Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SCOTUS Finds in Favor of Amazon, No Pay for Mandatory Security Screenings

posted by janrinok on Thursday December 11 2014, @02:18PM   Printer-friendly
from the my-time-is-my-own dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

The Supreme Court of the United States has issued a unanimous decision that security screenings after the work day, regardless of the amount of time they take to perform, do not qualify for remuneration. The decision focuses on the Portal-To-Portal Act of 1947 which defines a workday that specifically excludes those activities "incidental" to an employee's primary responsibilities.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
SCOTUS Finds in Favor of Amazon, No Pay for Mandatory Security Screenings | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 61 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday December 11 2014, @02:25PM

    by ikanreed (3164) on Thursday December 11 2014, @02:25PM (#125053) Journal

    Employers now moving rapidly to classify more work as "incidental".

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by ngarrang on Thursday December 11 2014, @02:37PM

    by ngarrang (896) on Thursday December 11 2014, @02:37PM (#125059) Journal

    I find their logic troubling.

    "Reversing that result, and reaching the same conclusion reached by all other federal appeals courts that had considered the issue, the Supreme Court declared that such screening procedures were not an “integral” part of the job. Integrity’s staff at the warehouses, the Court said in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, were hired to take products off the shelves and package them for shipment to Amazon’s customers, not to go through security screenings."

    There are many parts of a person's job that are not integral to the specific job, but are required because of, say, OSHA or associated requirements. I am in I.T., but I have to sit through the same meetings as the plant floor workers each month for OSHA-required videos. Does this mean my company could require me to work an extra 30 minutes on that day? My job is to repair computers, buy software, etc...not sit and watch OSHA videos.

    SCOTUS messed this one up, big time.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Silentknyght on Thursday December 11 2014, @02:48PM

      by Silentknyght (1905) on Thursday December 11 2014, @02:48PM (#125063)

      There are many parts of a person's job that are not integral to the specific job, but are required because of, say, OSHA or associated requirements.

      Read Kagan's concurrence. She addresses that. And, based on her arguments, it seems that for your hypothetical case, SCOTUS would likely argue that OSHA or similar requirements are likely integral to the job.

      • (Score: 1) by ItisBE on Thursday December 11 2014, @06:08PM

        by ItisBE (4668) on Thursday December 11 2014, @06:08PM (#125157)
        That makes no sense though, how can training videos count, but actually entering the job site doesn't?