Amazon Workers Want To Be Paid For Waiting In Line

Semantics

2[H]4U
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
2,811
Please show me this law that specifically says an employee must be paid for every second spent on company property as opposed to an employee must be paid for every second while "on the clock." Then please accurately define what it means to be "on the clock."
Show me a law where I can be involuntarily confined?
Doesn't matter if they agreed if its illegal
Shh some people think that anything and agreed upon in an employment contract the employee probably just skimmed though given no union lawyer to go over it with has to be legally binding. Apparently exploitation doesn't exist as long as you can get them to sign here.
And you really think Taco Bell employees do absolutely nothing but make tacos when a customer comes in? LOL!

It's called, when there are no customers to help, there is always something else to do. Clean the counters, restock supplies, clean the restrooms, do some training, etc, etc, etc. No employer lets their employees just stand around doing absolutely nothing while on the clock. Welcome to reality.
So then why aren't they paid by performance instead of hourly? Because they are paid to be available for expected service not paid for services rendered.
 

McClintoc

Fully [H]
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,834
So then why aren't they paid by performance instead of hourly? Because they are paid to be available for expected service not paid for services rendered.

People are paid by performance. Something like minimum wage is a base. Higher hourly rates exists for jobs that require better performance/knowledge/skills than simply flipping a burger. Also think about performance increases. Raises exist to entice people to do more and/or better work while they are on the clock. Again, no company pays it's employees to stand around and not perform. But, I'll be sure to go in on Monday and tell my boss that I am no longer going to do any work while I'm at work and he can't fire me. Little does he know, he isn't paying me to actually work, he's paying me just to show up and be available. I'm 100% certain that will go over well.
 

Semantics

2[H]4U
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
2,811
Seems you don't understand that people are actually paid for certain services as a form of payment, you do x i give you y, not an hourly wage. Infact there are those who are paid a base hourly wage and get increases called commission. So then if these employees are paid for services rendered why isn't their pay structured reflecting that? Instead they are paid for expected services.

You still didn't bother to answer what gives the employer a right to involuntarily confine people after they already punched out.
 

McClintoc

Fully [H]
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,834
Seems you don't understand that people are actually paid for certain services as a form of payment, you do x i give you y, not an hourly wage. Infact there are those who are paid a base hourly wage and get increases called commission. So then if these employees are paid for services rendered why isn't their pay structured reflecting that? Instead they are paid for expected services.

You still didn't bother to answer what gives the employer a right to involuntarily confine people after they already punched out.

Yes, there are people that are paid directly for services and/or products rendered. They are either contract employees or employees working on commission like you said. However, an hourly employee at an Amazon warehouse or an kid working hourly at Taco Bell are not some of those people. How about we stay focused on the topic of thread and not every aspect of business under the sun?

As for this "involuntary confinement" you speak of, let's not forget why this security check point exists: theft. If some employees weren't stealing products from Amazon, then Amazon wouldn't have to check people on their way out. Like I keep saying, blame the criminals not the company that is being stolen from. Are you saying property theft is acceptable?

And again, it goes back to this misplaced sense of entitlement. "I'm an American, damn it! I am allowed to be 100% free, 100% of the time!" Wrong. There are plenty of rules and laws that exist that make us all not 100% free, 100% of the time. You are not free to go around killing people. You are not free to walk into someone else's house anytime you want. You are not free to drink and drive and put other peoples' lives at risk, etc, etc. No one has any problems with these rules but as soon as an employer makes an employee wait a few minutes while they get their bag checked, all of the sudden people shit a brick and want to riot in the streets.
 

McClintoc

Fully [H]
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,834
I also meant to add to that: no one is forcing these people to work at Amazon. Amazon offered them a job and they accepted under their own power. Once that happened, they agreed to work under whatever rules Amazon has in place. Amazon is a private company, not the actual United States of America.
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
2,542
Wow, am I on the right site? Since when were workers rights and fair pay something supported around these parts.

Thought there would be a "shiftless lazy takers" barrage for the workers who are simply asking to be paid for their time at work.

If Amazon finds it too expensive, costing more than alleged pilfering would cost, then they should just drop the East German Checkpoint bullshit at the exit door.

"Hi honey, I'm running late for dinner. Yeah there is a bigger than usual line at Checkpoint Charlie." :eek::rolleyes::cool:
 

mope54

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
7,449
Please show me this law that specifically says an employee must be paid for every second spent on company property as opposed to an employee must be paid for every second while "on the clock." Then please accurately define what it means to be "on the clock."
The relevant law is contained within the Fair Labor Standards Act; I suggest you acquaint yourself with it rather than arguing that you don't know of any law but regardless you have an opinion about what the law does or doesn't say about the matter. :rolleyes:

There are also a number of decided cases relevant to this kind of situation. Again, you're welcome to search those cases out, some of which were quite recent, and reconsider your views about the state of labor law in the United States.

The rest of your posts are simply trolling. You've alternatively stated that you think that an hour off the clock should be paid, then you go on to argue that doing work related activities off the clock in this situation are not due wages. You seem to hinge that argument on the fact that you continue to regard these off-clock duties as taking mere minutes--despite the workers claiming they have to wait anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour (the threshhold you earlier considered enough to warrant wages).
 

jojo69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
10,988
take notes kids

this is the guy you are going to be working for
 

McClintoc

Fully [H]
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,834
The relevant law is contained within the Fair Labor Standards Act; I suggest you acquaint yourself with it rather than arguing that you don't know of any law but regardless you have an opinion about what the law does or doesn't say about the matter. :rolleyes:

There are also a number of decided cases relevant to this kind of situation. Again, you're welcome to search those cases out, some of which were quite recent, and reconsider your views about the state of labor law in the United States.

The rest of your posts are simply trolling. You've alternatively stated that you think that an hour off the clock should be paid, then you go on to argue that doing work related activities off the clock in this situation are not due wages. You seem to hinge that argument on the fact that you continue to regard these off-clock duties as taking mere minutes--despite the workers claiming they have to wait anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour (the threshhold you earlier considered enough to warrant wages).

If I am a troll, I am a well-fed troll. :cool:

Also, who actually said it takes 30 minutes to get through the check-points? Are there any [H] members here that work at Amazon and can attest to these 30+ minute wait times or are we all just going off of Internet hear-say of some disgruntled employees? I mean, there was one guy that posted and said he is an Amazon employee and it hasn't taken him more than a couple of minutes to go through the check points, even at peak season. :eek: Are these employees really putting up a fuss over a few cents of missed pay?

Now, if you guys want to argue the laws on the books, here is a quote directly from the article in the OP:

Nine years later, the Supreme Court established in a pair of rulings that the key is whether the activity in question is “integral and indispensable” to the principal activities workers are paid to do. Butchers at a meatpacking plant, the court found, had to be paid for time spent sharpening their knives

Again, like I argued earlier, going through a security check point, especially at the end of the day, has absolutely no impact on how many boxes an employee packs during their shift, which is what they are hired to do. A butcher needs to sharpen his knives before he cuts meat and a firefighter needs to put on his gear before he goes into a fire but a box packer does not need to go through a check point before he packs boxes. The check point is simply something Amazons has its employees do before they leave, after they have packed their boxes for the day. So no, it's not integral to their job, as the Supreme Court has ruled.

Now, if the check point was at the beginning of the day and was making employees late to their place on the line, then yes they should be paid for it, or at least not held accountable for being late.

Now, here's a kicker: this whole thread is about employees being or not being paid for having their persons checked before leaving. Am I to believe no one has an issue with the heinous invasion of privacy Amazon is committing? :eek: So, either:

A) everyone is OK with the invasion of privacy, so long as the employees are being paid while it's happening. If that's the case, please PM me your addresses so I can rummage through your houses. I'll give you $100 upon arrival. I mean, I'll be invading the shit out of your privacy but at least you'll be getting paid for it. Sound like a deal? :p

or

B) it's not invasion of privacy because, as employees of Amazon, the employees are subject to the rules and regulations imposed upon them by their employer. Precisely what I have been arguing this whole time. Another :eek: But go ahead and equate this situation to slavery or child labor if it makes you feel better.

I guess, in the end, we are finding that Amazon is an evil, criminal organization and they must be shut down immediately for the injustices they are committing against their employees. We'll all lose a great service but at least it will be a great moral victory for all the employees...who are now unemployed. :rolleyes:

The truth is, right or wrong, I am making you think outside the box and you are uncomfortable with that, or simply not equipped to do so. This is most definitely a case of agreeing to disagree. There are two sides to every issue and this thread wouldn't exist if that weren't the case.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,827
I'm a bit surprised by that people support the people on this one.

I'm iffy on it. Yea, Amazon and Integrity should pay for keeping them there, but it's due to theft right? Someone fucked up, first, or so I would think.

But This lawsuit is way better than the one about the Cop that complained about putting on his uniform and won. Similar to the Nurses case, but I don't know if it was at home or at work. I think it was at home.... but he won, and I though that was BS.

I don't know what the Nurse case was (details matter), but this should be a slam dunk for the employees. You're using my time to increase profits (through loss prevention). If there's that much theft, then create more lanes with more screeners. They don't want to do that, because then they'd have to pay more for security.

The conservative justices are generally for businesses, but I at least one of them is going to side with the employees.
 

mope54

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
7,449
You aren't making me think outside any box.

You are simply incoherent in your logic.
"as employees of Amazon, the employees are subject to the rules and regulations imposed upon them by their employer." << this is the part that requires Amazon to pay them for what Amazon is making them do toward the end of their workshift.
 

i960

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
335
I also meant to add to that: no one is forcing these people to work at Amazon. Amazon offered them a job and they accepted under their own power. Once that happened, they agreed to work under whatever rules Amazon has in place. Amazon is a private company, not the actual United States of America.


Now you've gone full retard. So now companies can just make up whatever rules they want, and you are bound to those rules and if you don't like it you can quit? Do you honestly believe that or are you just trolling?
 

mope54

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
7,449
The check point is simply something Amazons has its employees do before they leave, after they have packed their boxes for the day. So no, it's not integral to their job, as the Supreme Court has ruled.

Now, if the check point was at the beginning of the day and was making employees late to their place on the line, then yes they should be paid for it, or at least not held accountable for being late.
The funny thing is you have this exactly backwards according to current case law.
 

pothb

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
4,997
So what? We are talking about 30 minutes... what if it were 2 hours?! Or, lets make it 3 since, you know, its not company time and everybody got time for it :D

Lke I said, I don't think Amazon is right, either.

But imagine this, the workers have to walk through the hall ways to get to their vehicles to get home, they can't just go directly, That's like 10 minutes right there, add that up, and it gets expensive.

In many ways, both are security measures. Where do you draw the line? I do think the clock out should be after the line as well, but eh... I can see where Amazon is coming from.
 

Disposed

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
5,202
What's it feel like to be wrong all the time? It makes absolutely no damn difference what the employee is actually doing during their time at work. If the employer instructs the employee to go stand in a corner for 30 minutes and they are not free to leave, then they get paid, BY LAW, for those 30 minutes. I don't understand why you are having such a hard time understanding this. It doesn't matter if the employee is actively being productive. Every single minute that they are not allowed to walk directly to their car and leave must be paid for. Travel to and from work is the only part that isn't included because you aren't required to go directly home from work, so you don't get paid for it. You could walk next door and have a beer if you choose to. But forcing employees through a checkpoint that is NOT OPTIONAL means you get paid. Quit arguing otherwise. You are wrong and the law says you are wrong.

There is no such law. There are tons of jobs that have have unpaid work thats required. You need a fucking reality check...
 

mope54

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
7,449
Where do you draw the line? I do think the clock out should be after the line as well, but eh... I can see where Amazon is coming from.
The line has historically been drawn at the point where an employer states: "this is part of your job"

In this situation, Integrity provided the workers and compelled them to wait in the security check lines as part of their contract for employment. It's going to be difficult for them to argue before the Court that it was *not* an integral part of their employment if they mandated it by contractual agreement.
 

-PK-

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
1,798
I used to work at a bank where they considered you late if you didn't have your drawer counted, computer running, logged into a website by the start of your shift. Which meant you had to arrive 15 minutes early to work unpaid to be on time. They ran older machines because it was up to the branch manager instead of IT to manage spending for equipment which made matters worse.
 

-PK-

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
1,798
I used to work at a bank where they considered you late if you didn't have your drawer counted, computer running, logged into a website by the start of your shift. Which meant you had to arrive 15 minutes early to work unpaid to be on time. They ran older machines because it was up to the branch manager instead of IT to manage spending for equipment which made matters worse.

I should add, software was also managed by the branch manager. Machines were running individual licenses, so each machine had a random assortment of software. There was one machine running IE7 with Office 2011, another with IE10 and Office 2003, and another with IE8 without office installed. Needless to say, I don't do any of my banking there after I left.
 

McClintoc

Fully [H]
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,834
Now you've gone full retard. So now companies can just make up whatever rules they want, and you are bound to those rules and if you don't like it you can quit? Do you honestly believe that or are you just trolling?

Company rules change all the time. But no, you are right. In this day and age, you don't have to quit, just the sue the company you work for if you don't like it. It's the American way!

It's also becoming clear that a few people in this thread have never had jobs before. Still living at home in mommy and daddy's basement enjoying your "free" Internet?


The funny thing is you have this exactly backwards according to current case law.

How so, exactly? Care to elaborate or just make a generic statement with no evidence?


There is no such law. There are tons of jobs that have have unpaid work thats required. You need a fucking reality check...

Which is why he hasn't provided it when I asked for it. It's also becoming clear that many people in this thread, if they have ever had a job, have never been on salary. Salaried work constantly has overtime without any extra compensation. Again, reality check, some people in here need to join us in the real world.


I used to work at a bank where they considered you late if you didn't have your drawer counted, computer running, logged into a website by the start of your shift. Which meant you had to arrive 15 minutes early to work unpaid to be on time. They ran older machines because it was up to the branch manager instead of IT to manage spending for equipment which made matters worse.

Same here - not that I have mentioned it previously, but almost every job I have ever had required some off-clock work, or at least some "I'm clocked out but still on company property" time. Damn, was does reality have to be so real all the time?

1) I used to work retail and guess what? After we clocked out, they would check our bags for merchandise. And yet, not a single employee I worked with complained about it. We understood it was "part of the job." Damn those fuckers. I need to go back and sue them for all those 30-second blocks of lost wages.

2) I used to work at tire shop. Every day at 6pm sharp we would lock the front door. However, we were still working cars that made it in before 6. Now, as each crew would finish their car, they would clean up, clock out and sit in the waiting room up front until we were all finished. The boss kept the door locked so idiot customers wouldn't walk in after 6 and then once we were all done, we would all leave together and boss would set the alarm. Again, not a single person I worked with complained about this protocol. But, you mean to tell me, all those times when I was one of the first ones finished and I was doing nothing productive for the company and just sitting there playing games on my phone that I should have been getting paid for that???? Yeah, right, another reality check - no company is going to do that.

3) I used to work for a package delivery company. We were not allowed to clock in until 5 minutes before our shift started. My shift, along with about 20 other drivers, started at 2pm every day which meant the soonest we could clock in was 1:55pm. Once our shift started, we had to pre-trip our trucks then get on the road. Every day would show up around 1:30 and do stuff off-the clock that related to our jobs like get our truck keys, get our label reader and printer, get our hand truck and some empty boxes to put documents in. All of this only took about 10 minutes and the remaining 15 minutes until clock-in time, we would sit around and shoot the shit. And yet, again, not a single person complained. We didn't strike, we didn't sue the company, we did our fucking jobs and we were happy to have it.


So again, a lot of people in this thread, and the peons at Amazon need a fucking reality check.
 

ChedWick

Gawd
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
596
I also meant to add to that: no one is forcing these people to work at Amazon. Amazon offered them a job and they accepted under their own power. Once that happened, they agreed to work under whatever rules Amazon has in place. Amazon is a private company, not the actual United States of America.

Right, so on the clock they and amazon are agreeing to a working contract. Off the clock though...
 

i960

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
335
There is no such law. There are tons of jobs that have have unpaid work thats required. You need a fucking reality check...

And you would be wrong. Its called the Fair Labor Standards Act and it's fairly specific about this. It is 100% illegal for a company to compel a worker to "volunteer" their time. We are not and never have been talking about exempt employees on salary. This whole thread is about hourly workers. I'm sure tons of companies take advantage of their employees by making them work for free, but it's still illegal.
 

i960

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
335
Company rules change all the time. But no, you are right. In this day and age, you don't have to quit, just the sue the company you work for if you don't like it. It's the American way!

So a company can make up any rule they want, even rules that violate federal, state, or local laws, and that's legal as long as the employee agreed to it? You can't possibly believe that.
 

i960

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
335
Which is why he hasn't provided it when I asked for it. It's also becoming clear that many people in this thread, if they have ever had a job, have never been on salary. Salaried work constantly has overtime without any extra compensation. Again, reality check, some people in here need to join us in the real world.

The relavant law was posted multiple times in this thread. I am on salary right now, and I have also been hourly and an independant contractor in the past. I know the difference between them all. No one is talking about salary. And FYI, salary workers are paid by the work they perform instead of by the hour. So yes, many times salaried workers will work overtime for "free". But those same employees can take a 2 hour lunch, or go run an errand, or go to a drs appt, and that time will still be paid. So it usually balances out. Plus they generally are paid more than an hourly worker. I typically work 50-60 hours per week, and I still make more than many of my hourly co-workers, even when they work the same hours and are paid overtime.
 

NIVO

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
1,253
wont matter much the outcome, Amazon will not lose a penny. You and I(anyone who shops with them) will make up those pennies. With that said I fully agree the employees should be compensated for this time.
 

devonhiee

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 27, 2012
Messages
137
I had to read this several times to understand. I thought that it was the employees that wanted the stuff that they were shipping and thought they were in the wrong. After the I read the third time, it was just employees leaving work. This is crazy. 30 minutes at work just to leave?
 

Quartz-1

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
4,257
Upthread it was asked if anyone had been in this situation. Well, I have, though not for Amazon, and I'm in the U.K. to boot. Time spent at the security checkpoint was definitely counted as clocked.
 

DeathFromBelow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
7,316
Companies can get away with a lot of this stuff, especially in 'right to work' states. Wal-Mart routinely understaffs their stores and then refuses to pay 'unapproved' overtime. Associates have no choice but to go without overtime pay or get fired for low productivity.
 

Disposed

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
5,202
And you would be wrong. Its called the Fair Labor Standards Act and it's fairly specific about this. It is 100% illegal for a company to compel a worker to "volunteer" their time. We are not and never have been talking about exempt employees on salary. This whole thread is about hourly workers. I'm sure tons of companies take advantage of their employees by making them work for free, but it's still illegal.

I wish I lived in a world where everything was so black abd white like your world. There are so many ways around that law, I see it every day. But don't let me stop you and your naive view on the world.
 

Ocean

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
4,927
30 minutes held at work, unpaid, 5 days a week.

That ads up to over 3 weeks of pay in a year. (Normally)
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,189
Similar shit happened where I work. Normally I teach Tuesday and Thursday classes at the school I work and never the MWF schedule, which is fine by me because 4 day weekends every week :D Now the downside is that all the holidays and "administrative" days are on Monday or Fridays (except for Thanksgiving), now the T-Th class meets the same amount of time per week at a MWF class which is 50minutes x 3 days, I get 75 minutes x 2 days. However when you add up all the days off, it ends up being just over a week more time I'm in a classroom versus someone who teaches the same class 3 days a week. Now the downside is this is legal, because federal holidays and what not are paid days, but still got to say it does get a little tiring that being in a classroom for about 3 hours more when your effective pay is $98/hr does add up from semester to semester (and that's just one class)

Now I don't raise too much a stink over this though, because 4 day weekends every week is very nice, I'd rather have that than the occasional Monday or Friday off.
 
D

Deleted member 222586

Guest
Your examples are silly. An astronaut and a firefighter need their suit/gear to actually do their job. A box packer doesn't need to stand in line at a security check point to do his/her job. It's simply one more step for them getting to or from their job but standing in that line does not actually impact how many boxes they pack that day - especially if it's done at the end of their shift.

If people don't like waiting in line at a security check point, then assholes need to stop stealing stuff. Blame the criminals not the company that was nice enough to give you a job so they could be stolen from. Why does the company have to pay for some low-life criminal's actions?




LOL, 30 minutes is not endlessly. And slavery? Taking my argument and twisting it into an extreme example is not an argument on your part. Your disconnect with reality worries me.

Your examples are... mind blowing.

a) Waiting on a line is MANDATORY and, thus, part of the job. Since its something that the company can avoid altogether... yes, its something employees should be paid for.

b) Just because some people steal, doesn't mean all should be treated as such. Your example is so pathetic that, in the same context, if some innocent person gets killed in a police intervention then... its not the polices fault, its the asshole who caused the police to intervene in the first place, right?

Yes, lets make "somebody else" or "everybody" accountable for the actions of the few. Yes, yes, its everybodys fault now, screw you all! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:




Company rules change all the time. But no, you are right. In this day and age, you don't have to quit, just the sue the company you work for if you don't like it. It's the American way!

It's also becoming clear that a few people in this thread have never had jobs before. Still living at home in mommy and daddy's basement enjoying your "free" Internet?




How so, exactly? Care to elaborate or just make a generic statement with no evidence?




Which is why he hasn't provided it when I asked for it. It's also becoming clear that many people in this thread, if they have ever had a job, have never been on salary. Salaried work constantly has overtime without any extra compensation. Again, reality check, some people in here need to join us in the real world.




Same here - not that I have mentioned it previously, but almost every job I have ever had required some off-clock work, or at least some "I'm clocked out but still on company property" time. Damn, was does reality have to be so real all the time?

1) I used to work retail and guess what? After we clocked out, they would check our bags for merchandise. And yet, not a single employee I worked with complained about it. We understood it was "part of the job." Damn those fuckers. I need to go back and sue them for all those 30-second blocks of lost wages.

2) I used to work at tire shop. Every day at 6pm sharp we would lock the front door. However, we were still working cars that made it in before 6. Now, as each crew would finish their car, they would clean up, clock out and sit in the waiting room up front until we were all finished. The boss kept the door locked so idiot customers wouldn't walk in after 6 and then once we were all done, we would all leave together and boss would set the alarm. Again, not a single person I worked with complained about this protocol. But, you mean to tell me, all those times when I was one of the first ones finished and I was doing nothing productive for the company and just sitting there playing games on my phone that I should have been getting paid for that???? Yeah, right, another reality check - no company is going to do that.

3) I used to work for a package delivery company. We were not allowed to clock in until 5 minutes before our shift started. My shift, along with about 20 other drivers, started at 2pm every day which meant the soonest we could clock in was 1:55pm. Once our shift started, we had to pre-trip our trucks then get on the road. Every day would show up around 1:30 and do stuff off-the clock that related to our jobs like get our truck keys, get our label reader and printer, get our hand truck and some empty boxes to put documents in. All of this only took about 10 minutes and the remaining 15 minutes until clock-in time, we would sit around and shoot the shit. And yet, again, not a single person complained. We didn't strike, we didn't sue the company, we did our fucking jobs and we were happy to have it.


So again, a lot of people in this thread, and the peons at Amazon need a fucking reality check.

Just because you are stupid and want to give somebody for free your time, doesn't mean others HAVE TO.

I, too, have done overtime for free... in cases where the company had perks that would offset such things.

So, it was purely "quid pro quo". The company allowed us to go out early (while being on the clock. So, we finished at 8, we could leave at 6 and still get paid until 8 if the day was light) but, at the same time, if the company needed us just for 2 hours we would not complain and do the extra time free of charge.

But giving my time for free, with nothing in return as A RULE?

Yeah, right. That is as the most stupid thing you could ever do... since, then, the company will see that workers are willing to do more work than they are paid... and everybody gets screwed. Everyone.
 

nightanole

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 16, 2003
Messages
2,025
The fedex i pick my crap up at does this, and its not a problem due to staggered shifts. ONE GUY inspects everyone leaving, and the lunch box. I have never seen more than a line 2 people deep while standing for hours till the truck gets back from deliveries.
 

bmellis1984

Weaksauce
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
97
I've worked at Amazon up in Lexington KY as IT at the site. I have seen on the amazon portal that the site over in Nevada is possibly the largest Distribution center in the country.

Although the majority of sites, like the ones in Lexington don't have that problem with getting people through the detectors. I could see that, that site in Nevada having this issue. Maybe they just need to open up a few more exits and hire more security. Problem solved...


Oh yeah and on the bulletin over where I worked at, a woman stole approx $72,000 worth of Iphones and Ipads through the detector at Amazon. How did she do it you might ask? I asked security about it, and they said that it was an LARGELY overweight woman who was stuffing the phones in her armpits. And usually when they used the metal detector wand on her, it didn't detect it, until one time it actually went off at her armpits.


I'm just saying, I'm for Amazon having security and people playing by the rules, otherwise I Amazon probably be out of business already from people stealing everything.
 

Ponder

Gawd
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
873
Employees aren't paid straight-up for their time. Just becuase they aren't at home, doesn't mean they are on the clock. They are paid to work and produce a product or service for the company. Waiting in a security line has nothing to do with producing said product or service, therefore, the company doesn't have to pay.

Yes it does as it is not part of a typical trip to and from work, Amazon will likely lose this case. Anyways they can not produce unless they get through an obstacle which has been placed their by the employer and it takes more than a reasonable amount of time. If it was lets say five minutes each way...but half an hour it an unreasonable amount of time. If they would like to hire more security workers to allow the time to be reduced.

In the end this entire bottleneck is only there because of the employer and put an undo hardship on the employee wasting nearly an hour of their time. Apple had the same issue with Apple Stores, the geeneral opinion tended to be different in those threads, but I feel the same either way that it places undo hardships on the employees. In this pro business court though who knows if they will use reason:)
 

Staples

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 18, 2001
Messages
7,978
I agree with the employees.

Amazon is hell bent on cutting cost so they sure won't be granting this reasonable request without a fight.
 

McFry

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
1,715
Did Khaos Kid ever place a limit on what is considered unfair time wasting? Like, if you are the mailboy for the CDC and you have to spend 2 hours passing through decontamination screens as you enter/exit the premises, does that mean employees are only paid for 6 hours of work per day?
 
Top