Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 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
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 3 of 58 (744457)
12-11-2014 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
12-11-2014 12:29 AM


Is something your employer requires you to do as part of your job something you should get paid for?
No, not necessarily.
For example: Commuting to the office. Owning collared shirts. Keeping my appearance presentable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 12-11-2014 12:29 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Jon, posted 12-11-2014 2:41 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 15 by NoNukes, posted 12-14-2014 9:03 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 58 (744500)
12-11-2014 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Jon
12-11-2014 2:41 PM


What you've listed are all things that are required from anyone who has any job.
No, some people work from home and our plant workers can work in a T-shirt.
But waiting in line to be screened after your shift?
Well, legally they don't have to pay them for it.
But I do agree that it sucks for the worker.
It's theft. It's slavery. It's wrong.
Then don't work there.
When they can't find employees they'll change their game.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Jon, posted 12-11-2014 2:41 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Jon, posted 12-11-2014 4:22 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 58 (744520)
12-11-2014 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Jon
12-11-2014 4:22 PM


The employer doesn't determine how far away someone lives from their work place, so they should naturally not be required to compensate people for their commute.
Is this just an emotional argument, or are you talking about the law?
'Cause the law says that the company is only required to pay you for the intrinsic elements of your job.
Amazon has no problems finding employees; not because people are excited to work there, but because they are desperate to.
If you're taking a job out of desperation, should you really be surprised to be exploited?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Jon, posted 12-11-2014 4:22 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Rahvin, posted 12-11-2014 7:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 9 by Jon, posted 12-11-2014 9:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 10 by xongsmith, posted 12-11-2014 10:09 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 58 (744554)
12-12-2014 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Rahvin
12-11-2014 7:06 PM


By that reasoning we shouldn't bother with any sort of employment law at all. You're saying exploitation is absolutely fine.
I actually looked up the word exploit before submitting it.
quote:
exploit
verb
ikˈsploit/
1.
make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource)
So yeah, I expect companies to make full use of and derive benefit from their hourly workers. But I don't think that means that we don't need any employment law at all.
I think we all understand that the courts have found that this treatment is legal.
I think the purpose of discussion is whether it should be legal.
My position on that matter is that it should be legal, but the employer should pay the people anyways.
If they refuse, I don't think we should force them to. Instead, people should stop working there and buying from them.
How do we determine what is or is not exploitation? How do we determine what employment practices are or are not abusive? How do we decide what we should legislate, and what we should leave to the market?
I honestly don't know. I'll have to default to looking it up in my gut
Imagine this topic was actually about child labor, and that kids as young as 8 were being made to work in dangerous, gruelling factory work for 12+ hours at a time, and still earning a wage below sustenance. Is that okay because they took the job "out of desperation," and they should just expect to be exploited?
They shouldn't be forced to work at all. But if they want to I don't have a problem letting them.
I took my first job at 14 years old. After scouring the neighborhood for lawns to cut and that not panning out, I learned that the minimum age of 16 years old for employment was not applicable to farms. Turns out, since your just a kid working on a farm, they can pay you less than minimum wage. I took the job and was happy to be earning my own money. And it wasn't easy... we were suckering horseradish. (did you know the horseradish capital of the world is right outside of st louis?)
Certainly in that case our society has decided that such treatment of workers should flatly not be allowed under any circumstances, regardless of how desperate the employees are for work.
How do we find the line between what we should ban, like child labor, and what we should not ban?
In that case, the ban should be on forced labor.
I don't have a problem allowing children to work, but that gets a little slippery because they often end up being forced into it.
I don't think that's an emotional topic necessarily. I think it's about ethics in the workplace.
Perhaps "emotional" was poor word choice, I just meant something other than the legal argument, because that one was pretty much settled.
I think today's society requires employment to the point that "find another job," while good advice, is not necessarily a good solution. Certainly if you're getting by but you'd like more money, "find a better job" is perfectly acceptable. But if a practice crosses the line into exploitation, I think "find a better job" is just patronizing and refusing to deal with an ethical dilemma.
Maybe. I honestly don't really care about these people.
I remember a case a few years back where Walmart was locking in employees overnight. They were not allowed to leave, and physically prevented from doing so - not just on pain of losing their jobs, they physically could not leave the building regardless of reason, even in case of sick children. There was a class action lawsuit, and the employees won. My ex-wife worked for Walmart at the time and was herself locked in.
Wow, if they tried to lock me in the I would call the police.
I worked at Walmart for two weeks when I was 16. I quit because the managers would sneak around and follow you and make sure you were working hard - like peeking through shelves and spying on you n'shit.
I thought that was bullshit so I walked out on them. Moved on to making pizzas.
Personally I'm not a fan of involuntary searches. I don't even like having my bags checked when I walk out of Best Buy...so I usually just don't shop at Best Buy. I don't think employers should be allowed to force all employees to submit to an exit search on threat of job loss - today's society requires employment, so such requirements are absolutely coercion. If the employer has a reasonable suspicion that a particular employee is in possession of stolen goods then by all means...but I find general search requirements for all employees to be horrifically invasive.
I wonder how much theft they dealt with before they implemented this system.
I see it as a legal loophole that needs to be closed. If you require your employee to be present on work premises, hourly employees must be paid for that time, period.
I worked in a factory one summer while I was in college.
I'd show up at the place, go into the locker room and put on the uniform. Then walk over to the plant and then clock in and get to work.
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.
I'd spend about an hour there every day that I didn't get paid for.
I didn't see a legal loophole that needs to be closed then, and I don't see one now.
I think the criteria of "required" vs "optional" and "on premises" vs "able to go where you choose" are the appropriate variables to determine whether an hourly employee who typically works at a specific employer-designated location needs to be paid for their time.
I agree that Amazon ought to pay them, but I don't think they should be legally required.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Rahvin, posted 12-11-2014 7:06 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by NoNukes, posted 12-14-2014 9:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 58 (744555)
12-12-2014 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Jon
12-11-2014 9:47 PM


The slaves only picked faster out of desperation to not be whipped.
They also didn't have the choice to quit.
In a developed 21st century society, I think it is a reasonable expectation that people not be exploited or taken advantage of by the rich and powerful.
What, you think they're just gonna roll over and give you money?
Don't be so naive.
Nobody is going to give you anything. You have to go out and get it for yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Jon, posted 12-11-2014 9:47 PM Jon has not 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

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 58 (744893)
12-16-2014 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Jon
12-16-2014 3:30 PM


I imagine the law in question is several thousand pages long; editing the text itself is probably beyond my ability and patience.
Nevertheless, I think we can still have a reasonable discussion about what laws are good laws, which laws are bad laws, and which laws need changing.
In my opinion, there's no point in discussing the quality of laws if we are not looking at the text of the legislation.
I thought the supreme court made an adequate argument, did you read it?
Not entirely.
Do you have a link?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-433_5h26.pdf
Let me know which parts you disagree with.
Then what are you getting at in this thread?
They ought to pay them, but they're not legally required to nor should they be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Jon, posted 12-16-2014 3:30 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Jon, posted 12-17-2014 4:02 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 58 (745026)
12-18-2014 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Jon
12-17-2014 4:02 PM


Given your response to the Supreme Court's argument, I'll refrain from making mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Jon, posted 12-17-2014 4:02 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 56 of 58 (745513)
12-23-2014 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Jon
12-23-2014 9:47 AM


"Right to Work", on the other hand, deals specifically with unions, and allows people to work in a union shop without being forced to join the union or pay dues.
Yeah, making me stand in line is one thing, but forcing me to join a union? Fuck that!
Do you feel better laughing about people getting robbed by multi-billion-dollar companies?
Are you talking about the Teamsters?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Jon, posted 12-23-2014 9:47 AM Jon has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024