting subject with food for thought, if one is prone to thinking.
Look I don't agree with Amazon here, but no matter how you parse it, the fedguv is dictating the policies of a private business.
If the Supreme Court sides with the employees, then the only thing they have dictated is that employees get compensated for the time they spend doing something on behalf of the employer..
Thats nothing new, and thats what I'd expect government to do..
I'm about as pro business as they come, but to expect employees to do something that benefits the employer without compensation is WRONG.
Even a coal miner gets paid for the time it takes to get from the surface to their final work site which may be two miles underground.
I believe that you will find that the Courts have ruled that, in the case of coal miners, taking the elevator (or winch, whatever) to reach the coal mine, both coming and going, is such an intergral part of being able to perform the work, that it is subject to compensation.
The Courts have also ruled (as seen in one of the briefs to the Court) that a normal person driving or bicycing to their place of work is not compensable (hard to believe that people have actually argued that they should be paid for their time commuting to an office job, but there it is).
I believe that you will find that the Courts have ruled that, in the case of coal miners, taking the elevator (or winch, whatever) to reach the coal mine, both coming and going, is such an intergral part of being able to perform the work, that it is subject to compensation.
The Courts have also ruled (as seen in one of the briefs to the Court) that a normal person driving or bicycing to their place of work is not compensable (hard to believe that people have actually argued that they should be paid for their time commuting to an office job, but there it is).
And passing through security check points are an integral part of Amazon keeping prices low because it reduces theft.
I would compare this to a retail company that has to hire security to walk through the stores trying to find shoplifters.. These activities have a cost to be paid by the employer, and so leaving the job site and going through a similar activity should also come at a cost to the employer.
WASHINGTON — President Obama this week will seek to force American businesses to pay more overtime to millions of workers, the latest move by his administration to confront corporations that have had soaring profits even as wages have stagnated.
Amazon requires its warehouse workers to stand in line to pass through a security check after their shift ends. They do this 'off the clock' so they are not paid for this time, which reportedly can be as much as 30 minutes, albeit normally less. They and a staffing agency have been sued over this practice, and now the case is headed to the Supreme Court. The relevant law is the Fair Labor Standards Act, a New Deal era law signed by FDR in 1938
One might expect the Obama Administration to be on the side of the little guy, the "workin' man" (or woman), and standing stalwart against the greedy rich behemoth corporation. One would be wrong:
The libertarian in me says that if these workers don't like it, they are free to quit. But the pragmatist in me says, not in the context of a fascist state where labor is hogtied by rules and regulations. If we're going to hogtie the employee, hogtie the employer, too. The Obama admin apparently disagrees; hogtie labor, but not corporations.
Lol, are you serious? Jeff Bezos the founder and CEO of Amazon is a big liberal/Democrat supporter. You only have Obama's support if you can afford one of his $30,000 a plate fundraisers.
I believe that you will find that the Courts have ruled that, in the case of coal miners, taking the elevator (or winch, whatever) to reach the coal mine, both coming and going, is such an intergral part of being able to perform the work, that it is subject to compensation.
The Courts have also ruled (as seen in one of the briefs to the Court) that a normal person driving or bicycing to their place of work is not compensable (hard to believe that people have actually argued that they should be paid for their time commuting to an office job, but there it is).
The argument made to the Supreme Court was that because no employer would pay people to stand in security lines, that the act should be unpaid, but since any random individual cant just go and stand through Amazons security check points, then one has to be an employee, and thus its done to benefit the employer..
Going through the check points are an integral part of being able to work there unless employees are given the option not to, which I doubt.
WASHINGTON — President Obama this week will seek to force American businesses to pay more overtime to millions of workers, the latest move by his administration to confront corporations that have had soaring profits even as wages have stagnated.
So whether right or wrong, can we at least all agree that the administration is being highly hypocritical here?
I am not sure of your point. On the one hand, the Obama administration believes that the Amazon warehouse workers should not be compensated for the time spent (again, usually a few minutes, not the extreme 25 alleged) in line to exit. If they are so compensated, then overtime would kick in, assuming that they work 40-hour weeks.
As for the first link of yours, it notes that Obama is trying to stop the practice of employers claiming that an employee is an 'executive', and thus not entitled to overtime, when said employee actually spends most of the job time doing 'non-executive' duties. As one person said in your link:
“Under current rules, it literally means that you can spend 95 percent of the time sweeping floors and stocking shelves, and if you’re responsible for supervising people 5 percent of the time, you can then be considered executive and be exempt,” said Ross Eisenbrey, a vice president of the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research organization in Washington.
Now, the new regulations have not yet been published, so it is difficult for one to make a final judgment on it.
I believe we can agree that the Amazon warehouse workers are not claiming that they are in 'executive' or management positions, and so not exempt from the overtime rules; thus, if they prevail, the additional time they spend in the egress line would be entitled to overtime pay, assuming they are working the 40-hour week. The Obama administration apparently believes (at least, according to the friend of the court brief, in my link) that paying workers for standing in line to leave work should not be compensated, since it is not an 'integral and indispensible' part of their job duties (unlike the coal miners, cited by another poster). Hence, employer's payrolls will not increase.
Yet, the Obama administration apparently believes that some employers are 'getting around' the overtime rules by classifying certain occupations as 'executive', whereas most people would believe said jobs would not be 'executive'. If the changes are made, then more employees would be entitled to more pay, hence employer's payroll would increase.
Since these two issues, at least in my mind, are not connected, then I don't think it is hypocritical for the Obama administration to take the stand it has in each issue.
It would not be wise for a President to say "I am always for increasing employee's pay", or "I am always for not increasing employee's pay". The real world simply does not work that way.
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.
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.
