Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Corporatocracy Wins Again
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 58 (744703)
12-14-2014 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by New Cat's Eye
12-12-2014 10:09 AM


When the shift was over, first we would clock out. Then we'd go back to the locker room where we'd have to shower because you got really dirty in the plant.
Seriously Cat Sci. You think not being paid to take a voluntary shower is similar to the issue at hand? You could have gone home but you hung around the shop for awhile off the clock at your own discretion.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-12-2014 10:09 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2014 9:54 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 58 (744704)
12-14-2014 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ringo
12-12-2014 11:01 AM


If your employer loses money, e.g. from theft by employees, that's less money he has for paying you. The screening benefits the employee just the same as screening for counterfeit money benefits the consumer.
Using that reasoning, we could justify sharing all security costs with the employees because every theft affects employees in the same way. In fact every source of loss for the employer and every cost of doing business including keeping the employees price gun charged up reduces the amount of money the employer has.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ringo, posted 12-12-2014 11:01 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 12-15-2014 10:52 AM NoNukes has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 58 (744758)
12-15-2014 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by NoNukes
12-14-2014 9:10 PM


You think not being paid to take a voluntary shower is similar to the issue at hand?
I don't think it was voluntary, but I don't remember exactly. I wasn't trained as if it was voluntary, but I never challenged them on it.
And honestly, you were so dirty that you couldn't really leave without showering. We were making powdered dyes and you would be covered in that stuff. Anything you came in contact with could get ruined.
You could have gone home but you hung around the shop for awhile off the clock at your own discretion.
From a legal standpoint, I'd say that my showers were actually more of an intrinsic element to my job than these security screening are and if anything, I was more likely to have a legal claim to pay than these workers do.
I think the current ruling is about a completely different circumstance. When the end of day whistle blows, the employees rightfully want to begin their commute home.
The employer is insisting that they instead remain at work and spend time off the clock to prove that they are not thieves. The amount of time required is solely a function of the resources that the employer devotes to the issue. It is absolutely bizarre that the screening function takes up any substantial time and is uncompensated. I've never encountered anything like that at any job.
As the supreme court said, that is something that the employees need to bargain their employer for, that is not something that the courts are there to decide.
Is there any limit to this kind of checking that you would find beyond reasonable?
I think the checking in question is unreasonable and the employer ought to pay them for it (maybe). But I don't think they are legally required to.
I say maybe because if this process was reactive to a bunch of theft and it was a sort of group punishment, then I can understand why the employer refuses to pay for it.
Edited by Cat Sci, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by NoNukes, posted 12-14-2014 9:10 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Jon, posted 12-15-2014 12:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 21 by NoNukes, posted 12-15-2014 2:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 19 of 58 (744769)
12-15-2014 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by NoNukes
12-14-2014 9:15 PM


NoNukes writes:
Using that reasoning, we could justify sharing all security costs with the employees because every theft affects employees in the same way.
Exactly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by NoNukes, posted 12-14-2014 9:15 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by NoNukes, posted 12-15-2014 2:17 PM ringo has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 20 of 58 (744777)
12-15-2014 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by New Cat's Eye
12-15-2014 9:54 AM


From a legal standpoint, I'd say that my showers were actually more of an intrinsic element to my job than these security screening are and if anything, I was more likely to have a legal claim to pay than these workers do.
You aren't forced to shower at the threat of losing your job. These people are forced to wait in the line or be fired.
You might have a case to be paid for your shower, but the employees in the Amazon warehouses have a stronger case to be paid for their time in line.
As the supreme court said, that is something that the employees need to bargain their employer for, that is not something that the courts are there to decide.
And how arrogant of them to say such a thing, since none of the employees have any bargaining power whatsoever; they are temps doing seasonal work and not part of a union.
There was no consideration given to the welfare of the workers in this case. The ruling was entirely a business decision and it was made in the best interest of the corporations.
I think the checking in question is unreasonable and the employer ought to pay them for it (maybe). But I don't think they are legally required to.
Of course they aren't legally required to. So sayeth the Supreme Court. But as Rahvin pointed out, we aren't talking about what is legal or not, as that has been decided; we are talking about what is right and wrong. And about how these rulings are additional evidence of the increase of corporate influence in politics (the corporatocracy).
I say maybe because if this process was reactive to a bunch of theft and it was a sort of group punishment, then I can understand why the employer refuses to pay for it.
Group punishment? What is this third grade?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2014 9:54 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2014 2:43 PM Jon has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 21 of 58 (744779)
12-15-2014 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by New Cat's Eye
12-15-2014 9:54 AM


I think the checking in question is unreasonable and the employer ought to pay them for it (maybe). But I don't think they are legally required to.
We know they are not legally required to do so. But you've also gone further to say that they should not be legally required to. Why is that?
I say maybe because if this process was reactive to a bunch of theft and it was a sort of group punishment, then I can understand why the employer refuses to pay for it.
The military does punishment stuff. But then the military pays a salary so there is no issue with being on/off the clock. Where else do employers get to make employees stay after school and clack erasers when they are bad?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2014 9:54 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2014 2:51 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 58 (744780)
12-15-2014 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by ringo
12-15-2014 10:52 AM


Exactly.
I suppose I forgot to add 'and that would be inane.
We might also add that every positive thing that employees do directly benefits the employer, and that the proper compensation in a employer/employee relationship is cash and not extra 'queue time'.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 12-15-2014 10:52 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by ringo, posted 12-16-2014 10:54 AM NoNukes has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 58 (744781)
12-15-2014 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Jon
12-15-2014 12:35 PM


You aren't forced to shower at the threat of losing your job.
I never took it that far. I'm sure that if I wanted to argue with them about it then they would have said that I couldn't work there if I wouldn't shower before leaving. And in hind sight, I'm beginning to wonder how much of it was my own cleanliness rather than them just not wanting their products to be blowing all over the neighborhood and ruining stuff.
These people are forced to wait in the line or be fired.
If they cannot accept the terms then they shouldn't take the job.
You might have a case to be paid for your shower, but the employees in the Amazon warehouses have a stronger case to be paid for their time in line.
Are you planning on making that case?
I think that I had a stronger case because the shower was more of an intrinsic element of my job than being screened for theft is for theirs.
But as Rahvin pointed out, we aren't talking about what is legal or not, as that has been decided; we are talking about what is right and wrong.
I don't have enough details to figure if its right or wrong.
At face value I'm leaning towards wrong. However, if they're being reactive to theft then I have no problem at all.
And about how these rulings are additional evidence of the increase of corporate influence in politics (the corporatocracy).
That I disagree with. The law says what the law says. The court simply interprets it.
If the law says that the company is only legally required to pay for things that are intrinsic elements to the job, then the court only had one ruling that they could deliver.
The supreme court doesn't get to lie about what the law says just so they can make people like you feel better.
Group punishment? What is this third grade?
Yeah, what kind of idiot would work for a company that treats them like that?
I only lasted two weeks at Walmart before I walked out, very third-grade mentality there.
Of course they aren't legally required to. So sayeth the Supreme Court.
So now what?
Would you be happy if the employer said: "Fine, we'll pay you for the time you have to wait before you leave. But now you have to clock out to use the restroom."
Would you be okay with that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Jon, posted 12-15-2014 12:35 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by NoNukes, posted 12-15-2014 3:13 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 26 by Jon, posted 12-15-2014 3:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 58 (744782)
12-15-2014 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by NoNukes
12-15-2014 2:13 PM


We know they are not legally required to do so. But you've also gone further to say that they should not be legally required to. Why is that?
Because I agree with the law that the employer should only be required to pay people for the intrinsic elements of their job.
What is the legal standing for forcing the employer to pay for this stuff? Especially if the employees understood it at the time of hiring?
I think a better case would be that you can't fire people for being unwilling to be detained, not that the employer has to pay for it.
Where else do employers get to make employees stay after school and clack erasers when they are bad?
Get to? Every single one of them.
That is, if your employees are dumb enough to stand for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by NoNukes, posted 12-15-2014 2:13 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 58 (744783)
12-15-2014 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by New Cat's Eye
12-15-2014 2:43 PM


I think that I had a stronger case because the shower was more of an intrinsic element of my job than being screened for theft is for theirs.
Cat Sci. You are unable to even state whether the shower was mandatory, but a shower when you are dirty from work is clearly to your own benefit. Standing in line for a theft screening is nonsense.
However, if they're being reactive to theft then I have no problem at all.
Have you ever been treated in that way at work?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2014 2:43 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 58 (744784)
12-15-2014 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by New Cat's Eye
12-15-2014 2:43 PM


If they cannot accept the terms then they shouldn't take the job.
That's stupid and you know it. Not to mention disgustingly arrogant.
I think that I had a stronger case because the shower was more of an intrinsic element of my job than being screened for theft is for theirs.
The intrinsicness of the element is dependent on whether it's required by the employer.
If the law says that the company is only legally required to pay for things that are intrinsic elements to the job, then the court only had one ruling that they could deliver.
The supreme court doesn't get to lie about what the law says just so they can make people like you feel better.
Bullshit. SCOTUS does what it wants.
Yeah, what kind of idiot would work for a company that treats them like that?
I only lasted two weeks at Walmart before I walked out, very third-grade mentality there.
Not everyone has the option to work where they want.
What's so hard to understand about that?
Would you be happy if the employer said: "Fine, we'll pay you for the time you have to wait before you leave. But now you have to clock out to use the restroom."
Would you be okay with that?
Yes.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2014 2:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2014 4:43 PM Jon has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 58 (744787)
12-15-2014 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Jon
12-15-2014 3:27 PM


If they cannot accept the terms then they shouldn't take the job.
That's stupid and you know it.
What's stupid about it?
The intrinsicness of the element is dependent on whether it's required by the employer.
Not according to the law.
The law basically asks the question: "Can the employee do the job without the element?", and if they can't then its intrinsic.
Since the warehouse workers are, actually, capable of retrieving and shipping the products to customer without having to go through a security screening, then the security screening is not an intrinsic element to their job.
Bullshit. SCOTUS does what it wants.
Do you think they interpreted the law improperly? Does the law not say what they said it says?
Not everyone has the option to work where they want.
What's so hard to understand about that?
The part where employers owe you a job that you want.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Jon, posted 12-15-2014 3:27 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Jon, posted 12-15-2014 8:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 58 (744795)
12-15-2014 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by New Cat's Eye
12-15-2014 4:43 PM


Not according to the law.
The law basically asks the question: "Can the employee do the job without the element?", and if they can't then its intrinsic.
Since the warehouse workers are, actually, capable of retrieving and shipping the products to customer without having to go through a security screening, then the security screening is not an intrinsic element to their job.
We've been over this repeatedly.
It isn't about what the law actually says; it's about what we think the law should say. If you think the law should say exactly what it says, then that's fine. But then you should be making some argument other than that's the law, suck it up.
Do you think they interpreted the law improperly? Does the law not say what they said it says?
Irrelevant. They aren't bound to rule based on any law; they can even use loose interpretations of the Constitution or ignore it altogether.
The part where employers owe you a job that you want.
Who said that? I didn't.
What I said is that employers should be expected to treat their employees decently, and part of that involves paying them for the time they require them to be at work.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2014 4:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2014 9:32 AM Jon has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 58 (744822)
12-16-2014 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Jon
12-15-2014 8:04 PM


It isn't about what the law actually says; it's about what we think the law should say.
Okay, then how would you change the text of the law?
If you think the law should say exactly what it says, then that's fine. But then you should be making some argument other than that's the law, suck it up.
I thought the supreme court made an adequate argument, did you read it?
What I said is that employers should be expected to treat their employees decently, and part of that involves paying them for the time they require them to be at work.
I don't think anyone has disagreed with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Jon, posted 12-15-2014 8:04 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Jon, posted 12-16-2014 3:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 30 of 58 (744834)
12-16-2014 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by NoNukes
12-15-2014 2:17 PM


NoNukes writes:
We might also add that every positive thing that employees do directly benefits the employer, and that the proper compensation in a employer/employee relationship is cash and not extra 'queue time'.
Personally, I prefer having a large part of the compensation in the form of a pleasant working environment. I've met too many people who hated their jobs and only stayed because of the money.
I would take the queue time as an opportunity to hang out with my co-workers rather than as an inconvenience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by NoNukes, posted 12-15-2014 2:17 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Jon, posted 12-16-2014 3:31 PM ringo has replied
 Message 34 by NoNukes, posted 12-17-2014 2:21 AM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024