And the other eight that signed on to the result?
Or, despite the result earning the unanimous support of all nine justices, are only some of them in an “alternate reality?”
Which ones?
Seems to me the correct solution here is not a lawsuit, but a strike.
As long as the strikers don’t impede the replacement workers from coming in and doing the job, sure, why not.
That’s what I was going to say: make Amazon put the clocks on the far side of the security checkpoints.
All this saddens me because Amazon is so damn convenient; I just wish it wasn’t so evil.
As a matter of principle, i don’t like the outcome here one bit. If you’re held hostage on the property by your employer after the completion of your duties, it’s work and you should be paid, IMO.
But i’ve got to agree with Bricker and Shodan here: it’s stupid to start ranting about Thomas, or about the conservative justices as a group. This was a unanimous decision, and from what i’ve read as a layperson, it seems that the question of law being decided by the court is not especially controversial.
The Supreme Court is clearly a partisan and political institution, and there are considerable differences between the justices in terms of their politics, and in terms of their legal philosophies. But those differences mean that there’s pretty good cause to interpret a unanimous decision like this one as a solid legal conclusion. If you have Scalia and Thomas and Sotomayor and Kagan all agreeing, why just start bashing one half of the court?
You don’t have to like the outcome, but the fact that the court has reached this decision doesn’t mean that the outcome can’t be changed; it will just have to go through a different branch of government.
When I worked at Disneyland, they would give you 15 mins of “walk time”; that is, you left your shift 15 mins early to give you time to change out of your costume (optional), walk to the exit, get through security, get on the shuttle, and get to your car and go home. Seems just courteous to do, as the location managers don’t count you as being on time if you simply passed through security at the beginning of your shift but took 5 mins to walk to your actual location.
Wouldn’t a strike on this issue be contrary to the Wagner Act? Strikes can only occur if the workplace is unionised, and the negotiations on the collective bargaining agreement have broken down?
Or can there be wildcat strikes in non-unionised workplaces, which this one may be?
I’m not aware of any limiting rule in for non-union strikes.
But neither is this my area of expertise.
DataX posted after me. What did I learn from post #7? Proof that politicians have been screwing the populace since at least 1947; I thought that was a more recent course of action in this country. :dubious:
Aha! it appears that this is an area of difference between Canadian and US law; right to strike is regulated more strictly in Canada. Interesting summary here: Why Nonunion Workers Have a Right to Strike in US, But Not in Canada
This was exactly my thought on reading the OP. In any job, you accept it or reject it based on the entire package. You’ll give me this many dollars over the course of a year (or month, or whatever) to perform these duties and commit this much of my time. If I like the exchange, I’ll take it. If I don’t, I won’t. Arguing over which minutes are paid and which are unpaid is like angels dancing on the head of a pin.
That’s what I don’t get. The Portal to Portal act, upon which this unanimous decision was based, was enacted in 1947, longer ago than most of us have been alive. Why the fresh outrage on this particular case?
Could this be corrected with legislation? Would a bill that says “workers cannot be required to be at the work site, which includes things like standing in line for security to enter or depart, without being considered ‘on the clock’ for compensation” have any Constitutional problems (or other problems)?
There shouldn’t be any problems - the whole reason for the Portal to Portal act was to exclude certain periods of time from the workday which courts had found to require compensation under the previous version of the law. Realistically, any such legislation wil be written more narrowly than you suggest ( perhaps to define security screenings as an principal activity) to eliminate disputes about what a company is requiring and what is just part of the commute.
I’ve long hated the Portal-to-Portal Act, and have some faint hope that his could at least be the start of a discussion aimed at fixing what I consider a major problem with our labor laws.
Anything that an employer requires me to do is not “incidental” and should be compensated for, IMO. If a task cannot be refused, it is not “incidental” and should be compensated for (also IMO).
I’d like to see that reflected in our laws eventually, preferably sooner rather than later.
This does kinda strike me as being manufactured outrage. Especially given the rather selective targeting being shown by certain posters. It probably stems from some article in a union newsletter or something.
Should you get paid for the drive time between your home and your workplace?
After all, your employer requires you to arrive at your workplace. That’s not “incidental,” according to your proposed rule.
Well?
I would distinguish between getting to and from, on the one hand, and being at work, on the other. Once you’re at work, and are required to be there, and are under the authority of the your employer regarding what you should and should not be doing, you should be paid.
For example, when i was in college i worked as a waiter at a hotel. Sometimes, i would arrive at work early and sit in the break room reading a book before i started my shift. I was not required to be there early, and could have got up and walked out at any time before my shift started, so i have no right to be paid. But if they make me sit in that same break room for a half-hour at the end of my shift, and don’t let me leave, then they should be paying me.
That’s certainly a reasonable approach. Congress should change the law to require it.
In an ideal world, yes, it could and would be delineated that way. But since we don’t live in that ideal world and since any economy is based on exchange, and since my workplace and I both need things the other has, we compromise: I don’t get paid specifically for my commute, but I make sure I get paid enough to make that commute worthwhile. Also, I get to decide how long my commute is.
In the Amazon situation, the employees have no choice but to perform this service for their employer (and it is a service that benefits the employer), yet they are not compensated for it. They cannot decide how long they will take to get thru security. In effect, Amazon is kidnapping them. It’s hard for me to believe that the law allows a corporate person to do what it will not allow a corporeal person to do, but it does seem to be a fact.
Fortunately, we can change our laws.
Aye, that’s all that I’m saying: if you are doing what your employer directs you to do and it is a condition of continued employment, of course you should be paid.