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This discussion has been archived.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 Arik on Thursday December 11 2014, @07:59PM

    by Arik (4543) on Thursday December 11 2014, @07:59PM (#125208) Journal
    I dont know if the *law* is actually that clear here, the law says they dont have to be paid if they are not 'integral and indispensable' to their actual job.

    Naïvely, perhaps, I would parse that to mean that payment is optional if the activity is optional - parsing 'indispensable' as the opposite of 'optional' which is after all a synonym to 'dispensable.' So to me, again perhaps naïvely, it seems to say that if this procedure is a *required* part of employment, then it is 'indispensable' to their job duties, and must be paid.

    The prior *precedent* is clear here, and cited in the opinion, but the law itself does not seem to be so clearly in agreement with their decision.
    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 1) by iamjacksusername on Thursday December 11 2014, @10:08PM

    by iamjacksusername (1479) on Thursday December 11 2014, @10:08PM (#125276)

    In this case, I would say that the Court feels the law is clear because they feel the meaning of the statutory language is settled law. The 9-0 ruling is telling the lower courts "don't even think about going near this interpretation." E.g., "optional" and "indispensable", as you mentioned, have specific legal meanings in the context of this statute.

  • (Score: 1) by forkazoo on Friday December 12 2014, @02:12AM

    by forkazoo (2561) on Friday December 12 2014, @02:12AM (#125352)

    Yeah, if somebody pays me to stick around, then I'll do my job. If not, I'll leave. If they stop paying me but won't let me leave, then that's kidnapping or false imprisonment or something along those lines. It also provides Amazon with a artehr amazing incentive to just not bother to have the security people be there sometimes. If you can't leave until security gets here, you may as well just get a head start on tomorrow's work to kill the time, even though you clocked out...

    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday December 12 2014, @08:51PM

      by HiThere (866) on Friday December 12 2014, @08:51PM (#125587) Journal

      What the summary said was that you had to stand in line. That makes it a bit hard to do tomorrows work today.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.