THE ERA OF TRUMP

[Speaker to Animals]

If Amazon wants employees to stand in a room for an hour or even longer, then Amazon can pay them for their time.

[DBTrek]

If an employer imposes an artificial transit time of 30 mins to and from work, employees should be free to call bullshit and find work elsewhere.

And they are.

Every employee who found similar compensation with another employer jumped ship, I imagine. So shall we shut down the less savory employer and eradicate the jobs with the employer imposed transit time, or let those who accept the less enviable employment keep their jobs?

[Speaker to Animals]

Employer is not responsible for commute. When hourly workers show up, and they perform tasks for the employer, then should be on the clock.

[Fife]

"your" changed to "their"

Anyway, if I'm an engineer and my boss says I have to take out the garbage for half an hour at the end of the day, I want to get paid for both activities regardless of whether my employer thinks it is my "principle activity". If Amazon doesn't like paying people to stand in lines, then stop telling them to come to work to stand in lines.

If you look back at my "blog post," my assumption is that Amazon offers work at a set rate of pay per hour at a specific facility. I further assume that there are (at least somewhat) defined job duties for given positions. I further assume that there are certain metrics available to employees to achieve bonuses or promotion points, or whatever. I further assume that Amazon discloses before an employment contract is finalized that there are screening procedures in place at the end of shifts for loss prevention. I further assume that Amazon put the screening procedures in place with full knowledge of the requirements and rules of the FLSA and the Portal-to-Portal Act. I know that the SCOTUS ultimately agreed with Amazon's position in that regard, by a 9-0 vote. I make all these assumptions from the details in the SCOTUS opinion and the reporting regarding the case.

If any of those assumptions are incorrect, I'm more than willing to be be shown in the record where I'm mistaken.

As I said before, given those assumptions, an employee can chose if the total compensation offered is sufficient to cover his time and expenses in getting into and out of work, leaving him enough income to make the job offer a deal he wants to take. I don't think its a stretch to say that this precise calculation is made by every single reasonable job applicant every single day in the US, regarding every single job prospect he has available.

As I also said, if Amazon hides or conceals any of these assumptions, then I'd say sue them right out of their bubble wrap like there's no tomorrow. I didn't see that in the facts, either. What I see is a sleazy class action plaintiffs' law firm looking for yet another rent-seeking venture, which if successful would create an amazing level of economic externalities, such that a shit-load of these employees would suddenly be shown yet again that the actual minimum wage in America is $0.00. All the while the white knight class action shyster would be sliding $20 or $30M of Amazon's shareholders' cash into his silk pocketed suit.

Anyway, as to you: if you are an engineer, are you working by the hour or in a salaried position. Either way, who on Earth would oppose your position that you should be compensated for work done for your employer, whether that's hauling out some trash or doing some engineering?

Do you somehow see the SCOTUS case in question as legally authorizing your employer to command you to haul out trash for free when it would otherwise be against your contract? Honest question: Is that something you are picking up somehow?

[DBTrek]

Employer is not responsible for commute. When hourly workers show up, and they perform tasks for the employer, then should be on the clock.

Entering and leaving the facility is part of the commute.
That’s what the SCOTUS portal-to-portal shit Fife posted said. So, it sounds like we’re all in agreement. Whether you’re commuting down jam-packed I-5 or commuting through the slow ass Amazon security gate, until you reach your workplace and “perform tasks for the employer” you’re off the clock.

Shit, that was easy.

What’s next on the daily argument agenda?

[Speaker to Animals]

Employer is not responsible for commute. When hourly workers show up, and they perform tasks for the employer, then should be on the clock.

Entering and leaving the facility is part of the commute.
That’s what the SCOTUS portal-to-portal shit Fife posted said. So, it sounds like we’re all in agreement. Whether you’re commuting down jam-packed I-5 or the slow ass Amazon security gate, until you reach your workplace and “perform tasks for the employer” you’re off the clock.

Shot, that was easy.

What’s next on the daily argument agenda?

Not the definition of commute for any rational person. Commute is over when you walk through the door.

[doc_loliday]

"your" changed to "their"

Anyway, if I'm an engineer and my boss says I have to take out the garbage for half an hour at the end of the day, I want to get paid for both activities regardless of whether my employer thinks it is my "principle activity". If Amazon doesn't like paying people to stand in lines, then stop telling them to come to work to stand in lines.

If you look back at my "blog post," my assumption is that Amazon offers work at a set rate of pay per hour at a specific facility. I further assume that there are (at least somewhat) defined job duties for given positions. I further assume that there are certain metrics available to employees to achieve bonuses or promotion points, or whatever. I further assume that Amazon discloses before an employment contract is finalized that there are screening procedures in place at the end of shifts for loss prevention. I further assume that Amazon put the screening procedures in place with full knowledge of the requirements and rules of the FLSA and the Portal-to-Portal Act. I know that the SCOTUS ultimately agreed with Amazon's position in that regard, by a 9-0 vote. I make all these assumptions from the details in the SCOTUS opinion and the reporting regarding the case.

If any of those assumptions are incorrect, I'm more than willing to be be shown in the record where I'm mistaken.

As I said before, given those assumptions, an employee can chose if the total compensation offered is sufficient to cover his time and expenses in getting into and out of work, leaving him enough income to make the job offer a deal he wants to take. I don't think its a stretch to say that this precise calculation is made by every single reasonable job applicant every single day in the US, regarding every single job prospect he has available.

As I also said, if Amazon hides or conceals any of these assumptions, then I'd say sue them right out of their bubble wrap like there's no tomorrow. I didn't see that in the facts, either. What I see is a sleazy class action plaintiffs' law firm looking for yet another rent-seeking venture, which if successful would create an amazing level of economic externalities, such that a shit-load of these employees would suddenly be shown yet again that the actual minimum wage in America is $0.00. All the while the white knight class action shyster would be sliding $20 or $30M of Amazon's shareholders' cash into his silk pocketed suit.

Anyway, as to you: if you are an engineer, are you working by the hour or in a salaried position. Either way, who on Earth would oppose your position that you should be compensated for work done for your employer, whether that's hauling out some trash or doing some engineering?

Do you somehow see the SCOTUS case in question as legally authorizing your employer to command you to haul out trash for free when it would otherwise be against your contract? Honest question: Is that something you are picking up somehow?

None of your assumptions seem to get at what I'm saying. But your comment on my engineer example did, so I'll address that. If the engineer in question is salaried, then no it doesn't matter. But if he is hourly, then it should. I don't agree that just because taking out the trash isn't part of the "primary activity", then he shouldn't be compensated. This is a direct analogy to the amazon worker standing in a line at the end of his shift. Moreover, I don't agree with the idea that just because they are upfront in the hiring process, stating they won't be paid for standing in lines is a good enough reason to not pay them for their time.

[Fife]

None of your assumptions seem to get at what I'm saying. But your comment on my engineer example did, so I'll address that. If the engineer in question is salaried, then no it doesn't matter. But if he is hourly, then it should. I don't agree that just because taking out the trash isn't part of the "primary activity", then he shouldn't be compensated. This is a direct analogy to the amazon worker standing in a line at the end of his shift. Moreover, I don't agree with the idea that just because they are upfront in the hiring process, stating they won't be paid for standing in lines is a good enough reason to not pay them for their time.

None of them, eh?

As to the engineer example, are you talking about an engineering firm requiring an hourly employee to haul off company trash after he's clocked out? For free?

AFAIK, nobody has suggested such nonsense. And the Amazon case has nothing to do with that fact set. Now if Amazon was requiring an employee to haul off some trash or run some company business for free after leaving the building, then fuck that. Everybody says fuck that.

I should also make an effort to be clear about something else: The case was governed by a federal statute. AFAIK, that statute is still in effect today. That statute was specifically enacted to take employers off the hook for time spent getting to and from work, and in clearing security. This isn't some goofball idea dreamed up by Bezos; its not some harebrained judge-made "legislating from the bench." It's a simple, straightforward act of Congress from the New Deal era. If we don't like the outcome from the law, all that is needed is another simple, straightforward act of Congress to erase it.

So, if this law pisses you off (and I'm not saying it shouldn't), don't blame Bezos (or an untold number of other employers) or the SCOTUS. Blame Congress; specifically FDR's Congress.

[doc_loliday]

Am I not understanding what is being asked of them? Aren't they required to wait in line for a security check? If that's true, how is it different from my hourly paid engineer example? They are both being asked to perform a task after their primary activities are finished. Also, I'm not suggesting the Bezos is some monster that dreamed this up, but they should still pay their employees. And since you suggested that I'm not wrong to be upset, then I think you and I are on the same page.

[DBTrek]

They’re done producing for their employer. They aren’t even taking trash out or performing some menial task after they clock out.
They’re just commuting home.
First stop, Amazon security checkpoint.