Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

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


Message 1 of 58 (744422)
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?
In the United Coporatocracy of America, the answer is 'no':
quote:
"Workers at Amazon Warehouses Won't Get Paid for Waiting in Security Lines" from Bloomberg Businessweek Technology:
All nine justices sided with an Amazon.com [that] [c]ompanies that make their workers go through security screenings before they can go home don’t have to pay them for the time they spend waiting in line to be checked.
So what's next? We hope for increases to minimum wage, but is that even likely in the current atmosphere of corporations running the government?
What can stop this?
The current budget bill going through the Congress is set to make campaign contribution rules even looser.
Are we too far gone? Is there any hope? What can the average concerned citizen do?

Love your enemies!

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-11-2014 12:53 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 3 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2014 10:20 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 4 of 58 (744487)
12-11-2014 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by New Cat's Eye
12-11-2014 10:20 AM


For example: Commuting to the office. Owning collared shirts. Keeping my appearance presentable.
Those aren't much like waiting in line to leave the workplace while your employer searches you and your possessions.
What you've listed are all things that are required from anyone who has any job. Since those things are basic responsibilities of employed people, and since the employer has no control over how you do them, it is reasonable that the employer should not be expected to compensate you directly for these things.
But waiting in line to be screened after your shift? That is something that is not a part of every job, and it is a process over which the employer not only has direct control but from which the employer solely benefits (I often stop off at places on my way from work; the clothes I wear at work are the same ones I wear everywhere else; I keep my appearances nice because I don't like being a slob; but I'd go through a theft screening every day after work only for my employer's sakebecause they told me to).
A large part of the complaint related to the amount of time employees spend waiting to be checked; to keep costs low, the warehouses employed as few screeners as possible and forced their employees to wait upwards of 20 minutes just to leave work. They could hire more screeners to get people out faster, but that would cost more money. And the money they save is at the expense of their employees' time.
It's theft. It's slavery. It's wrong.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2014 10:20 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2014 3:30 PM Jon has replied
 Message 14 by ringo, posted 12-12-2014 11:01 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 6 of 58 (744511)
12-11-2014 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by New Cat's Eye
12-11-2014 3:30 PM


No, some people work from home and our plant workers can work in a T-shirt.
Exactly. 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.
Then don't work there.
Easier said than done.
When they can't find employees they'll change their game.
Follow Moose's link. Amazon has no problems finding employees; not because people are excited to work there, but because they are desperate to.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2014 3:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2014 5:14 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 9 of 58 (744531)
12-11-2014 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by New Cat's Eye
12-11-2014 5:14 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.
Laws can be wrong. And they can be changed.
If you're taking a job out of desperation, should you really be surprised to be exploited?
The slaves only picked faster out of desperation to not be whipped.
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.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2014 5:14 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-12-2014 10:11 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 58 (744553)
12-12-2014 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Rahvin
12-11-2014 7:06 PM


I don;t see how this is terribly different. 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. If they're free to go without risk of losing their jobs, then their presence is optional and they don;t need to be paid. 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 wonder how the McDonald's cases will play out.
There are similarities with being clocked out but forced to remain on premises. The only difference I can see is that the McDonald's employees were 'on call' while the Amazon warehouse workers were not. If it is found that the McDonald's workers have a case and are successful in court, one will have to wonder how it is not okay for McDonald's employees to be on unpaid call, but apparently just find for employees at Amazon's warehouses to be unpaid while being forcibly detained in a line waiting to have their 4th Amendment rights violated.

Love your enemies!

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

  
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

  
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

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 58 (744891)
12-16-2014 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by New Cat's Eye
12-16-2014 9:32 AM


Okay, then how would you change the text of the law?
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.
I thought the supreme court made an adequate argument, did you read it?
Not entirely.
Do you have a link?
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.
Then what are you getting at in this thread?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2014 9:32 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2014 3:53 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 32 of 58 (744892)
12-16-2014 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by ringo
12-16-2014 10:54 AM


I would take the queue time as an opportunity to hang out with my co-workers rather than as an inconvenience.
I would take it as a half hour of pay I am losing from my other part-time job that isn't being compensated for by the employer demanding that I wait in line to satisfy their curiosity.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ringo, posted 12-16-2014 10:54 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by ringo, posted 12-17-2014 10:50 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 58 (744987)
12-17-2014 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by New Cat's Eye
12-16-2014 3:53 PM


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-433_5h26.pdf
Let me know which parts you disagree with.
It's one big rambling excuse for them not doing the right thing.
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.
Then that's the argument you need to make.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2014 3:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-18-2014 9:22 AM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 58 (744988)
12-17-2014 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by ringo
12-17-2014 10:58 AM


I'm talking about making the best of a "bad" situation.
That would be accomplished by either paying the people for waiting in line or hiring more screeners so that there isn't a line in the first place.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by ringo, posted 12-17-2014 10:58 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by ringo, posted 12-18-2014 10:45 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 58 (745048)
12-18-2014 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by ringo
12-18-2014 10:45 AM


I'm talking about ME making the best of a bad situation. It's much more practical to change my own attitude than to try to change the company's policy.
Personally I can agree. I am not one to push back.
But I can easily understand others pushing back, and I even appreciate the fact that they do.
Just because I am the bend-over-and-take-it type doesn't mean I expect everyone else to be.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by ringo, posted 12-18-2014 10:45 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by ringo, posted 12-18-2014 12:24 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 58 (745057)
12-18-2014 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by ringo
12-18-2014 12:24 PM


In the long run, the pushing back costs you just as much as what the company is doing. Ultimately, the individual pays for everything.
You keep telling yourself that.
And other people will keep making your life better.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by ringo, posted 12-18-2014 12:24 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by ringo, posted 12-19-2014 10:39 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 53 of 58 (745475)
12-23-2014 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by AZPaul3
12-22-2014 4:47 PM


That's not what "Right to Work" means at all.
What you are talking about is "at will" employment, which means either party can sever the relationship at any time and for any reason. And people can still enter contracts which ignores "at will".
"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. Employers can then hire people who do not join the union and, over time, decrease the percentage of the workforce that is unionized to the point of being ineffective. It is much more sinister than what you describe as an employer simply being able to fire folks on a whim.
Jon
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by AZPaul3, posted 12-22-2014 4:47 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-23-2014 3:09 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 57 by AZPaul3, posted 12-23-2014 5:13 PM 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