Half hour a day wasted going through security at work and not paid

[dmcowen674]

10-3-2014

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/amazo...to-be-paid-for-waiting-in-line-150336301.html

Amazon warehouse workers want to be paid for waiting in line



Amazon.com warehouses are full of stuff people like. To cut down on theft, workers who box and ship it are required to pass through security checkpoints after their shifts, waiting in lines that can take almost 30 minutes to get through.

On Oct. 8 the Supreme Court will hear arguments about whether that time counts as work.

At issue is the scope of a 1947 amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act that says employers don’t have to pay for time spent on work-related activities like getting to or from the office.

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, and workers at a battery plant deserved compensation for time spent showering after work to wash off traces of sulfuric acid and lead.

----------------------
Update Wow, it's already being abused by Corporations. Expect it to a whole lot worse.

12-9-2014

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-rules-no-worker-pay-security-screening-151514222--finance.html

Supreme Court rules no worker pay for security screening



The ruling is likely to benefit other companies facing similar lawsuits including Amazon, CVS Health Corp and Apple Inc, according to Integrity's lawyers.


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.

 

[dmcowen674]

I'm sure all the Rich Republican Pro Corporate Thugs in here side with Amazon.

 

[crashtech]

Obviously the time clock should be accessed after a mandated activity like that, otherwise the case could be made that they are being illegally detained.

BTW, I'm not a party line voter but am somewhat conservative, fair is fair.

 

[PokerGuy]

Replace "going through security" with "stuck in traffic on the way to work".... should employers have to pay for those stuck in traffic as well?

I can see both sides of this argument.

 

[crashtech]

Replace "going through security" with "stuck in traffic on the way to work".... should employers have to pay for those stuck in traffic as well?

I can see both sides of this argument.

Employees are in control of where they choose to live and their mode of transportation, are they not?

 

[chucky2]

If you arrive at company property and are on your way to your assigned work area, where once you arrived you would be on the clock, and the company is doing something preventing you from getting to that assigned work area, I'd think that is the companies decision, and thus you would be considered on the clock. It's one thing to swipe a badge and go through the gate uninhibited, and then being clocked in when you're at your work area. It's quite another to be stuck in line day after day and not getting compensated for it.

I'd say the employees have a legitimate gripe...

 

[Jhhnn]

Replace "going through security" with "stuck in traffic on the way to work".... should employers have to pay for those stuck in traffic as well?

I can see both sides of this argument.

So silly. The waiting is at the command of the employer, something completely under their control. Traffic is not.

 

[PokerGuy]

Employees are in control of where they choose to live and their mode of transportation, are they not?

Indeed, just like they are in control of where they choose to work. You know that you have to go through security at the end of your shift, just like you know what traffic will be like when you leave. It's up to you if you are OK with that given the level of compensation.

Like I said, I can see either side of it though, especially in light of the prior scotus rulings.

 

[MtnMan]

If they hadn't been stealing on a daily basis, this would not be necessary.

 

[PokerGuy]

So silly. The waiting is at the command of the employer, something completely under their control. Traffic is not.

Actually, the employer (Amazon) is not the one running the security process from what I understand. It's also not "so silly" -- the first ruling was for the companies, not the workers. The 9th circuit then reversed the ruling, and the 9th has a well earned reputation for coming up with some of the dumbest rulings. The court decided to hear the case, so it's not as open and shut as idiots might think.

 

[Engineer]

If they hadn't been stealing on a daily basis, this would not be necessary.

To coin a phrase (from gun control vs non gun control crowd)...going to punish everyone because of what a few do?

Who is this 'they' that you are talking about?

 

[Engineer]

Actually, the employer (Amazon) is not the one running the security process from what I understand.

So Amazon isn't paying the security company to check the employees? They are doing it free and Amazon has nothing to do with it?

 

[PokerGuy]

So Amazon isn't paying the security company to check the employees? They are doing it free and Amazon has nothing to do with it?

Actually, the employees don't work for Amazon. They work for the staffing company, and it makes them go through security processes.

The plaintiffs are basically saying that standing in line is “integral and indispensable” to their job, thus based on the fair labor standards act they should be getting paid for it. I don't see how going through security is an integral and indispensable part of their job, any more than going through security is "integral and indispensable" part of the job of someone who works at a court house or federal building. If those people aren't entitled to get paid for that time, why should these plaintiffs? Their job is to pack and ship stuff, just like a court reporters job is to create transcripts of court proceedings. In neither case is the process of getting to their job (or going through security) an integral part of their actual job IMO. The lower court agreed with that rationale, the 9th circuit did not. We'll see what the scotus thinks.

 

[MtnMan]

To coin a phrase (from gun control vs non gun control crowd)...going to punish everyone because of what a few do?

Who is this 'they' that you are talking about?

They is the thieves that works there.

But yes, that is how this country works.
One person hides explosives in his not so tidy whities, and every including kiddies and grandma gets their crotch groped by a guvern'mt goon.
One person puts explosive in his shoe, and everyone gets to stand in the same spot that 10,000 other people just stood barefooted. I'm sure that sales of athletes foot sprays have skyrocketed.
I can't wait until some has explosives up their bum, then everyone will get to drop their drawers, squat and cough.

 

[Engineer]

Actually, the employees don't work for Amazon. They work for the staffing company, and it makes them go through security processes.

The plaintiffs are basically saying that standing in line is “integral and indispensable” to their job, thus based on the fair labor standards act they should be getting paid for it. I don't see how going through security is an integral and indispensable part of their job, any more than going through security is "integral and indispensable" part of the job of someone who works at a court house or federal building. If those people aren't entitled to get paid for that time, why should these plaintiffs?

Who says that those other people aren't entitled to get paid for that time?

I guess the court will decide.

As for who they work for (Amazon, etc.), doesn't matter except that Amazon shouldn't be a defendant, the staffing company should (unless Amazon is forcing the staffing company to do this - in which case I could see them thrown into the case).

 

[crashtech]

If they hadn't been stealing on a daily basis, this would not be necessary.

Then you subscribe to the "presumption of guilt."

 

[PokerGuy]

Who says that those other people aren't entitled to get paid for that time?

I know at least two that are not paid for that time. If this ruling would get upheld, I'm guessing those folks would be the first in line to say "hey, we should get paid for that as well". I imagine there would be more suits based on the expanded notion of what is "“integral and indispensable” to someone's job under the fair labor standards act.

As for who they work for (Amazon, etc.), doesn't matter except that Amazon shouldn't be a defendant, the staffing company should (unless Amazon is forcing the staffing company to do this - in which case I could see them thrown into the case).

I agree, I only mentioned it because Jhhnn posted that it was completely "at the command" of Amazon, which it is not.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Actually, the employees don't work for Amazon. They work for the staffing company, and it makes them go through security processes.

The plaintiffs are basically saying that standing in line is “integral and indispensable” to their job, thus based on the fair labor standards act they should be getting paid for it. I don't see how going through security is an integral and indispensable part of their job, any more than going through security is "integral and indispensable" part of the job of someone who works at a court house or federal building. If those people aren't entitled to get paid for that time, why should these plaintiffs? Their job is to pack and ship stuff, just like a court reporters job is to create transcripts of court proceedings. In neither case is the process of getting to their job (or going through security) an integral part of their actual job IMO. The lower court agreed with that rationale, the 9th circuit did not. We'll see what the scotus thinks.

Is there any possible way to do the job without standing in the line and going through the process? If so, it seems to be "integral and indispensable."

 

[MrPickins]

Is there any possible way to do the job without standing in the line and going through the process? If so, it seems to be "integral and indispensable."

This.

 

[crashtech]

Indeed, just like they are in control of where they choose to work. You know that you have to go through security at the end of your shift, just like you know what traffic will be like when you leave. It's up to you if you are OK with that given the level of compensation.

Like I said, I can see either side of it though, especially in light of the prior scotus rulings.

This brings up an interesting side of questions like this. It seems that requests for rulings like this aren't so much to protect workers from employers, but to protect workers from other workers. All labor markets end up being a sort of race to the bottom, where workers with no self-esteem set the conditions for everyone else. Personally I would not submit to the treatment outlined in the OP, but unfortunately there always seem to be who will, proving I suppose either such things aren't that bad, or that the human capacity to endure injustice is great.

 

[Engineer]

This brings up an interesting side of questions like this.

There are always interesting questions when it comes to employee vs employer and when and not to pay. My employer will send people from their homes to a customer site (in the mornings) and start charging the customer from the time that the employee leaves the house. However, he will not start paying the employee until the same amount of time that it takes the employee to normally arrive at the office has elapsed. Doesn't quite seem fair to me (I'm so close to the office that it really doesn't effect me and I'm salary anyway).

Now this question: Does the staffing company get paid for each employee up to the point before security starts or after the employees get through security (I'm assuming that they get cut off at a certain time before the security check).

 

[ivwshane]

Amazon will lose. I remember a case regarding costco employees having to wait at the door after the store was closed because no manager was available to let them out. They lost the case and were forced to pay employees if they have to wait more than a specified time.

Corporate apologists will disagree though.

 

[Jhhnn]

For the purposes of the employee, the waiting around time *is* demanded by their employer, whether you want to define that as Amazon or the staffing agency. Employees must wait to retain their jobs and are not being paid for that time, which they should be.

 

[Jhhnn]

There are always interesting questions when it comes to employee vs employer and when and not to pay. My employer will send people from their homes to a customer site (in the mornings) and start charging the customer from the time that the employee leaves the house. However, he will not start paying the employee until the same amount of time that it takes the employee to normally arrive at the office has elapsed. Doesn't quite seem fair to me (I'm so close to the office that it really doesn't effect me and I'm salary anyway).

Now this question: Does the staffing company get paid for each employee up to the point before security starts or after the employees get through security (I'm assuming that they get cut off at a certain time before the security check).

For the employee's purposes, it doesn't matter what the company is charging the customer. What matters is that they're paid for hours actually worked.

What you describe is unfair to the customer.

 

[werepossum]

Amazon will lose. I remember a case regarding costco employees having to wait at the door after the store was closed because no manager was available to let them out. They lost the case and were forced to pay employees if they have to wait more than a specified time.

Corporate apologists will disagree though.

Some good arguments on both sides, but I suspect this is correct. Seems to me that the employees are on the hook to a reasonable amount for the time required to get through security, but if it takes two minutes per person to go through security and the wait to get to the security check is more than a reasonable amount - maybe three or four minutes - then Amazon is keeping down its costs using its employees' time. In that case, Amazon should be liable for that time, or else pay for enough security that the wait is reasonable. It's the same principle - maybe a manager isn't there at the door exactly when I reach it, but if it's more than a couple minutes' wait then that is unreasonable and the store is using my time to get better utility from its managers. Or in this case, Amazon's contracted security screeners.

The other thing is the bit about being “integral and indispensable” to the principal activities workers are paid to do. In a secured office building, security screening is for everyone in the building and is generally on the way in. In this case, security screening is exclusively for Amazon's operations, some of which are subcontracted. Hard to see how security screening exclusively of Amazon's contract workers exclusively for the benefit of Amazon's operations would not be “integral and indispensable” to those workers' nominal jobs. Clearly the employee is on her own getting home, but getting to a public way ought to entail no great delay on the employee's dime.