Thanks to you both for the cogent clarifications. So, there’s hope; all we need are Dem majorities and administration. It can also be handled at the state level.
BTW, I’m a fiscal conservative. I don’t believe in throwing money at problems and hoping they’ll go away. I don’t like disincentives for productive behavior. I am a big advocate of free markets, albeit with appropriate laws and regulations to handle externalities. I’m not certain the Austrian School is correct, but what they say makes a lot of sense (though I see valid arguments on the other side).
But IMHO, this is Just Plain Wrong, because it causes waste. It wastes employees’ time, with little incentive for the party that could EASILY fix the problem to fix it. I’m willing to wager that if Amazon had lost the legal battle, they’d compensate by having staggered shift start/stop times, to minimize queues at the security stations, or adding stations, etc., all at a tiny fraction of the cost of the wasted human labor.
I buy a lot on Amazon, but nothing I couldn’t get elsewhere. If anyone hears of a boycott regarding this, let me know! I’ll happily stop using Amazon until they fix this, if there’s any organization for it (so that it might actually be effective).
However, first I’d like to know what the average time is. The NYT article says “approaching 30 minutes” but it isn’t clear whether that’s the worst case or the average. Regardless, if Amazon paid for the time, they’d optimize it.
IMHO, the fix for the 1947 law was wrong. Rather than exempt employers from this completely, they should have phased in compliance slowly. That way businesses could plan ahead and minimize the cost, but have the end goal of being legally required to pay employees for what they require employees to do.
It might be fun to start a test-case business where employees are paid only four hours for an 8-hour day, due to all the requirements the employer imposes on getting ready to work. Since the law doesn’t place any restrictions on how reasonable these requirements might be, SCOTUS would have to stand by its decision.