Posted on 12/09/2014 5:16:59 PM PST by SMGFan
Two months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Integrity Staffing Solutions c. Busk et al., concerning the question of whether employees at a warehouse–an Amazon distribution center, in this case–should be paid for the time that they spend waiting for security checks when they leave work. The Supremes issued a unanimous decision earlier than expected, and they say that security checks should not be considered part of the job at a distribution center
(Excerpt) Read more at consumerist.com ...
It should really depend on how long it takes. If it takes 10 minutes or less, I'd agree with the court. But if it's taking 30 minutes on a regular basis, and the security check is required, then they should be paid for it. Amazon needs to figure out how to process their employees quicker.
Personally I think it sucks.
If the boss is telling you what to do you are on the clock.
This sort of thing has long been a labor issue. At the mine, we were paid “from collar to collar”, that was from the time the cage (think elevator) left the surface until when it returned to the surface. The union persistently bargained for pay from the time you entered the change room to dress for work until after you showered and put on your civilian clothes. The union never got their way either by bargaining or by wage and hour complaints.
I’ve done some seasonal work on weekends at an Amazon warehouse in the past. The last time I worked there you only went through security if you were exiting the facility. On a bad day it may have taken me all of three minutes to get through the line and out the door.
I completely agree. If Amazon insists they go through the security check, they should be paid for that time.
Wow... that’s a wonky ruling.
Imagine the world of judges.
Courthouses have security screening. Imagine what happens to an attorney/defendant/self-representing person who is stuck in a security clog.
The judge does not care.
This ain’t the first ruling made by this Supreme Court that I think is crap. I can think of a couple that may rank right down there with Dred Scott.
The employees should quit if they feel that strongly about it. That’s one of the great things about America, you don’t have to work at a job that you don’t like. Pretty simple huh?
Decisions like this reinforce the need for collective bargaining - unions. While the rhetoric here is all about free enterprise and self-help, people working at places like this have little to no leverage in the terms of their employment. The only thing they can do is quit.
Just plain sad. Won’t stop me from ordering more stuff from Amazon.
Imagine the world of judges.
Courthouses have security screening. Imagine what happens to an attorney/defendant/self-representing person who is stuck in a security clog.
The judge does not care.
No thanks.
Whenever all nine agree on something they’re probably right. Ninth Circus screwing up again.
Well then can the workers simply bypass security without endangering their jobs? If they can't, then it's part of their duties. What a bizarre ruling.
I think they should be paid, but they are not the only sufferers. There are many ways companies cheat employees out of pay. They can get very creative.
The only answer I guess is that they lose good employees and can only retain substandard ones.
I should add that as far as cheating goes, employees are far guiltier in general. The creative ways employees cheat employers is stunning.
Blame Congress:
“Held: The time that respondents spent waiting to undergo and undergoing security screenings is not compensable under the FLSA. Pp. 3–9.
(a) Congress passed the Portal-to-Portal Act to respond to an economic emergency created by the broad judicial interpretation given to the FLSA’s undefined terms “work” and “workweek.”...
...To begin with, the screenings were not the principal activities the employees were employed to perform—i.e.,the workers were employed not to undergo security screenings but to retrieve products from warehouse shelves and package them for shipment. Nor were they “integral and indispensable” to those activities.
This view is consistent with a 1951 Department of Labor opinion letter, which found noncompensable under the Portal-to-Portal Act both a preshift screening conducted for employee safety and a postshift search conducted to prevent employee theft.
The Ninth Circuit’s test, which focused on whether the particular activity was required by the employer rather than whether it was tied to the productive work that the employee was employed to perform, would sweep into “principal activities” the very activities that the Portal-to-Portal Act was designed to exclude from compensation. Finally, respondents’ claim that the screenings are compensable because Integrity Staffing could have reduced the time to a de minimis amount is properly presented at the bargaining table, not to a court in an FLSA claim....
...At issue here is the exemption for “activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to said principal activity or
activities.”...
...If the test could be satisfied merely by the fact that an employer required an activity, it would sweep into “principal activities” the very activities that the Portal-to-Portal Act was designed to address....”
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-433_5h26.pdf
“Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
An amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (29 U.S.C. §§ 251 to 262). The Portal-to-Portal Act clarifies that certain activities are generally not compensable working time under the FLSA. In particular, the Portal-to-Portal Act excludes from mandatory compensation:
Traveling to or from the actual place where the employee performs his principal activities.
Time spent on incidental activities before or after the employee’s principal activities.”
http://us.practicallaw.com/6-508-0673
And they should be paid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.