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

[werepossum]

Man, I would have lost money on that one. lol

 

[Mai72]

If it's in their contract that they are required to wait in line so they can be searched before going home I can't see how Amazon can lose.

Now, if it's not in their contract then the workers may win. Expect this to be in future contracts.

 

[dmcowen674]

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.

 

[PokerGuy]

The fact that it was a unanimous ruling shows that it really wasn't all that controversial.

It's basically something you have to take into account when you accept the job. Either that, or the workers have to bargain for it up front.

 

[crashtech]

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, all the employees have to do is say, "I dispense of this security check" and walk out, because it's not an intrinsic element of the job. No problem, except for the fact that people have no pride, and will bow their heads and comply.

 

[Blanky]

Makes complete sense. The employer isn't hiring people to undergo screenings, they are hiring them to get packages mailed etc. Thus, the screening process is not part of the actual job.

It's bullshit. If the job can literally not be done without the screening (and it can't; Amazon won't tolerate that), it is part of the job. Do hospitals hire surgeons for surgery? Yes, but they also pay for training on the side--because it's an essential part of the job. Same with any field. Do sales people get paid to sell things? Yes, but if they have to drive around town to do it they get paid by the company for expenses, and time is an expense.

If people don't want to stand in line for 30 minutes (unpaid) to undergo screening, they don't have to take that job, that's part of their evaluation of the job/compensation etc.

That works for people like ME because I don't get paid overtime, but a job that is hourly must pay people for time spend hourly. Otherwise, what's the point of overtime laws for hourly employees?

BTW, I patronize Amazon heavily, but this is bullshit and the only reason these people stand around so long is because nobody can be bothered to hire more screeners.

The fact that it was a unanimous ruling shows that it really wasn't all that controversial.

True. And I assume it's also quite legally sound, though given this I wonder why the earlier court found as they did. But legal and moral are not always the same.

So, all the employees have to do is say, "I dispense of this security check" and walk out, because it's not an intrinsic element of the job. No problem, except for the fact that people have no pride, and will bow their heads and comply.

Exactly. They try that, they are fired. Why? Because it's an indispensable, intrinsic element of the job. Try doing that job without it. Good luck. Try working at the US mint without a security check, have fun not being employed. Try working in a job driving $3M around in armored trucks and say you're not going to partake in the security screening to ensure you're not stealing.

 

[HomerJS]

“an intrinsic element” of the job

Does this mean its required to perform the job? The fact employees do this when leaving dispels that notion.

 

[BoomerD]

For years, I was required to drive to a central location, then get on a company bus to be transported to the work location. We were NOT paid for the bus ride...I'd have LOVED to be paid for that ride...sometimes as much as an hour each way...but that's not the way the labor laws work in some states. IIRC, in CA, the company would have been required to pay us since we were under the employer's direct control, but that's not the case in many states.

 

[justoh]

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.

Exactly. Or replace going through security with going to the movies. The employees should be paying Amazon imo.

 

[Pulsar]

^ OT trolling your own thread?

Yeah. He's intentionally trolling and doing a bad job of it. But it's mcretard. What did you expect?

 

[dmcowen674]

Exactly. Or replace going through security with going to the movies. The employees should be paying Amazon imo.

So how long is OK, already a half hour exceptable.

An hour a day

2 hours a day

3 hours a day

They didn't put a limit on it so could hold the employee for all other time outside of the work shift.

Sounds like a sci-fi movie but now can be possible.

 

[justoh]

So how long is OK, already a half hour exceptable.

An hour a day

2 hours a day

3 hours a day

They didn't put a limit on it so could hold the employee for all other time outside of the work shift.

Sounds like a sci-fi movie but now can be possible.

35 minutes?

 

[ivwshane]

Wow, this is some bullshit!

I haven't had a chance to read the ruling but does anyone have a summary of their argument? What was the deciscion?

 

[PokerGuy]

So, all the employees have to do is say, "I dispense of this security check" and walk out, because it's not an intrinsic element of the job.

Nope. Just because something is needed to do the job doesn't mean it is an intrinsic element of the job. For example, I might need a diploma or certification to do a certain job, but that doesn't mean getting the diploma or certification is an intrinsic part of the job. It's a requirement, but not part of the job itself. According to the law, the employee should be compensated for the time spent on something if the activity is an intrinsic element of the job, not if it's a requirement to do the job.

It's bullsh*t. If the job can literally not be done without the screening (and it can't; Amazon won't tolerate that), it is part of the job.

Nope, see my example above. Just because something is needed to do the job does not mean it's an intrinsic part of the job.

Do sales people get paid to sell things? Yes, but if they have to drive around town to do it they get paid by the company for expenses, and time is an expense.

By your logic, the company would have to pay for the sales person to stand in line to get a drivers license, since they need that to be able to do their job. The courts have said that's not the case (in this case, as well as others).

Otherwise, what's the point of overtime laws for hourly employees?

They get paid for doing the job, not for doing something (like screening) that might be needed for them to do the job. The two are not the same. An intrinsic element of the job is part of what you are being paid to accomplish. Other requirements that might be needed for you to do that are not "intrinsic elements" of the job, they are requirements. Different things.

They try that, they are fired. Why? Because it's an indispensable, intrinsic element of the job. Try doing that job without it.

No, something being required to do the job is not the same as something being an "intrinsic element" of the job. Take a peek at what the courts have found an "intrinsic element of the job" to be.

Good luck. Try working at the US mint without a security check, have fun not being employed. Try working in a job driving $3M around in armored trucks and say you're not going to partake in the security screening to ensure you're not stealing.

I don't think the employer in your examples would pay for your time to go through screening etc either. This is really no different.

 

[crashtech]

Nope. Just because something is needed to do the job doesn't mean it is an intrinsic element of the job. For example, I might need a diploma or certification to do a certain job, but that doesn't mean getting the diploma or certification is an intrinsic part of the job. It's a requirement, but not part of the job itself. According to the law, the employee should be compensated for the time spent on something if the activity is an intrinsic element of the job, not if it's a requirement to do the job.

If so, there ought be no limit on how long each day a consenting employee may be detained every day. So the companies that employ this practice need only hire just enough security personnel that they can finish screening their charges without going into overtime. So the optimal wait time for the last employee in line in a very large company would be eight hours, and it would be perfectly legal under the current system.

 

[xBiffx]

As predicted.

Thanks for the update PokerGuy.

 

[PokerGuy]

If so, there ought be no limit on how long each day a consenting employee may be detained every day. So the companies that employ this practice need only hire just enough security personnel that they can finish screening their charges without going into overtime. So the optimal wait time for the last employee in line in a very large company would be eight hours, and it would be perfectly legal under the current system.

Yes, and you would be free to say... "no thank you, I don't want to take that job", and seek one elsewhere.

That's the gist of the ruling. It's no different than any other job. If you take a job that's a 2 hour drive away, you have to decide if you are OK with a 4 hour commute each day. The employer is not going to pay you for it, you have to determine if that's good or not, given the compensation offered.

 

[simpletron]

Wow, this is some bullshit!

I haven't had a chance to read the ruling but does anyone have a summary of their argument? What was the deciscion?

here is the full opinion
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-433_5h26.pdf

The summary of the the argument is the screening isn't "integral and indispensable" because the employees could skip the screenings altogether without the safety or effectiveness of their principal activities(picking/packaging) being substantially impaired. The screening falls under the postliminary activities of Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 aka as "egress and travel home time", which isn't required to be compensated time.

 

[werepossum]

If so, there ought be no limit on how long each day a consenting employee may be detained every day. So the companies that employ this practice need only hire just enough security personnel that they can finish screening their charges without going into overtime. So the optimal wait time for the last employee in line in a very large company would be eight hours, and it would be perfectly legal under the current system.

Hard to object to that. Personally I'd say that if a procedure is outside the employee's control and has to be done every day as a necessary condition of employment, it is an intrinsic part of the job.

I have no problem with the employee spending his time getting to and from the job site, but in this case the employee is 100% in the control of her employer and/or its agents, literally not allowed to leave.

Much as I disagree, I can't argue that the decision is wrong. No way all nine justices get the law wrong.

 

[Blanky]

Nope, see my example above. Just because something is needed to do the job does not mean it's an intrinsic part of the job.

That is quite literally, exactly what it means. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intrinsic

If the job cannot be performed without something, that something is essential to the job. As far as Amazon has defined this job, it cannot be performed without this screening, thus it is an intrinsic aspect of the job.

The logic you seem to be implying is that anything not directly related to the final work product of a task is not intrinsic and thus deserves no pay. With this I could argue that HR departments shouldn't be paid; a manufacturer of televisions makes money only by selling televisions. That is what they are paid for by a distributor. That distributor doesn't pay the television manufacturer's HR department. However, without that HR department the television manufacturer cannot function, and thus the distributors pay does end up paying for HR indirectly.

By your logic, the company would have to pay for the sales person to stand in line to get a drivers license, since they need that to be able to do their job. The courts have said that's not the case (in this case, as well as others).

And if that drivers' license only supported the employment and was unique to it and nothing else I would argue this--and the company would probably pay it. Case in point: see professional licenses. Many are paid for by their companies.

They get paid for doing the job, not for doing something (like screening) that might be needed for them to do the job. The two are not the same. An intrinsic element of the job is part of what you are being paid to accomplish. Other requirements that might be needed for you to do that are not "intrinsic elements" of the job, they are requirements. Different things.

Legally yes. I still completely do not understand the functional difference. If you cannot do a part of a job without a given component, that component is part of the job. Obviously many agree with me, including the first court, so it's not like I'm just completely retarded.

The summary of the the argument is the screening isn't "integral and indispensable" because the employees could skip the screenings altogether without the safety or effectiveness of their principal activities(picking/packaging) being substantially impaired.

But it's completely wrong. They cannot do that because they won't be hired. They will be fired. Does the employee know better than the employer what is necessary for the job? Amazon has clearly decreed that the job cannot exist without screening, and so it is an essential part of working in that capacity.

Much as I disagree, I can't argue that the decision is wrong. No way all nine justices get the law wrong.

"We do not deal with justice here, but with the law!"

 

[werepossum]

That is quite literally, exactly what it means. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intrinsic

If the job cannot be performed without something, that something is essential to the job. As far as Amazon has defined this job, it cannot be performed without this screening, thus it is an intrinsic aspect of the job.

The logic you seem to be implying is that anything not directly related to the final work product of a task is not intrinsic and thus deserves no pay. With this I could argue that HR departments shouldn't be paid; a manufacturer of televisions makes money only by selling televisions. That is what they are paid for by a distributor. That distributor doesn't pay the television manufacturer's HR department. However, without that HR department the television manufacturer cannot function, and thus the distributors pay does end up paying for HR indirectly.And if that drivers' license only supported the employment and was unique to it and nothing else I would argue this--and the company would probably pay it. Case in point: see professional licenses. Many are paid for by their companies.Legally yes. I still completely do not understand the functional difference. If you cannot do a part of a job without a given component, that component is part of the job. Obviously many agree with me, including the first court, so it's not like I'm just completely retarded.But it's completely wrong. They cannot do that because they won't be hired. They will be fired. Does the employee know better than the employer what is necessary for the job? Amazon has clearly decreed that the job cannot exist without screening, and so it is an essential part of working in that capacity.

"We do not deal with justice here, but with the law!"

This is exactly what I wish of my Supreme Court - to interpret the law, not dictate "justice". I'm just surprised by the outcome.

 

[rudeguy]

Meh...

I have to walk 20 feet from my parking spot to my door, should I get paid for that? People seriously need to quit complaining.

 

[Subyman]

It is how the labor laws are written. The supreme court got it right based on the law, not "cosmically correct." The people should move to change the law to include those things.

 

[Subyman]

Meh...

I have to walk 20 feet from my parking spot to my door, should I get paid for that? People seriously need to quit complaining.

IMO, that shouldn't be paid for because it is part of normal travel to work. Being required to wait through a security check point is a mandatory part of the work place procedure and should be paid for. The law, however, does not agree with this as written. People should move to change the law to include anything that is controlled and mandatory by the company.

 

[Rebel_L]

That is quite literally, exactly what it means. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intrinsic

If the job cannot be performed without something, that something is essential to the job. As far as Amazon has defined this job, it cannot be performed without this screening, thus it is an intrinsic aspect of the job.

The logic you seem to be implying is that anything not directly related to the final work product of a task is not intrinsic and thus deserves no pay. With this I could argue that HR departments shouldn't be paid; a manufacturer of televisions makes money only by selling televisions. That is what they are paid for by a distributor. That distributor doesn't pay the television manufacturer's HR department. However, without that HR department the television manufacturer cannot function, and thus the distributors pay does end up paying for HR indirectly.And if that drivers' license only supported the employment and was unique to it and nothing else I would argue this--and the company would probably pay it. Case in point: see professional licenses. Many are paid for by their companies.Legally yes. I still completely do not understand the functional difference. If you cannot do a part of a job without a given component, that component is part of the job. Obviously many agree with me, including the first court, so it's not like I'm just completely retarded.But it's completely wrong. They cannot do that because they won't be hired. They will be fired. Does the employee know better than the employer what is necessary for the job? Amazon has clearly decreed that the job cannot exist without screening, and so it is an essential part of working in that capacity."We do not deal with justice here, but with the law!"

I need to eat and sleep to stay healthy enough to come into work, should an employer pay for that too? There has to be limits to what intrinsic to the job means, especially in a legal discussion.

They HR departments job is not to sell TV's but to manage human resources, hence they get paid for that task.

I do like what another person pointed out in reference to the California law that says when you are under employer control they pay, otherwise they don't, that is about the fairest way I can think of. There is still some grey area there, but at least not as much.