Net Neutrality

[K@th]

You are too, especially in since you want to give people money for doing no work.

You are comparing standing in line at Starbucks (not required by the employer) to doing an employer required activity. Dolt.

No, I'm not. Security is security, you want a paycheck you deal with an iota of inconvenience. Sorry, there is no sympathy here... I dealt with this before 9/11 at UPS, and it took twice as long after... and we didn't get paid for it.

So what makes these snowflakes' time more important than mine?

Because of this law, there is literally nothing preventing Amazon from providing one screener who is available starting at 6:00 p.m. Workers who get off at 3:00 p.m. are required to wait in a holding area until the screener arrives. Once screener arrives, employees spent hours in the line because hundreds of them have been waiting for hours for the screener to show up.

That's what you are championing.

If Amazon is required to pay for the employee's time, they will do everything in their power to ensure the employees get out in a matter of seconds.

[The Conservative]

You are comparing standing in line at Starbucks (not required by the employer) to doing an employer required activity. Dolt.

No, I'm not. Security is security, you want a paycheck you deal with an iota of inconvenience. Sorry, there is no sympathy here... I dealt with this before 9/11 at UPS, and it took twice as long after... and we didn't get paid for it.

So what makes these snowflakes' time more important than mine?

Because of this law, there is literally nothing preventing Amazon from providing one screener who is available starting at 6:00 p.m. Workers who get off at 3:00 p.m. are required to wait in a holding area until the screener arrives. Once screener arrives, employees spent hours in the line because hundreds of them have been waiting for hours for the screener to show up.

That's what you are championing.

If Amazon is required to pay for the employee's time, they will do everything in their power to ensure the employees get out in a matter of seconds.

Wow, you really don't understand business if you are championing that...

[Speaker to Animals]

She's opposing what amounts to theft of a person's labor and time (otherwise known as slavery).

Amazon is morally obliged to compensate people for their time from the moment they show up for work until they leave. Take time off for breaks, but you can't take hours from people for free.

[The Conservative]

She's opposing what amounts to theft of a person's labor and time (otherwise known as slavery).

Amazon is morally obliged to compensate people for their time from the moment they show up for work until they leave. Take time off for breaks, but you can't take hours from people for free.

So after they clock out and head to the security checkpoint, and to their cars after the fact, should they be paid for that?

So, in other words, I should be paid until I reach my car and drive home right?

[K@th]

So after they clock out and head to the security checkpoint, and to their cars after the fact, should they be paid for that?

So, in other words, I should be paid until I reach my car and drive home right?

It's about incentives. If employee is getting paid to walk to his car, he has every incentive to stop, smell some roses, have a cigarette, chat with people. No, not paid. He won't have the best interest of the employer in mind. "Sorry boss, I had to stop at the grocery store on the way home. It was busy. I waited in line for an hour. I didn't get home until three hours after my shift ended. Pay up." Errrr... no.

Or

"Since I'm not paying you to get out of here, I need you to wait over there for three hours while we find someone to do your body cavity search."

Either way, the employee is spending three hours of his free time after work. In scenario A, he's doing something HE wants to do. In Scenario B, he's doing something his boss requires him to do.

[The Conservative]

So after they clock out and head to the security checkpoint, and to their cars after the fact, should they be paid for that?

So, in other words, I should be paid until I reach my car and drive home right?

It's about incentives. If employee is getting paid to walk to his car, he has every incentive to stop, smell some roses, have a cigarette, chat with people. No, not paid. He won't have the best interest of the employer in mind. "Sorry boss, I had to stop at the grocery store on the way home. It was busy. I waited in line for an hour. I didn't get home until three hours after my shift ended. Pay up." Errrr... no.

Or

"Since I'm not paying you to get out of here, I need you to wait over there for three hours while we find someone to do your body cavity search."

Either way, the employee is spending three hours of his free time after work. In scenario A, he's doing something HE wants to do. In Scenario B, he's doing something his boss requires him to do.

Well, the SCOTUS disagrees with you.

[K@th]

Well, the SCOTUS disagrees with you.

They do. This is the same body that said eminent domain can be used to take your house if they find a Tastee Freeze to be more profitable to the community and decided it's okay for government to require citizens to purchase things from for-profit corporations. So, there's that.

[The Conservative]

Well, the SCOTUS disagrees with you.

They do. This is the same body that said eminent domain can be used to take your house if they find a Tastee Freeze to be more profitable to the community and decided it's okay for government to require citizens to purchase things from for-profit corporations. So, there's that.

Hey, what is it that you guys tell me, SCOTUS is as high as you can go? Complaining is useless? So why do so if the law has been decided?

Seems to me you are crying over spilt milk...

[nmoore63]

We need to vanquish this merchant mentality from the right.

This equating the right with anything that helps business is part of why the Marxists are so powerful now, and the republicans had lost their way in the 20th century.

I wouldn’t worry too hard. With the current death throws of the duopoly it shouldn’t be too much longer before the bigoted conservatives and the inclusive conservatives have separate houses to live in.

[nmoore63]

Well, the SCOTUS disagrees with you.

They do. This is the same body that said eminent domain can be used to take your house if they find a Tastee Freeze to be more profitable to the community and decided it's okay for government to require citizens to purchase things from for-profit corporations. So, there's that.

Bazinga.