Supreme Court Rules No Pay For Security Screening

When I used to work for a manufacturing company with a union, the clock-in location was on the work floor. You needed to be dressed in appropriate attire to get to the work floor so the same situation existed, you needed to get there at least 15 min early, check your assigned shift for the day , dress in work jumpsuit, goggles, hearing protection and a protective suit if necessary and be clocked in and ready to work by the official start of your shift or you would be fired.

When I worked at a pharmaecutical company it was the same thing, clock was on the floor, had to be wearing scrubs and booties and hairnets to even clock in.

A lot of manufacturing jobs are like this? I'm not seeing what the issue is.
 
staticlag said:
When I used to work for a manufacturing company with a union, the clock-in location was on the work floor. You needed to be dressed in appropriate attire to get to the work floor so the same situation existed, you needed to get there at least 15 min early, check your assigned shift for the day , dress in work jumpsuit, goggles, hearing protection and a protective suit if necessary and be clocked in and ready to work by the official start of your shift or you would be fired.

When I worked at a pharmaecutical company it was the same thing, clock was on the floor, had to be wearing scrubs and booties and hairnets to even clock in.

A lot of manufacturing jobs are like this? I'm not seeing what the issue is.
Click to expand...

People working at an amazon warehouse see themselves as a cut above the average line worker. I'm not disparaging them, it's just how it is.
 
I would simply not clock out until there was no one ahead of me in the screening line.

Have the employees start forming their line at the time clock and see how long it takes their owners to get the security wait cut down.
 
This is one of those judgement situations where people will argue over "reasonable" until there is some stupid hard time limit that people laugh at for years and years.

My opinion... Sure unpaid for a "reasonable" delay in leaving. For a security check I would say reasonable would be 10 minutes of standing there waiting to walk out the door.

Workers said it took upto 30 minutes to clear the line some days. Amazon said the process of the check is 90 seconds. Notice workers would talking about time it takes to get out and Amazon talked about time it took each individual check?

Now both I am sure are stating their "best" or "Worst" case depending.

If the warehouse has mass shift changes and there are 30-50 people that typically try and leave at the same time... x90 seconds... one could see 30 minute delay as possible. If only 10 people... no so much. I don't remember them giving those types of numbers.

If amazon is purposely shorting the process to allow employees to leave in a reasonable amount of time, they should pay the workers.
 
Unfortunately this provides no incentive for Amazon or any similar employer to improve these wait times at all, or even stop them from getting worse, since they are under no obligation to compensate their employees for the theft of their time.
 
Not diggin' this decision at all. It sets a horrific precedent.
 
Stagger worker shifts so you have no more than 5 employees waiting at any time.
Problem solved.
 
TwistedAegis said:
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.
Click to expand...

We had an employee that was clocking in from her phone, driving to work, then clocking out from her phone after she got home for the night. Thankfully, she was the type that would shut down her computer every night, so I was able to correlate the kernel-power event logs as to when she actually came in to work, and left for the day. She was raping the company for nearly two hours a day for a couple YEARS.

Needless to say, after I turned the data over to HR, she was gone the same day.
 
Modred189 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Umm, I don't know where you are getting this. ISS contracts the warehouse workers to Amazon, Amazon is doing the screening at their warehouse not ISS. The whole thing came down to the court decided that the plaintiff's base complaint that screening was taking too much time was unfounded and that the screening process wasn't significant enough to be characterized as a "principal activity" as defined by the the Fair Labor Standards Act. In other words, the court threw down their "bullshit card" :D
 
Our loss prevention team checks lunch pales on the way out once in a while and it only takes a 1/2 sec glimpse. Team members have the lid open and barely even stop. We also have cameras that track problem areas. Amazon should be paying these workers.
 
Technically it may be legal but its a dick move. Amazon's entry in the suit is last minute so don't know what to think about them really.

So basically this is what you can get away with in a poor employment environment. What we need is to turn on the spigot for more low skilled workers. Yeah, that will help.
 
SCOTUS differed to the Department of Labor's interpretation of security screenings in relation to the Portal to Portal Act of 1947. All that needs be done to rectify this is have the Department of Labor classify security screenings as a job function akin to putting on protective clothing.
 
Darth Millennial said:
SCOTUS differed to the Department of Labor's interpretation of security screenings in relation to the Portal to Portal Act of 1947. All that needs be done to rectify this is have the Department of Labor classify security screenings as a job function akin to putting on protective clothing.
Click to expand...
Good point. all this ruling did was state the current law doesn't prohibit the practice, but it doesn't preclude the governing law from being changed/updated
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top