SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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This discussion has been archived.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
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
There is no act of treachery or mean-ness of which a political party
is not capable; for in politics there is no honour.
-- Benjamin Disraeli, "Vivian Grey"
(Score: 2) by Silentknyght on Thursday December 11 2014, @02:45PM
So, in several places--in the summary, and in the official SCOTUS decision--it's clear that there was an identified solution that the plaintiffs would have agreed to, namely staggered shifts and/or additional screening personnel/equipment. Those seem like reasonable requests, on the face of it. Why weren't either of these approaches implemented?
The supreme court decision doesn't make any statement about the "fairness" of the practice of spending 25 minutes standing in line. Rather, they say that existing laws in place since the 1930s and 1940s make it clear that this activity does not quality for compensation. They'll leave it to congress to redefine the laws. Absent that, frankly, this is the kind of potential for abuse that labor unions were originally formed to solve.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11 2014, @02:57PM
> Why weren't either of these approaches implemented?
My impression is that Amazon denies the problem even exists. In the reporting I saw on the ruling Amazon's statement was that the delays were so rare as to make the case moot.
> this is the kind of potential for abuse that labor unions were originally formed to solve.
Hence Amazon's intense anti-union efforts. [time.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11 2014, @09:11PM
Well, until now I was thinking of buying a couple of things from Amazon but since I read that, they won't get another penny from me. I'll shop elsewhere.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11 2014, @10:43PM
So then, WalMart.com?
It's not easy to find companies that don't all read off the same page.
For those trying to empower The Working Class, here's a list to get you started, courtesy of the National Center for Employee Ownership. [nceo.org]
-- gewg_