Supreme Court Rules No Pay For Security Screening

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
It looks as though the Supreme Court has sided with Amazon. The high court ruled that the online retailer does not have to pay wages for the time workers spend in line for security screenings.

On a 9-0 vote, the court decided that employees of Integrity Staffing Solutions facilities in Nevada, where merchandise is processed and shipped, cannot claim compensation for the time they spend going through security screening - up to half an hour a day - aimed at protecting against theft.
 
Surprising ruling. At least the put an upper limit on it though of 30 minutes. Last thing you want is to get all ticky tacky with 5 minutes here, 6.4 minutes there.
 
Wow. What a bunch of bullshit. If I'm not free to leave then I'm on the clock. Personally I'd just walk out the door and make them physically stop me. If they did I'd sue them for illegally detaining me.
 
If there is no pay, there is no legal reason for them to perform anything.
Employees should just unionize and walk out.
Ideally you don't really want unions, but you also really don't want mass exploitation of your work force.
 
Wow. What a bunch of bullshit. If I'm not free to leave then I'm on the clock. Personally I'd just walk out the door and make them physically stop me. If they did I'd sue them for illegally detaining me.

They won't stop you, they will just fire you
 
They won't stop you, they will just fire you

Whatever, there's an abundance of shitty low wage jobs available to replace this one. Shit like this is why we need unions. Seriously, I see lots of bad things unions do, but on the flip side they prevent bullshit like this from happening as well.
 
Does it seem to you guys like the water is getting warmer in here?
 
Good.If ISS wants to put employees through that, because they don't have a proper screening system in place (hint: they don't, and cheaped out to save a dime), then Amazon shouldn't have to pay for it.
 
I bet they still won't try and refine the security process, either. Just keep it long and inefficient. When I worked at a distribution center, we had a few security guys by the exit. We opened our lunchbox or whatever to show, and walked out. Didn't even have to stop walking usually.
 
If you subscribe to Amazon Prime not only you get free shipping but employee's get paid to work for Amazon. Act now and you also get to watch YouTube on your Amazon phone, if they feel like it. Probably not.
 
Ok this part was funny as hell:

For workers to be paid, the activity in question must be “an intrinsic element” of the job and “one with which the employee cannot dispense if he is to perform his principal activities,” Thomas wrote.

So the activity of say actually getting near the boxes the employees need to move is not necessary to the job? Are they all running remote control robotic arms?
 
Ok this part was funny as hell:

For workers to be paid, the activity in question must be “an intrinsic element” of the job and “one with which the employee cannot dispense if he is to perform his principal activities,” Thomas wrote.

So the activity of say actually getting near the boxes the employees need to move is not necessary to the job? Are they all running remote control robotic arms?

By that line of reasoning, you should be paid for commuting to work as well, since that's also necessary for getting near the boxes. I think it's a bad policy, and Amazon should not subject it's employees to that, but at the end of the day, they can quit with no notice to Amazon at any time.
 
By that line of reasoning, you should be paid for commuting to work as well, since that's also necessary for getting near the boxes. I think it's a bad policy, and Amazon should not subject it's employees to that, but at the end of the day, they can quit with no notice to Amazon at any time.

I am on-site, ready to work, but a duty the employer is making me perform is keeping me from getting on the clock and performing my job duties. 125%, absolutely no argument, should be paid.
 
I notice that it's run through a staffing agency. I wonder if Amazon was ruled free of responsibility, but the staffing agency is still on the hook.
 
Training with HR or whatever should be unpaid as well. You're not doing your assigned duties. Probably should clock out when taking a shit, too.

A nickle is a nickle. A dime is a dime. The best time to shit is on company time.

You're there for your assigned shift - you clock out and you are free to go. They tell you no, then you go clock back in and wait until they are done with you, then you clock out and walk out. If you're on their time, you're getting paid.

How this won, I don't know. I'm surprised.
 
This was a 9-0 decision. This wasn't even close. Must be something we don't know about. I mean Ginsberg is practically a communist, and they couldn't even convince her.
 
I am on-site, ready to work, but a duty the employer is making me perform is keeping me from getting on the clock and performing my job duties. 125%, absolutely no argument, should be paid.

but you also agreed to that condition when you accepted employment. It's like a company said you can work for them, but you have to commute to an office that's 200 miles away every day. You say "yes, I need a job, thats great!" than a month later complain they have to pay you for the unreasonable commute.
 
but you also agreed to that condition when you accepted employment. It's like a company said you can work for them, but you have to commute to an office that's 200 miles away every day. You say "yes, I need a job, thats great!" than a month later complain they have to pay you for the unreasonable commute.

But, you can leave the job site. Doesn't matter if you live next door or 200 miles away. You can leave. Here, you cannot even leave the job site due to employer policy.
 
Wow. What a bunch of bullshit. If I'm not free to leave then I'm on the clock. Personally I'd just walk out the door and make them physically stop me. If they did I'd sue them for illegally detaining me.


Except the law says otherwise. It's a badly written law that has standing precident that donning protective garments is compensable time and that the exact same activity, under nearly identical circumstances, in nearly the exact same industry (meat processing, the difference was what kind of meat), was also not compensable.

It comes down to how well you argue stupid points and how the judges are feeling. The law in question as written offers no clear guidelines, so for employees and employers alike, you roll the dice and take your chances.

If you look at the history, waiting in line to enter a plant and punch your timecard was something clearly intended to be protected as non compensable, as were commutes. I guess the court said that waiting to enter is waiting to enter and all we are arguing about is a 90 second screening after the protected wait, which is of negligible impact.

But the rulings on stupid legislation look stupid. Garbage in, Garbage out.
 
Except the law says otherwise. It's a badly written law that has standing precident that donning protective garments is compensable time and that the exact same activity, under nearly identical circumstances, in nearly the exact same industry (meat processing, the difference was what kind of meat), was also not compensable.

It comes down to how well you argue stupid points and how the judges are feeling. The law in question as written offers no clear guidelines, so for employees and employers alike, you roll the dice and take your chances.

If you look at the history, waiting in line to enter a plant and punch your timecard was something clearly intended to be protected as non compensable, as were commutes. I guess the court said that waiting to enter is waiting to enter and all we are arguing about is a 90 second screening after the protected wait, which is of negligible impact.

But the rulings on stupid legislation look stupid. Garbage in, Garbage out.

Once again...9-0 decision. If you can't convince Comrade Ginsberg, you have a shitty argument.
 
Ya this is stupid IMO. When I enter your property I should be paid. Its your place your policy everything inside your property is your choice. If you want me to arbitrarily walk down a 30 minute hallway they you have to pay for it. Up until I get on your property its my problem as soon as I enter your property its your problem. Ultimately though the employees will just have to learn to factor an extra hour into their labor costs just like a person who decided to commute an hour to work.

This reminds me of other crappy jobs where they expect employees to maintain a dress code which includes you paying a lot of money for clothes. Sometimes a uniform only the company provides that you have to buy. Other times its just an expectation of dressing up all the time and having variety or wearing the clothes the store itself sells. In developing nations I see put up with this crap where the first 2 months of their salary are withheld to "buy the uniform".
 
I don't get the commute argument at all. That's out of the employers control and yes, the employee agrees to it by entering into employment.

This is entirely under the employers control; the employee has no control here and is 100% dependent on the employer to do this in a timely manner. They should be getting paid. And 9-0, yes, it was likely a shitty lawyer.
 
9-0??? Was this about something other than the headline?

Once you arrive on site at your employer you should be on the clock. Any barriers between their property and your work station are the employers problem.

If this is now the employee's expense, not the employers, there is no motivation for the employer to improve conditions or reduce barriers to work. A work site could conceivably have a 15 minute walk from the parking lot. There could be a compulsory security screening of irregular and unlimited length.

If this case sets a precedent allowing employers to shift the costs, of their poor planning and cost cutting, onto their employees, then the courts got this very wrong.
 
9-0??? Was this about something other than the headline?

Once you arrive on site at your employer you should be on the clock. Any barriers between their property and your work station are the employers problem.

If this is now the employee's expense, not the employers, there is no motivation for the employer to improve conditions or reduce barriers to work. A work site could conceivably have a 15 minute walk from the parking lot. There could be a compulsory security screening of irregular and unlimited length.

If this case sets a precedent allowing employers to shift the costs, of their poor planning and cost cutting, onto their employees, then the courts got this very wrong.

Agree. Waiting for, "We have no bathrooms on site but have contracted with XYZ corp, a 10 minute walk down the block. You're off the clock once you're out of the building."
 
That's right up there with not paying you for mandatory training and company meetings. I'd start keeping record of how much money they owed me for this security BS and I'd start stealing shit from work worth that exact amount.
 

The first half of it that tells of the history of "Human Farming" is pretty accurate, but then it just seems to ramble inconclusively afterwards. It does not identify exactly what is the problem and why it is a problem, and as a result, does not identify any solutions. Exactly what is the process of "waking up," what is the conclusion that we have when we "wake up," and what are humans supposed to do when they "awake" with this new conclusion?

I do not need the video to tell me from where ALL societal problems stem from - I already know that (and it was not mentioned in that video). But I do not even know what the video's message was supposed to be.
 
I feel bad for any young person entering the work force today.
 
This was a 9-0 decision. This wasn't even close. Must be something we don't know about. I mean Ginsberg is practically a communist, and they couldn't even convince her.

Yes. Ginsberg the Nazi Communist Jew. :rolleyes:
 
You know, you could actually read the actual decision.

I had a quick glance, didn't read the whole thing, but I did notice this on page 13:

§790.8(c). Here, by contrast, the security screenings were
not “integral and indispensable” to the employees’ other
principal activities in this sense. The screenings may, as
the Ninth Circuit observed below, have been in some way
related to the work that the employees performed in the
warehouse, see 713 F. 3d 525, 531 (2013), but the employees
could skip the screenings altogether without the safety
or effectiveness of their principal activities being substantially
impaired, see ante, at 7.


From what I have heard some this discussion, the screenings are mandatory. If you skip them they fire you. Was this misinterpreted at the trial?
 
Back
Top