SCOTUS says employers don't have to pay for time in security lines

[JustinTime]

http://http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/09/us-usa-court-workers-idUSKBN0JN1P820141209

SCOTUS rules 9-0 in favor of Amazon and against employees who spend up to a half hour a day waiting in security lines at Amazon processing facilities.

What are you opinions?

A lot of people think this is like driving to work, a necessary activity for the job which you do not get paid for, therefore you should not be paid to stand in security lines to be checked.

My opinion is that once you are doing activities the employers demands you do, on the employers property, its work and you should be paid.

[Danke]

They could organize and put that pay into their contract.

[angelatc]

My opinion is that once you are doing activities the employers demands you do, on the employers property, its work and you should be paid.

First, my opinion is that if you think they should be paying you, then go find another job. If you take a job and they tell you that you will be searched after you sign out, then don't take the job if that bothers you. If they change the terms of the job after you already work there, then feel free to find another job.

My other opinion is that worker / employer relations isn't the proper role of the federal government.

And yet another opinion is...9-0. All 9 justices agreed that the law as written did not support the premise. Even the most liberal justices resisted the opportunity to legislate from the bench. Kudos.

[kcchiefs6465]

First, my opinion is that if you think they should be paying you, then go find another job. If you take a job and they tell you that you will be searched after you sign out, then don't take the job if that bothers you. If they change the terms of the job after you already work there, then feel free to find another job.

My other opinion is that worker / employer relations isn't the proper role of the federal government.

And yet another opinion is...9-0. All 9 justices agreed that the law as written did not support the premise. Even the most liberal justices resisted the opportunity to legislate from the bench. Kudos.
If the employer changes the terms of a contract after said contract has been finalized, you are offering that the party who violated the contract should be ignored by the person affected, and that said affected person should simply find another contract that might be upheld?

What am I missing?

[angelatc]

If the employer changes the terms of a contract after said contract has been finalized, you are offering that the party who violated the contract should be ignored by the person affected, and that said affected person should simply find another contract that might be upheld?

What am I missing?


Employment is at will. Unless you're union, there is no contract.

[kcchiefs6465]

Employment is at will. Unless you're union, there is no contract.
If someone says, "You're perfect for the job. I want to hire you," doing X, Y, Z, and, "the pay will be," X, Y, or Z, (benefits, whatever) and the person offered the position feels that said terms are agreeable, is it not a contract?

When you are offered a position and sign that the terms are agreeable, what, precisely, is that? Is it simple semantics on why I don't quite get it or a lack of education? Every job I've held, I've signed what any person would consider as a contract. It would be beneficial for employers to offer contracts as well as for the employee, especially in today's atmosphere. Even in the world of true free trade, I couldn't imagine not contracting employment in some way. "You certify you can do this, that, the other." If at the least for insurance purposes.

Please expound.

[angelatc]

If someone says, "You're perfect for the job. I want to hire you," doing X, Y, Z, and, "the pay will be," X, Y, or Z, (benefits, whatever) and the person offered the position feels that said terms are agreeable, is it not a contract?

When you are offered a position and sign that the terms are agreeable, what, precisely, is that? Is it simple semantics on why I don't quite get it or a lack of education? Every job I've held, I've signed what any person would consider as a contract. It would be beneficial for employers to offer contracts as well as for the employee, especially in today's atmosphere. Even in the world of true free trade, I couldn't imagine not contracting employment in some way. "You certify you can do this, that, the other." If at the least for insurance purposes.

Please expound.


Look at it from the inverse. When the employer says, "You're perfect for the job. I want to hire you to do X,Y and Z...." are you obligated to show up forever at the same rate of if you accept? Well, you actually are because you offer contract labor. But for most of us, we can at any time tell our boss to go choke a goat and walk out the door with no legal repercussions.

We can leave at will. They can dismiss us at will. That's "at will."

[kcchiefs6465]

Look at it from the inverse. When the employer says, "You're perfect for the job. I want to hire you to do X,Y and Z...." are you obligated to show up forever at the same rate of if you accept? Well, you actually are because you offer contract labor. But for most of us, we can at any time tell our boss to go choke a goat and walk out the door with no legal repercussions.

We can leave at will. They can dismiss us at will. That's "at will."
If the contract stipulated a set time for employment, yes, you would be, and yes the employee should have legal repercussions for violating a contract of that nature.

As I am seeing it, it is the employer who is, on whim, sometimes (even often times), offering a position of employment with certain stipulations outlined in what is effectively a contract.

I do think that if someone says they'll do X, Y, or Z, or if they claim they are certified to do X, Y, or Z, that there should be consequences if they either do not do X, Y, or Z, or if they are unable to do the tasks they've contracted that they can do.

Certainly the entire system has been bastardized by and large by government interference, but I'm still failing to envision a contract-less system with regards to employment.

[angelatc]

If the contract stipulated a set time for employment, yes, you would be, and yes the employee should have legal repercussions for violating a contract of that nature..

We have already spent way too much time on this. The employee did not have a contract, therefore it was at will. The end.

[kcchiefs6465]

We have already spent way too much time on this. The employee did not have a contract, therefore it was at will. The end.
Well that's one way to 'win' a debate, I suppose.

We spoke about this topic a little while back, but as I recall, it did not touch upon these specifics (perhaps it did, I truly don't remember every angle of the discussion).

I am more sympathetic to your view than most. I understand you are jaded, and I don't know everything. It just seemed like the discussion could have been fruitful.

In any case, carry on.

[specsaregood]

First, my opinion is that if you think they should be paying you, then go find another job. If you take a job and they tell you that you will be searched after you sign out, then don't take the job if that bothers you. If they change the terms of the job after you already work there, then feel free to find another job.


While I agree with you in spirit, I disagree with the actual situation. If an employee is required to be there on the site and can't leave until they go through security they SHOULD be getting paid for that time. I would think that is what a GOOD employer would do, it is what I would do. I certainly wouldn't work under those conditions unless I had no other choice.

But I agree with the ruling that the government has no right to say they must be paid; but the employee must also be free to leave and not be searched (and employer free to fire them for doing so) otherwise I would think it is unlawful detainment.

[surf]

If an employee is required to be there on the site and can't leave until they go through security they SHOULD be getting paid for that time.I agree with this sentiment, and i'd be surprised if anyone here that has employees wouldn't also. the hope, from my perspective, is that Amazon's practice will bite them in the ass both as an employer and from a bad publicity perspective.

that said, i'm also pleased that the SCOTUS ruled correctly.

[JustinTime]

First, my opinion is that if you think they should be paying you, then go find another job. If you take a job and they tell you that you will be searched after you sign out, then don't take the job if that bothers you. If they change the terms of the job after you already work there, then feel free to find another job.

My other opinion is that worker / employer relations isn't the proper role of the federal government.

And what if the employer is in financial trouble and decides not to pay their employees at all? Do you think employees are just SOL and cant take their employer to court?


And yet another opinion is...9-0. All 9 justices agreed that the law as written did not support the premise. Even the most liberal justices resisted the opportunity to legislate from the bench. Kudos.

It shows our government is run by corporatists.

[JustinTime]

While I agree with you in spirit, I disagree with the actual situation. If an employee is required to be there on the site and can't leave until they go through security they SHOULD be getting paid for that time. I would think that is what a GOOD employer would do, it is what I would do. I certainly wouldn't work under those conditions unless I had no other choice.

But I agree with the ruling that the government has no right to say they must be paid; but the employee must also be free to leave and not be searched (and employer free to fire them for doing so) otherwise I would think it is unlawful detainment.

Its insane your employer can keep you on-site, not allow you to leave, and people think they shouldn't have to pay you.

[roho76]

http://http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/09/us-usa-court-workers-idUSKBN0JN1P820141209

SCOTUS rules 9-0 in favor of Amazon and against employees who spend up to a half hour a day waiting in security lines at Amazon processing facilities.

What are you opinions?

A lot of people think this is like driving to work, a necessary activity for the job which you do not get paid for, therefore you should not be paid to stand in security lines to be checked.

My opinion is that once you are doing activities the employers demands you do, on the employers property, its work and you should be paid.

Doesn't an employer demand you get to work and on time in order to work there? This is the same thing. I'm sure you have to walk across the parking lot to get to the time clock. quite honestly this is a waste of the supreme courts time. What the hell are they doing having an opinion about this one way or another. Don't like get another job and when enough people quit them maybe Amazon will rethink their policy on this.

[specsaregood]

Its insane your employer can keep you on-site, not allow you to leave, and people think they shouldn't have to pay you.

Where does it say that they are not allowed to leave? ie: being detained? As I said, they should be free to leave without going through security, but the employer should be free to fire them for doing so.

[CaptUSA]

Its insane your employer can keep you on-site, not allow you to leave, and people think they shouldn't have to pay you.

They can't. You are free to leave. But then you will not have a job tomorrow.

At will employment, folks!

What if a company relocated 30 minutes away? Some employees may have an extra unpaid hour of travel and extra gas money to keep working there. Others may lose their ability to use public transportation to get to work. Are we really suggesting that the company should be paying their employees for this?!

Companies are free to change employment policies any time they want. If you don't have a contract, employees can decide whether or not they like those policies and make decisions based on the new information.



It shows our government is run by corporatists.
Perhaps. But, sometimes those "corporatists" are the only thing standing between you and absolute tyranny. This is one of those times.

[specsaregood]

the hope, from my perspective, is that Amazon's practice will bite them in the ass both as an employer and from a bad publicity perspective.

Actually from the article, the OP is misleading when he says "SCOTUS rules 9-0 in favor of Amazon and against employees" as from the article:


Amazon, the world's largest online retailer, is not directly involved in the case.

This was actually a lawsuit against a subcontracted organization amazon does business with, not amazon itself.

[JustinTime]

Actually from the article, the OP is misleading when he says "SCOTUS rules 9-0 in favor of Amazon and against employees" as from the article:

This was actually a lawsuit against a subcontracted organization amazon does business with, not amazon itself.

Its Amazon's security routine though.

[JustinTime]

They can't. You are free to leave. But then you will not have a job tomorrow.

At will employment, folks!

Hourly workers are paid for their time. Once you are on their property, doing things they demand you do, the employer is using the employees time and should pay for it.


But, sometimes those "corporatists" are the only thing standing between you and absolute tyranny. This is one of those times.

Nah, they're one in the same.

[CaptUSA]

Hourly workers are paid for their time. Once you are on their property, doing things they demand you do, the employer is using the employees time and should pay for it.

That is a very good business practice to attract the right type of employees. But at-will employees are free to leave if they don't like it. No need to get the government involved.

[CaptUSA]

Nah, they're one in the same.No.

This trend has been permeating these forums lately. Government is not an antidote to corporate "tyranny". In fact, it makes more.

I understand the impulse to not like corporate power, but government does not offset that. Only the market and competition can offset it. Don't like what your employer does? Go work somewhere else. Get a contract. Don't like what a corporation does? Stop buying their stuff. Get others to stop buying it.

But please.... No more regulations! They're killing our freedom!!

[erowe1]

It's between Amazon and their employees. If they agree to terms of employment that don't include compensation for waiting in security lines, then the government has no right to tell them they can't make that agreement.

[erowe1]

Its insane your employer can keep you on-site, not allow you to leave, and people think they shouldn't have to pay you.

Of course they shouldn't have to pay you. Just like you shouldn't have to take the job.

[thoughtomator]

If it's not paid time, it's arguably then unlawful detention.

[specsaregood]

If it's not paid time, it's arguably then unlawful detention.

Only if they restrain you and keep you from leaving. I see no indication of that.

[euphemia]

Not Amazon here, but big facility with security procedures in place. The link is not working for me.

Employees should help themselves by streamlining the process as much as possible. Have keys and key cards in hand, ready to turn in. Carry as little as possible. Be consistent.

Then work with employer to speed up the process. Ask for more security at shift changes to avoid the long lines. It seems simple. Look for solutions.

[Cleaner44]

It is very simple. If the employee doesn't like the conditions that the employer are offering, don't accept the offer and find a different employer.

[angelatc]

And what if the employer is in financial trouble and decides not to pay their employees at all? Do you think employees are just SOL and cant take their employer to court?



It shows our government is run by corporatists.

Coproratists = liberal alert. Oh please please please government - save me from the evil people who want me to work in exchange for compensation.


If your employer decided not to pay you, why would you go to work?


And the real real real irony is that about 60 years ago, the SCOTUS ruled the way you wanted them to. In a case involving the now defunct Mt Clemens Pottery Co, right here in Michigan, they ruled that the law said that waiting for your employer had to be paid according to the law. COngress immediately changed the law.

SO keep believing that everything will be fine once government decides to protect you. I used to be you, but now I believe in less government, all the time.

[jbauer]

I've been an employee and employer. I would not ask one of my employees to stand in a line to be frisked without paying them. As an employer you're "buying" their time and talents. A security line is time.

When I was 16-19 (somewhere in there) the restaurant I worked at started doing mandatory meetings without pay. I was the only person out of 50 or so that called them on their BS. I clocked in. They saw I clocked in. I asked them why they thought they could require my attendance without paying me for my time. They changed their policy.


http://http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/09/us-usa-court-workers-idUSKBN0JN1P820141209

SCOTUS rules 9-0 in favor of Amazon and against employees who spend up to a half hour a day waiting in security lines at Amazon processing facilities.

What are you opinions?

A lot of people think this is like driving to work, a necessary activity for the job which you do not get paid for, therefore you should not be paid to stand in security lines to be checked.

My opinion is that once you are doing activities the employers demands you do, on the employers property, its work and you should be paid.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

After clocking out at the end of the day, they and other employees had to empty their pockets and pass through screening.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/when-do-work-shifts-actually-end-supreme-court-hears-amazon-warehouse-case/2014/10/08/eb14d042-4f1c-11e4-aa5e-7153e466a02d_story.html



Yeah, I'm really going to work for some prick that builds mistrust through an anal probe. :rolleyes:

[jbauer]

Right but travel is on your time. Standing in a line on their site should be on their time.


They can't. You are free to leave. But then you will not have a job tomorrow.

At will employment, folks!

What if a company relocated 30 minutes away? Some employees may have an extra unpaid hour of travel and extra gas money to keep working there. Others may lose their ability to use public transportation to get to work. Are we really suggesting that the company should be paying their employees for this?!

Companies are free to change employment policies any time they want. If you don't have a contract, employees can decide whether or not they like those policies and make decisions based on the new information.


Perhaps. But, sometimes those "corporatists" are the only thing standing between you and absolute tyranny. This is one of those times.

[jbauer]

It is very simple. If the employee doesn't like the conditions that the employer are offering, don't accept the offer and find a different employer.

Thats clearly the answer. But this sets a dangerous precedent. Now what if Amazon decides that time in training doesn't count. Time at "team meetings" doesn't count. Didn't get enough boxes shipped today, stay late. etc etc etc.

[oyarde]

Pretty sad that Amazon does not do the right thing and pay the hourly people and pretty sad that the SCOTUS ends up with this in the first place .

[CaptUSA]

Right but travel is on your time. Standing in a line on their site should be on their time.Why? Because that's what you think? Then don't work there. Others may make a different calculation. You shouldn't use the government to force the company to bend to your whims.

If the employees aren't at their desk working, then it could easily be determined they are not "on site" yet. One barrier is just the same as the next. Whether the location makes the employee spend more time or delays getting into the building makes the employee spend more time, the employee needs to adjust their time to get to work. Since when does simply "being somewhere" mean that the company is obligated to pay you?!

Please, folks... Quit asking for more government involvement in things. If they start losing the most qualified labor, they'll change their policies - no strong arm of the State needed.

[AuH20]

If people didn't steal goods, then they wouldn't need this security procedure. This is another instance in the long line of human weaknesses where the few ruin it for the majority.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Anybody know of others who do this specific thing? Company's policies and procedures obviously run the gamut, but I have never heard of this thing for such a low level operation. I've known people who have worked for defense contractors and other places with items much, much more valuable, but emptying your pockets upon departure is a first. These assholes much think they're special.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

.

When I was 16-19 (somewhere in there) the restaurant I worked at started doing mandatory meetings without pay. I was the only person out of 50 or so that called them on their BS. I clocked in. They saw I clocked in. I asked them why they thought they could require my attendance without paying me for my time. They changed their policy.

Plus rep x1000 on this. Right on.

I think you do what you have to do, but anything like this makes an impact on people. Even if you have a family--never let a mother fucker know you're afraid to lose a job.

[angelatc]

Thats clearly the answer. But this sets a dangerous precedent. Now what if Amazon decides that time in training doesn't count. Time at "team meetings" doesn't count. Didn't get enough boxes shipped today, stay late. etc etc etc.

Did you even bother to read the decision? Based on that remark, I am guessing you did not. The court ruled 9 to 0 that the federal called "The Portal to Portal Act" which specifically exempts employers from paying for pre-work and post-work activities such as picking up gear or waiting to punch in applied in this case.

Do you seriously think you need the government to protect you from your boss?

[angelatc]

Anybody know of others who do this specific thing? Company's policies and procedures obviously run the gamut, but I have never heard of this thing for such a low level operation. I've known people who have worked for defense contractors and other places with items much, much more valuable, but emptying your pockets upon departure is a first. These assholes much think they're special.


Back in the 60's my mother worked for a department store. The employees were checked at the exit.

[angelatc]

Please, folks... Quit asking for more government involvement in things. If they start losing the most qualified labor, they'll change their policies - no strong arm of the State needed.

This!!!

[erowe1]

If it's not paid time, it's arguably then unlawful detention.

No it's not. They are there by choice. They each make the decision for themselves that the compensation for the hours they do get paid is enough for the additional time in the security line. And if they don't think it is, they don't have to keep going to work.

[erowe1]

I've been an employee and employer. I would not ask one of my employees to stand in a line to be frisked without paying them. As an employer you're "buying" their time and talents. A security line is time.

When I was 16-19 (somewhere in there) the restaurant I worked at started doing mandatory meetings without pay. I was the only person out of 50 or so that called them on their BS. I clocked in. They saw I clocked in. I asked them why they thought they could require my attendance without paying me for my time. They changed their policy.

That's great for you. But the important point is that nobody had the right to force them to change their policy by violent coercion. They changed it because it was in their best interest as a means of keeping their employees happy.

The truth is, your total take-home pay was the same as it would have been without their change in that policy. They just kept from giving you as big of a raise so that they could afford to pay you for attending meetings.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Back in the 60's my mother worked for a department store. The employees were checked at the exit.


What store was that? Just wondering. I'm guessing they checked purses?

[JustinTime]

Why? Because that's what you think? Then don't work there. Others may make a different calculation. You shouldn't use the government to force the company to bend to your whims.

Hourly employees are paid for their time, the company is effectively breaking their contract with these employees and this is exactly what courts exist for.


Since when does simply "being somewhere" mean that the company is obligated to pay you?!


Its not, but when "being somewhere" is coupled with "doing what the employer tells us" it equals "you must pay these workers". So, on-site+ standing in a security line Amazon says is necessary= they should be paid. Its not a simple case of "go find another job if you don't like", because these people are being cheated and deserve compensation.

[brandon]

The idea of paying for time doesn't seem right to me to begin with. They should be paying for results.

[JustinTime]

Coproratists = liberal alert. Oh please please please government - save me from the evil people who want me to work in exchange for compensation.

Im not an anarchist, government has its place and its defined by the Constitution, and the courts exist to resolve disputes between citizens.

And understanding that money has bought government action and inaction does not necessarily conflict with libertarian beliefs.


If your employer decided not to pay you, why would you go to work?

Its not as simply as just walking off the job for two reasons.

1) If they did simply stop paying their employees, it might take a few weeks before employees realize paychecks aren't coming, don't they deserve to have what is rightfully theirs? Or would you simply have them work for free during their last pay period?
2) And employer could do what Amazon and its contractor has done here, simply shave a half hour or so off each day, effectively cheating the workers who have agreed to work by the hour.

[presence]

This!!!

I do understand your desire for "less government" but if there one place we're supposed to have government is in contract enforcement.

I see employees that were contracted to be paid an hourly rate. They did as they were asked to do for X numbers of hours...

but were consistantly paid for (X - 0.5).

That seems to me to be a clear violation of hourly wage contract.


Now regarding Portal to Portal of 1947
http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/13-00433qp.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Labor_Standards_Act



In 1946, the United States Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court) ruled in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Mt._Clemens_Pottery_Co.) that preliminary work activities, where controlled by the employer and performed entirely for the employer's benefit, are properly included as working time under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In response, Congress passed an amendment to FLSA narrowing the Supreme Court's decision. The 1947 Portal-to-Portal Act specified exactly what type of time was considered compensable work time.

In general, as long as an employee is engaging in activities that benefit the employer,
regardless of when they are performed, the employer has an obligation to pay

the employee for his or her time. It also specified that travel to and from the workplace was a normal incident of employment and shouldn't be considered paid working time.

The 1947 Act made it clear that after an employee left his work environment and was travelling home... his choice of where to live was not a liability of the employer.


It seems clear to me that time spent in security screenings are benefitting the employer, not the employee attempting to return to his family. There is no choice the employee could make besides quitting that would absolve him from this employment responsibility.


Further, going through a security process on the way in and out is not simply "checking in or out" or "waiting in line" to do so. It is a more in line with "changing clothes" as it involves a degree of cooperation; work on behalf of the employee moreso than simply "punching a time clock"


Regulations Part 785: Hours Worked
http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/WH1312.pdf

Regulation Part 790:
GENERAL STATEMENT AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT OF 1947 ON THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938





General

§ 790.1 — Introductory statement. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/790.1)
§ 790.2 — Interrelationship of the two acts. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/790.2)


Provisions Relating to Certain Activities Engaged in by Employees on or After May 14, 1947

§ 790.3 — Provisions of the statute. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/790.3)
§ 790.4 — Liability of employer; effect of contract, custom, or practice. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/790.4)
§ 790.5 — Effect of Portal-to-Portal Act on determination of hours worked. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/790.5)
§ 790.6 — Periods within the “workday” unaffected. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/790.6)
§ 790.7 — “Preliminary” and “postliminary” activities. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/790.7)
§ 790.8 — “Principal” activities. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/790.8)
§ 790.9 — “Compensable * * * by an express provision of a written or nonwritten contract.” (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/790.9)
§ 790.10 — “Compensable * * * by a custom or practice.” (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/790.10)
§ 790.11 — Contract, custom or practice in effect “at the time of such activity.” (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/790.11)
§ 790.12 — “Portion of the day.” (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/790.12)


Defense of Good Faith Reliance on Administrative Regulations, etc.

§ 790.13 — General nature of defense. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/790.13)
§ 790.14 — “In conformity with.” (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/790.14)
§ 790.15 — “Good faith.” (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/790.15)
§ 790.16 — “In reliance on.” (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/790.16)
§ 790.17 — “Administrative regulation, order, ruling, approval, or interpretation.” (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/790.17)
§ 790.18 — “Administrative practice or enforcement policy.” (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/790.18)
§ 790.19 — “Agency of the United States.” (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/790.19)


Restrictions and Limitations on Employee Suits

§ 790.20 — Right of employees to sue; restrictions on representative actions. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/790.20)
§ 790.21 — Time for bringing employee suits. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/790.21)
§ 790.22 — Discretion of court as to assessment of liquidated damages. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/790.22)







The following “preliminary” or “postliminary” activities are expressly mentioned in the Act: “Walking, riding, or traveling to or from the actual place of performance of the principal activity or activities which (the) employee is employed to perform.” 43


As indicated above, an activity which is a “preliminary” or “postliminary” activity under one set of circumstances may be a principal activity under other conditions. 50 This may be illustrated by the following example: Waiting before the time established for the commencement of work would be regarded as a preliminary activity when the employee voluntarily arrives at his place of employment earlier than he is either required or expected to arrive. Where, however, an employee is required by his employer to report at a particular hour at his workbench or other place where he performs his principal activity, if the employee is there at that hour ready and willing to work but for some reason beyond his control there is no work for him to perform until some time has elapsed, waiting for work would be an integral part of the employee's principal activities. 51


The difference in the two situations is that in the second the employee was

engaged to wait

while in the first the employee waited to be engaged. 52


These employees were "engaged to wait" for security before they could leave the premisis; therefore their employer should be liable for compensation.

[angelatc]

The point that the court made was that this wasn't an integral part of their job. If they had to warm forklifts up, but could not enter the building until the doors went up, they would have to be paid for the time they were waiting, because using the forklift is part of their job. Or as in your example above, "Where, however, an employee is required by his employer to report at a particular hour at his workbench or other place where he performs his principal activity, if the employee is there at that hour ready and willing to work but for some reason beyond his control there is no work for him to perform until some time has elapsed, waiting for work would be an integral part of the employee's principal activities."

They do not perform their principal activities in the exit area. That's not my interpretation, that's what ALL 9 justices said.


Section 4 of the 1947 Act required that the determination of whether time spent in preliminary or postliminary activities was "work" under the FLSA was to be based solely on contract, custom, or practice. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Mt._Clemens_Pottery_Co.) There is no employment contract to be breached. The employment is "at will." Therefore, we are left with custom and practice. It was and is not customary to pay the employees for this screening.


All the liberals on the court would probably agree with you. But they managed to refrain from legislating from the bench, and ruled according to what the law says, ignoring all the coulda/shoulda/woulda stuff. It was probably as hard for them as it is for us.


As for yout post, quitting if you don't like it works for me.


And I know this is hard to grok, but I am not actually saying I agree with the law. I don't think the FEDERAL government has any business in this at all. But since they can't stop themselves, they are involved.


Since you obviously missed the case I cited here's a link to the WIki discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Mt._Clemens_Pottery_Co.:



Employees were given 14 minutes between each shift to punch the time clock, walk to their respective workbench and prepare for work. It took a minimum of eight minutes for all the employees to get by the time clock. The estimated walking time for employees ranged from 30 seconds to three minutes, but some workers needed as many as eight minutes to reach their workbenches. Upon arriving at their workbench, employees were required to put on aprons or overalls, removed shirts, tape or grease arms, put on finger cots, prepare equipment, turn on switches, open windows, and/or assemble or sharpen tools. Such preparatory activities consumed three to four minutes.
Working time was calculated by the employer based on the time cards punched by the clocks. The employer deducted walking and preparatory time from the time cards based on the punched time and assumptions about how long prep work and walking would take on average.



That SCOTUS agreed that the law said those people should be paid for that time. So Congress immediately rewrote the law to ensure the employers did not have to pay them for that time. That's the Portal to Portal act.


Present day SCOTUS ruled that the law hasn't changed, and that the employers still do not need to pay them for those activities. You can wring your hands and philosophize all you want about the unfairness of it all, but the ruling was correct: the law has not changed. If you want a different outcome, go lobby Congress and get the law changed.


The decision was 9-0. So far, I have not seen a single person with a law degree moaning that the court got this one wrong.

[presence]

There is no contract. The employment is "at will."

Amazon employees don't have an hourly wage contract? I missed that. Can you cite?




Since you obviously missed the case I cited here's a link to the WIki discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Mt._Clemens_Pottery_Co.:


I'm aware of the case. Time spent on an employeers clock "punching in" and "walking to the bench" post "punching in" in the morning is NOT covered. I get that.



Present day SCOTUS ruled that the law hasn't changed, and that the employers still do not need to pay them for those activities. You can wring your hands and philosophize all you want about the unfairness of it all, but the ruling was correct: the law has not changed. If you want a different outcome, go lobby Congress and get the law changed.

I don't believe their interpretation was correct.

It seems clear to me that the employees were "engaged to wait" for security clearance to leave while given nothing productive to do. This malproductive time wasn't voluntary, it was compulsary. It wasn't the employee's fault that there was nothing productive to do during this time, it was the employers demand for time ill spent. When an employer engages an employee he is liable for hourly wages contracted.

[angelatc]

I do understand your desire for "less government" but if there one place we're supposed to have government is in contract enforcement.


I must have missed that in the constitution.

[angelatc]

I missed that can you cite? They are not union, therefore they are at will. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment)





I'm aware of the case. Time spent on an employeers clock "walking to the bench" in the morning is NOT covered. I get that.



I don't believe their interpretation was correct.

Do you have a law degree? Me either, but they all do. All 9 of them.


It seems clear to me that the employees were "engaged to wait" for security clearance to leave while given nothing productive to do. This malproductive time wasn't voluntary, it was compulsary. It wasn't the employee's fault that there was nothing productive to do during this time, it was the employers decision to have them wait.

Over and over and over...the law doesn't say anything about being engaged to wait except in the context of performing functions that are integral to the job. Perhaps you're conflating "integral to their job" with "integral to staying employed?" Even though it may be a condition of employment, standing in that line has nothing to do with the actual job, which is pulling items off of a shelf and putting them in boxes.

All 9 justices agree.

[acesfull]

No.

This trend has been permeating these forums lately. Government is not an antidote to corporate "tyranny". In fact, it makes more.

I understand the impulse to not like corporate power, but government does not offset that. Only the market and competition can offset it. Don't like what your employer does? Go work somewhere else. Get a contract. Don't like what a corporation does? Stop buying their stuff. Get others to stop buying it.

But please.... No more regulations! They're killing our freedom!!

Great post... ++++++++++++++++++1111111

[presence]

I must have missed that in the constitution.


Government Should Enforce Contracts, Not Undermine Them

-Ron Paul



Government should enforce rule of law. It should enforce contracts, it should protect people bodily from being attacked by criminals. And when the government does those things, it is facilitating liberty. When it goes beyond those things, it becomes destructive to both human happiness and human liberty.


Grover Norquist


..

[acesfull]

An employee can stand in line after their shift without compensation from their employer as part of their employment agreement or they can wait in line at the unemployment office.... Their choice.

CCJ

[angelatc]

..

Neither of those quotes seems to point me to the constitution.

Perhaps you're conflating federal government with state and local government. The constitution does explicitly not give the federal government the power to legislate a national labor policy, therefore it is the responsibility of the states. If Vermont wants to mandate that employers pay their employees drive time, then Vermont can do that. They shouldn't, but they have the right.

And again, there is no contract. The employment is at will.

[presence]

They are not union, therefore they are at will. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment)
[QUOTE]

ok... but that really applies to whether or not some can be summarily fired. Not whether or not they are due their hourly earnings.




[QUOTE]Over and over and over...the law doesn't say anything about being engaged to wait except in the context of performing functions that are integral to the job.

Did you miss my quote above?


Where, however, an employee is required by his employer
to report at a particular hour at his workbench or other place where he performs his principal activity,
if the employee is there at that hour ready and willing to work
but for some reason beyond his control
there is no work for him to perform until some time has elapsed,
waiting for work would be an integral part of the employee's principal activities. ..

[angelatc]

They are not union, therefore they are at will. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment)


ok... but that really applies to whether or not some can be summarily fired. Not whether or not they are due their hourly earnings.

But "at will" also means that the employee is able to leave at any time with no repercussions. When unions contract, they guarantee the employer that their workers will show up and work. If they don't, then they're in breach. In this case, there is no agreement other than "We will pay you for the work you did today. It is not custom to be paid for standing in that line, and therefore you are not being paid for it. If you do not like it, you are free not to come to work the next day. "



Did you miss my quote above?

..

No, but I think you're missing their point. The workbench is an integral component of production. The security line has nothing to do with production.

Integral is not a synonym of mandatory.

[presence]

No, but I think you're missing their point. The workbench is an integral component of production. The security line has nothing to do with production.

Integral is not a synonym of mandatory.

It reads to me:


Where, however, an employee is required by his employer

[to wait,]

waiting for work would be an integral

I don't understand how mandatory waiting is not intergral.


Integral
adjective

1. of, relating to, or belonging as a part of the whole; constituent or component: integral parts.

2. necessary to the completeness of the whole: This point is integral to his plan.


If you want this job you have to sit here and wait at the end of every day for 30 mintues.

Seems "part of the whole"

[angelatc]

It reads to me:
Where, however, an employee is required by his employer

[to wait,]

waiting for work would be an integral



I don't understand how mandatory waiting is not intergral.


Integral
adjective

1. of, relating to, or belonging as a part of the whole; constituent or component: integral parts.


Of the actual work. If you do not understand how waiting in a security line has nothing to do with production, then I don't know what else to say. They were not waiting for work. They were not in need of anything (tools, materials, instructions) that would allow them to pack the boxes.




If you want this job you have to sit here and wait at the end of every day for 30 mintues.

Seems "part of the whole"

Waiting in the line to be searched has nothing to do with putting trinkets in boxes. It is an activity that happens only after the actual production ("work") has ceased.

[acesfull]

The security personal are being productive in protecting their employer from employee thief, thereby possibly keep costs down and passing profits onto stock holders and possibly pay raises for the employees that submit to standing in a security line after their shift... Seems like a no brainer.

Acesfull

[presence]

Waiting in the line to be searched has nothing to do with putting trinkets in boxes. It is an activity that happens only after the actual production ("work") has ceased.

By that logic an employer could mandate a 30 minute unpaid lap dance after you're done putting trinkets in boxes for 8 hours.

Its not related to production.

[Christian Liberty]

While I agree with you in spirit, I disagree with the actual situation. If an employee is required to be there on the site and can't leave until they go through security they SHOULD be getting paid for that time. I would think that is what a GOOD employer would do, it is what I would do. I certainly wouldn't work under those conditions unless I had no other choice.

But I agree with the ruling that the government has no right to say they must be paid; but the employee must also be free to leave and not be searched (and employer free to fire them for doing so) otherwise I would think it is unlawful detainment.


I've been an employee and employer. I would not ask one of my employees to stand in a line to be frisked without paying them. As an employer you're "buying" their time and talents. A security line is time.

When I was 16-19 (somewhere in there) the restaurant I worked at started doing mandatory meetings without pay. I was the only person out of 50 or so that called them on their BS. I clocked in. They saw I clocked in. I asked them why they thought they could require my attendance without paying me for my time. They changed their policy.

This is acceptable. Asking the government to force a company to change its terms would not be.

I'm not sure what the issue here is, beyond personal preferences. I agree with you, for what its worth. Doesn't mean there should be a law about it.

[Christian Liberty]

By that logic an employer could mandate a 30 minute unpaid lap dance after you're done putting trinkets in boxes for 8 hours.

Its not related to production.

And a virtuous population would never consider taking such jobs.

I've gotten even more cynical and jaded than in the past, but really, that's the solution to all of these problems. People who will seek out other options rather than be bullied. Of course, its not fair currently because government puts all kinds of rules and regulations that make it hard to start your own business.

[presence]

its not fair currently because government puts all kinds of rules and regulations that make it hard to start your own business.

This isn't related to rules and regulations placed on businesses its simple contract law.

You said you'd pay me X dollars an hour. I worked 8.5 hours performing all duties as instructed.

Don't pay me for 8, else I sue.


Just because my employer gave me something unproductive to do the last half hour I was there doing as I was instructed doesn't mean he isn't liable for my time spent engaged at his command.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Any employer can ripped off. Any employer can be cleaned out when called for.

[erowe1]

This isn't related to rules and regulations placed on businesses its simple contract law.


Right. Employers and employees should be able to enter contracts that allow for unpaid mandatory meetings. It seems that some people want the government to intervene and tell us we can't make contracts like that.

[presence]

I'm not sure I understand how "production" equates to "work".

One's assigned duties are their "work". Whether or not that work is productive is really irrelevant to the employee. The productivity of an assigned task is the employers issue.

If an employer assigns me to dig a ditch and then fill it back it... just because filling it in was not productive to "ditch digging" doesn't mean I shouldn't get paid for it.

Boss man said jump.

I jumped.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XGAmPRxV48

[PRB]

http://http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/09/us-usa-court-workers-idUSKBN0JN1P820141209

SCOTUS rules 9-0 in favor of Amazon and against employees who spend up to a half hour a day waiting in security lines at Amazon processing facilities.

What are you opinions?

A lot of people think this is like driving to work, a necessary activity for the job which you do not get paid for, therefore you should not be paid to stand in security lines to be checked.

My opinion is that once you are doing activities the employers demands you do, on the employers property, its work and you should be paid.

I agree with SCOTUS, it's part of the cost of working there, you can take it or leave it.

[PRB]

My opinion is that once you are doing activities the employers demands you do, on the employers property, its work and you should be paid.

Your assumption is that your work time is only during the time you have passed security check and/or what they pay is every penny you're worth. Sorry, reality doesn't work that way and math isn't always so simple. But what IS simple, is your right to quit.

Saying "You are paid $8 an hour for 8 hours a day, but you have to drive 1 hr, take a 1 hour lunch break, and wait in security for 30 minutes"
Is the same as saying "I'll pay you $64 for 10.5 hours a day, only 8 of which you'll actually be under surviellance and producing work"

This almost only becomes an issue when you're talking about wage minimums. Paying you $8 an hour for 20 hours a day is the same as paying $20 an hour for 8 hours a day, you can refuse to take either job.

[PRB]

By that logic an employer could mandate a 30 minute unpaid lap dance after you're done putting trinkets in boxes for 8 hours.

Its not related to production.

Yes, an employer should be allowed to demand anything of its employees, and employees can always quit.

Production and profits is usually the only thing companies care about, but they're not mandated to care, they can make stupid demands all they want.

[PRB]

Right. Employers and employees should be able to enter contracts that allow for unpaid mandatory meetings. It seems that some people want the government to intervene and tell us we can't make contracts like that.

yeah, sounds like we have some liberals here who think they're entitled to using government to rip off employers against their will, rather than use their market, talent, skill and bargaining power themselves.

the same people who thinks women should be paid equally or bosses shouldn't be allowed to ask for sexual favors or facebook passwords. this country used to respect private property, now somehow employees think employers aren't people anymore. Thank God Hobby Lobby saved some of their rights.

[PRB]

This isn't related to rules and regulations placed on businesses its simple contract law.

You said you'd pay me X dollars an hour. I worked 8.5 hours performing all duties as instructed.

Don't pay me for 8, else I sue.


Just because my employer gave me something unproductive to do the last half hour I was there doing as I was instructed doesn't mean he isn't liable for my time spent engaged at his command.

or he can fire you for being unproductive if somebody can complete the same work in 8 hours or less. your choice, see who needs who.

[BamaAla]

Amazon workers should organize.

[satchelmcqueen]

i think the company needs to pay for this line standing time. they are the ones demanding it, so they should pay.

[PRB]

i think the company needs to pay for this line standing time. they are the ones demanding it, so they should pay.

you assume that's not already factored into their pay.

Let's say normal work hours is 8 hours, and an additional 1 hr for security.

Does saying I'll pay $9 for 8 hours vs $8 for 9 hours really matter? At the end of the payday, employee knows how much he is paid in total, he can take it or leave it.

[angelatc]

Just because my employer gave me something unproductive to do the last half hour I was there doing as I was instructed doesn't mean he isn't liable for my time spent engaged at his command.

Uhm, I think we have established that the law disagrees with you. Which leaves you with 2 options. You can petition lawmakers to change the law, and then use the guns of the government to force your employer to do things your way, or you can tell your employer to piss off and go find another job with a firm that doesn't employ such dehumanizing and Draconian measures.

The method you choose says a lot about you.

[angelatc]

Amazon workers should organize.


Except that they were not Amazon employees, you would have a point. (And I am not being sarcastic. This is exactly the kind of stuff that gave unions their foothold.)

[angelatc]

I'm not sure I understand how "production" equates to "work".

One's assigned duties are their "work". Whether or not that work is productive is really irrelevant to the employee. The productivity of an assigned task is the employers issue.

If an employer assigns me to dig a ditch and then fill it back it... just because filling it in was not productive to "ditch digging" doesn't mean I shouldn't get paid for it.

Boss man said jump.

I jumped.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XGAmPRxV48


I like how you do not see the irony of using a mafia clip to make a point about forcing your will onto others.


One's assigned duties are their "work". Whether or not that work is productive is really irrelevant to the employee. The productivity of an assigned task is the employers issue.


All that might be true from a philosophical standpoint. But according to the law as written and has been interpreted by the courts over the past 100 years, it is not true. You are going to have to find a way to learn to live with that.

[specsaregood]

This is exactly the kind of stuff that gave unions their foothold.
That was my first thought when learning of this case. They are just asking for it; in the long run it could very well have been less expensive for them to just pay the time through the security checkout.

[PRB]

Uhm, I think we have established that the law disagrees with you. Which leaves you with 2 options. You can petition lawmakers to change the law, and then use the guns of the government to force your employer to do things your way, or you can tell your employer to piss off and go find another job with a firm that doesn't employ such dehumanizing and Draconian measures.

The method you choose says a lot about you.

Here come the excuses of "Why I can't just go find another job" Somebody's going to blame the gubmint for that too.

[PRB]

I like how you do not see the irony of using a mafia clip to make a point about forcing your will onto others.


OMFG, don't you Fing get it? It's not force when THEY do it.



All that might be true from a philosophical standpoint. But according to the law as written and has been interpreted by the courts over the past 100 years, it is not true. You are going to have to find a way to learn to live with that.

I'm not sure there's actual disagreement aside from semantics.

The employer tells you to do whatever, as long as it's not illegal or criminal, you can take it or leave it. End of story, productivitiy and profits is his problem to figure out, employer just has to pay what he promises.

[PRB]

That was my first thought when learning of this case. They are just asking for it; in the long run it could very well have been less expensive for them to just pay the time through the security checkout.

But even unions have very limited power if the workers are replaceable.

Imagine if the employer said "I won't pay you for the security time, but I'll give you a 20% raise" would that satisfy the workers? Mathematically it should, be on paper and by name, it sounds like they're still owed for time spent.

[angelatc]

Here come the excuses of "Why I can't just go find another job" Somebody's going to blame the gubmint for that too.

Because we are entitled to our jobz. Unless someone who is an illegal immigrant will do them cheaper, or something.

[angelatc]

But even unions have very limited power if the workers are replaceable.

.

Which is probably one reason why using temp firms is attractive to Amazon.

[PRB]

Because we are entitled to our jobz. Unless someone who is an illegal immigrant will do them cheaper, or something.

even then, they'll be afraid to say what they really want to say "I am more entitled than them!" kinda racist. Luckily, robots are on the way, you can be racist against robots all you want, nobody cares.

[PRB]

Which is probably one reason why using temp firms is attractive to Amazon.

there's an idea! Why don't temp firms unionize?!

[Christian Liberty]

This isn't related to rules and regulations placed on businesses its simple contract law.

You said you'd pay me X dollars an hour. I worked 8.5 hours performing all duties as instructed.

Don't pay me for 8, else I sue.


Just because my employer gave me something unproductive to do the last half hour I was there doing as I was instructed doesn't mean he isn't liable for my time spent engaged at his command.

Yes, unless the terms of the contract say I can make you stand in a security line for a half hour without pay. If not, I agree with you...

[DevilsAdvocate]

As long as the employer states that standing in a long security line is part of the routine of the job, what's the problem? Perhaps if the employer wanted to attract new employees by offering pay for time standing in line (giving himself a major incentive to make security as quick and efficient as possible), then they could do so. Why is this a supreme court issue? Since when does the US Constitution mandate what an employee must be paid for?

[PRB]

Yes, unless the terms of the contract say I can make you stand in a security line for a half hour without pay. If not, I agree with you...

the contract says your work can change any time and you can quit any time too.

[PRB]

As long as the employer states that standing in a long security line is part of the routine of the job, what's the problem? Perhaps if the employer wanted to attract new employees by offering pay for time standing in line (giving himself a major incentive to make security as quick and efficient as possible), then they could do so. Why is this a supreme court issue? Since when does the US Constitution mandate what an employee must be paid for?

it's a SCOTUS issue as long as it's been appealed enough times and courts don't dismiss it outright.

US Constitution didn't say the government is allowed to set age of consent either, just so we're clear of how important the Constitution is and somebody needs to be reminded that pedophiles are humans too.

[CaptainAmerica]

Just walk out since they aren't paid, are they being detained? If no, then walk away after clock out.