High Court to Hear Dispute on Worker Pay (9th Circuit Did it Again - Roberts' First Case)

WSJ ^

[indianrightwinger]

High Court to Hear Dispute on Worker Pay First Arguments Before New Chief Justice Will Be About Wages; Social Issues Will Follow By JESS BRAVIN Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL October 3, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The first test of Chief Justice John Roberts's legal philosophy won't come on social issues -- such as abortion, school prayer or gay marriage -- that dominate today's judicial politics. Instead, the case argued when the Supreme Court term begins today will test the new chief justice's leanings on a high-priority issue for business.

The case is something of a throwback to the early 20th century, when disputes over wages, working conditions and hours dominated the docket. At a Pasco, Wash., meatpacking plant owned by Tyson Foods Inc., workers are required to don protective gear before shifts in which they slaughter, dismember and process beef. They say they should be paid for the time required to walk, once suited up, to the production line, and not just for the time spent donning the gear and working.

Industry Warns of Costs

Although only a few minutes per employee a day are at stake, the industry says a contrary ruling could impose vast new costs. A "wide variety of employers...have faced such claims," says a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the National Association of Manufacturers, which, for the first time, injected itself into the Supreme Court nomination process by lobbying for a candidate it perceived as pro-business -- and endorsing the Roberts nomination.

[indianrightwinger]

Question boils down to whether the courts should decide when a worker begins *work*. I would say, let the business and the workers decide.

[gondramB]

"They say they should be paid for the time required to walk, once suited up, to the production line, and not just for the time spent donning the gear and working."

they probably should be paid for that time - but I dont' see how the government has any business mandating that.

[indianrightwinger]

Precisely the point. You hit the nail on the head.

[stylin19a]

That would be a one-sided decision.
I'm taking a WAG that there is no union involved here.
Pehaps Tyson in Washington is ripe for a union.

[konaice]

This is the most convoluted writing I've seen in a while. It almost suggests the workers now go on the clock when they enter the locker room to suit up, then go off the clock while they walk to the meat packing room, then back on the clock.

I'm sure the reporter got it wrong.

---

On another related sugject, does anyone know if Roberts can do anything about the 9th? Such as request congress to break it up, into two circuits, say one turkey farm for California, and a more down to earth court for the rest of the West?

[gondramB]

A union?


How about if the workers aren't happy with the way they are treated at Tyson, they go to work somewhere else so that Tyson has to either keep hiring new workers or conclude it's cheaper to treat the existing workers better to cut down on turnover?

[indianrightwinger]

That is simply silly.

Supply of workers and demand for work determine pay. There seem to be plenty of supply of workers even without getting paid for that extra walk down.

The company can pay extra time for this walk, but then cut the hourly wage to compensate.

Unions will not help. They will simply bring all workers to the "Lowest Common Denominator", which means no more growth/opportunity no matter how good an individual.

[indianrightwinger]

My understanding is that only Congress can do it. But, would love to hear more about it.

If we cannot take on such an initiative with Congress and POTUS in GOP hands, when else??

The 9th Circuit is totally hopeless. The fact that they are the most reversed should shame them. Well, may be not.

[taxesareforever]

Question boils down to whether the courts should decide when a worker begins *work*. I would say, let the business and the workers decide.

You are right but the SCOTUS has decided to take on such issues. That way they can really be the "Law of the Land".

[gondramB]

"My understanding is that only Congress can do it. But, would love to hear more about it. "

Yep, that's congress "The Congress shall have Power... To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;"

but I remember reading about some mechanism for the Chief justice to make reccomendations to congress.

I found this

The Judiciary's policy-making body is the Judicial Conference of the United States. The Chief Justice of the United States is the presiding officer of the Conference, which is composed of 26 additional members: the chief judge of each federal circuit and the Court of International Trade, and one district judge from each regional circuit. The Judicial Conference does not have direct administrative authority over the individual courts, but it establishes policies for the federal Judiciary, identifies legislative requirements, recommends revisions to the federal rules of practice and procedure, and has certain broad administrative responsibilities such as approving the Judiciary's budget request to the Congress, the long-range plan for automation, and the design guide for courthouse facilities.

http://www.uscourts.gov/understanding_courts/89916.htm

[indianrightwinger]

In this case, they had to take it on because the 9th Circuit and the 1st Circuit ruled exactly opposite.

Now I hope they will affirm the 1st Circuit opinion.

[indianrightwinger]

Does not state "Court Re-Structuring", but the charter seems broad enough to make it part of this body to make recommendations.

[sourcery]

In this case, they had to take it on because the 9th Circuit and the 1st Circuit ruled exactly opposite.

Hopefully, they'll rule that it's a not a Federal issue decidable under the Constitution (and declare any fake law Congress may think it has passed on the matter ivalid because no such power is granted Congress in the Constitution,) vacate both the Ninth and the First Circuit, and remand the issue to the State courts, where it belongs.

[Old Professer]

As long as you wear the makeup, you're still a clown.

[gondramB]

"Hopefully, they'll rule that it's a not a Federal issue decidable under the Constitution (and declare any fake law Congress may think it has passed on the matter ivalid because no such power is granted Congress in the Constitution,) vacate both the Ninth and the First Circuit, and remand the issue to the State courts, where it belongs"

I can see it now - they will rule they have jursdiction because some of the chickens are shipped inter-state.

[indianrightwinger]

There is inter-state commerce involved. So, I cannot see them claiming no jurisdiction.

But, I hope Roberts will use the same reasoning he did in crushing the idea of "Equal Pay for Comparable Work". Simply say that the SCOTUS (or any Federal Court) cannot be a substitute for the market.

[gondramB]

"Simply say that the SCOTUS (or any Federal Court) cannot be a substitute for the market."

Can you imagine how many things they could overturn if they applied that across the board? And how much money we could save.

[1066AD]

Repeated clocking in and out ?
Ask any kid who has worked in fast food places, happens all the time, a neighbor's kid said he and coworkers had to clock-out whenever it got slack - BUT they weren't allowed to leave the premises.

[stylin19a]

Actually, here's a better description of what the SCOTUSD is going to hear, and why....and it actually appears to be a different description entirely, than what was excerpted from WJS.

I wonder which is correct ?

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/state/051001roberts.shtml

Union not so silly....
Turns out, there WAS a union....Teamsters 556.
Employee's voted in Feb 2005 to decertify the union.

This plant has 1500 workers. 80 percent are immigrant. 40 percent are women.

You are right. Keep firing the employees, cause there's a 100,000 waiting in line to take each job.

[indianrightwinger]

Every free-market idea will sound harsh because it does not take short-term human emotion into account for the long term economic good.

I won't argue whether or not these workers deserve this extra little pay. However, I will be totally against any court intervened resolution because the constitution DID NOT spell out the court's role as arbitrator of pay disputes.