Corporatocracy Wins Again

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.Is there any limit to this kind of checking that you would find beyond reasonable?

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.

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.

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? 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?

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'.

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. Have you ever been treated in that way at work?

I don't want my employer scheduling mandatory fun for me. To be frank, this stuff matters primarily to hourly employees who may very well have second jobs. I find it absolutely bizarre that an employer would find ways to occupy an hourly employee's free time without compensating him.The statute as I understand it, is intended to identify things like walking to work or standing in a clock out line that are not productive for the employer. I have some sympathy for that. But I have no sympathy for an employer who occupies employees for activities that do benefit the employer without providing compensation.

Other than than a couple of short term stints I've always either been a contractor or a salaried employee. I am currently doing contract work of various kinds and at various rates.I suspect that the Amazon workers are also contractors. However unlike you, they are not in position to be able to dictate their contract terms.

Really? Because it looks a lot like belittling people who are forced to be in a situation they don't want to be in and calling it fun. Your probably the guy stealing magazines out of my barber shop who acts surprised when I show him the door.

I think an equally valid approach is to ask to be paid for your time and to not to drop the request just because the boss says no. Although the court ruled against employers in this particular situation, other courts have found against employers in cases not hugely different.If that fails, then quit.