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.
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wall Street Journal
The Obama administration is supporting employers in the case, arguing companies shouldn’t have to pay wages for postshift security clearances. Justice Department lawyer Curtis Gannon told the justices an employer search would have to be dramatically more intrusive and time consuming for workers to be eligible for pay.
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.
Not only is bezos a dem crony, ironically most of his workers are probably dyed in the wool dem voters.
But hey dont stop belivin voting makes a difference
Well, I see that the 'off the cuff' responders are up and at 'em.
So far, it appears that some believe that those worker's standing in line to exit the Amazon warehouse should be compensated for their time: i.e., that this egress security is 'integral and indispensible' to the work performed. The argument seems to be that if the Obama administration is for the argument that the egress security is not 'integral and indispensible' to the work performed, then said Administration is beholden to the CEO of Amazon and against wage workers.
Of course, in the brief filed by the Administration, it is noted that:
"The United States also employs many employees who are covered by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 203(e)(2)(A), and requires
physical-security checks in many settings. The United States accordingly has a substantial interest in the
resolution of the question presented."
In other words, this Supreme Court case actually has much broader implications than two Amazon warehouses.
Here is another article about this case (that one can readily read; the original OP's link requires one to be a member):
Even better, here is a link to the US Supreme Court that lists the various legal activities to date, with links to some of the 'friend of the court' briefs filed (including by the Obama administration):
So, since the Obama administration wishes the Court to find that the time the employees spent in the egress line is not subject to compensation (since such a ruling would have far-ranging affect), some posters automatically respond: "Democrats hate the little guy".
Of course, I suspect that if the Obama Administration had filed a brief claiming that such time spent in the egress line should be compensated, the posters would howl: "Obama hates business! This will cut into profits, reduce employment, and lead the country into chaos!"
I say: let us all read the briefs, and then discuss the implications as we better understand the issues.
Of course, I suspect that if the Obama Administration had filed a brief claiming that such time spent in the egress line should be compensated, the posters would howl: "Obama hates business! This will cut into profits, reduce employment, and lead the country into chaos!"
I agree that many would condemn him no matter which way the administration went but that really isn't the point is it?
This is indeed a hypocritical position for the administration IMO.
Myself, I feel this matter is between ownership and labor and the fedguv should keep its beak out of it entirely.
Normally I'd agree with you however I actually think this is something the federal governmetn should decide..
If a company requires an employee to go through 30 minutes a day of "security checks", then that employee is taking up their time to satisfy an employers demand and that time should be compensated.
If not, whats to stop these things from becoming 1 hour a day etc..
Of course, I suspect that if the Obama Administration had filed a brief claiming that such time spent in the egress line should be compensated, the posters would howl: "Obama hates business! This will cut into profits, reduce employment, and lead the country into chaos!"
You suspect wrong, at least w/ regards to this poster. If Amazon wants to require workers to wait in line for a security check fine, but pay the workers for their time. If we had a free economy where workers had options to walk down the street and change jobs, I would oppose this lawsuit, but we don't have that.
Hypotheticals are almost always a poor argumentative vehicle.
Of course, I suspect that if the Obama Administration had filed a brief claiming that such time spent in the egress line should be compensated, the posters would howl: "Obama hates business! This will cut into profits, reduce employment, and lead the country into chaos!"
On the contrary.. obama gets criticized when he's anti business because his policies have such devistating impact upon them, which ultimately end up costing the consumer, or the employees.
This however, while indeed they would of course have to cover the employees labor cost, is the right thing to do because the employees time is being taken up.
Right is right, and wrong is wrong, and I dont give a rats ass who the administration is.
You can go off on your prof Obama defense but thats because its what you always do.
You suspect wrong, at least w/ regards to this poster. If Amazon wants to require workers to wait in line for a security check fine, but pay the workers for their time. If we had a free economy where workers had options to walk down the street and change jobs, I would oppose this lawsuit, but we don't have that.
Hypotheticals are almost always a poor argumentative vehicle.
Even if we did have a free economy with them having that option, its still taking up the employees time to benefit the employer. Most likely they are receiving reduced insurance costs etc because of it, and the employees time needs to be paid for.
Under no economy should be allow an employer to mandage time away from the employee without compensation. The employees time is just as valuable as the employers bottom line.
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.
