Net Neutrality

[Speaker to Animals]

Libertarianism, everybody.

[The Conservative]

You and millions other needs to do it, not just an individual... that is how the market works.

Yet If a corporation is poisoning a river in Kentucky that supplies 20,000 households no one in the other 49 states (or the rest of Kentucky) cares. Market forces will never be sufficient to save the families drinking the poisoned water.

Therefore we look beyond simple market forces when protecting the commons or ensuring that human rights are respected.

Pretty obvious, eh?

Should be, at least.

So trust the government right? You tell me about the biggest issue with Flint, MI... and tell me how that played out?

The last time I checked, the open market works... don't buy their shit, in mass and it will either go out of business or change the way things happen.

[DBTrek]

So trust the government right?

Says the guy petitioning the government to regulate his video game butthurts.
Develop some self awareness you clown.

[K@th]

So trust the government right?

Says the guy petitioning the government to regulate his video game butthurts.
Develop some self awareness you clown.

Lack of self awareness is one of the symptoms of Aspberger's. The other symptom is they have no awareness of their lack of self-awareness. They think they are very self-aware. It's maddening and the cause of many dinner-time fights.

[Fife]

Anyway, in what way is the opinion inconsistent with the Portal-to-Portal Act and what Congress intended in its words in Act?

Because 30 minutes daily is not incidental. Because it is directly related to the business's profit.

The firm's profit is entirely unrelated to the contract between the firm and the employee (unless the contract provides otherwise); but the main point is that the Portal-to-Portal Act is ENTIRELY unrelated to the firm's profits.

Let's just go the contextual way. Here's that evil, nasty woman, and corporate whore Justice Sotomayor, spitting out her dumb anarchist filth. You guys show me where she goes off the rails. Should be like shooting fish in a barrel for you all.

I concur in the Court’s opinion, and write separately only to explain my understanding of the standards the Court applies.

The Court reaches two critical conclusions. First, the Court confirms that compensable “‘principal’” activities “‘includ[e] . . . those closely related activities which are indispensable to [a principal activity’s] performance,’” ante, at 6 (quoting 29 CFR §790.8(c)(2013)), and holds that the required security screenings here were not “integral and indispensable” to another principal activity the employees were employed to perform, ante, at 7. I agree. As both Department of Labor regulations and our precedent make clear, an activity is “indispensable” to another, principal activity only when an employee could not dispense with it without impairing his ability to perform the principal activity safely and effectively. Thus, although a battery plant worker might, for example, perform his principal activities without donning proper protective gear, he could not do so safely, see Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U. S. 247, 250–253 (1956); likewise, a butcher might be able to cut meat without having sharpened his knives, but he could not do so effectively, see Mitchell v. King Packing Co., 350 U. S. 260, 262–263 (1956); accord, 29 CFR §790.8(c). Here, by contrast, the security screenings were not “integral and indispensable” to the employees’ other principal activities in this sense. The screenings may, as the Ninth Circuit observed below, have been in some way related to the work that the employees performed in the warehouse, see 713 F. 3d 525, 531 (2013), but the employees could skip the screenings altogether without the safety or effectiveness of their principal activities being substantially impaired, see ante, at 7.

Second, the Court holds also that the screenings were not themselves “‘principal . . . activities’” the employees were “‘employed to perform.’” Ibid. (quoting 29 U. S. C. §254(a)(1)). On this point, I understand the Court’s analysis to turn on its conclusion that undergoing security screenings was not itself work of consequence that the employees performed for their employer. See ante, at 7. Again, I agree. As the statute’s use of the words “preliminary” and “postliminary” suggests, §254(a)(2), and as our precedents make clear, the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 is primarily concerned with defining the beginning and end of the workday. See IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U. S. 21, 34–37 (2005). It distinguishes between activities that are essentially part of the ingress and egress process, on the one hand, and activities that constitute the actual “work of consequence performed for an employer,” on the other hand. 29 CFR §790.8(a); see also ibid. (clarifying that a principal activity need not predominate over other activities, and that an employee could be employed to perform multiple principal activities). The security screenings at issue here fall on the “preliminary . . . or postliminary” side of this line. 29 U. S. C. §254(a)(2). The searches were part of the process by which the employees egressed their place of work, akin to checking in and out and waiting in line to do so—activities that Congress clearly deemed to be preliminary or postlimininary. See S. Rep. No. 48, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 47 (1947); 29 CFR §790.7(g). Indeed, as the Court observes, the Department of Labor reached the very same conclusion regarding similar security screenings shortly after the Portal-to-Portal Act was adopted, see ante, at 7–8, and we owe deference to that determination, see Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U. S. 576, 587 (2000).

Because I understand the Court’s opinion to be consistent with the foregoing, I join it.

Amazon offers a job, at their location, with their screening measures. Nothing hidden or tricky about that, as far as I can tell. If I'm wrong about that, tell me.

Hamilton is free to quit his job at Captain Hook and throw away his uniform and take the Amazon job for the stated wage at the state location, .... or not. Amazon doesn't have to pay him extra for whatever his commute time is, or for his bus fare, or for his gas. The compensation Brad decides to accept, if he does, has to cover for him, as an individual, making an individual choice, if the wage is enough to pay him for his time getting to and from (and out of) work. If Amazon tricks him or cheats him on that deal, sue their balls off and make them a pariah in the marketplace. It's a free country, on paper.

[SuburbanFarmer]

@Fife - You're assuming an environment in which consumers have access to information about the corporate fuckery that's happening.

Also, you're assuming that there is an alternative corporation, exhibiting less fuckery.

Both are untrue. Consumers are deliberately kept in the dark on all sorts of things. See: Ag-gag laws.

[nmoore63]

The company determined it principal when it required the task to be done to the tune of 30 minutes per day.

They hire those people to move packages. The anti theft line is directly related to package moving.

[The Conservative]

So trust the government right?

Says the guy petitioning the government to regulate his video game butthurts.
Develop some self awareness you clown.

There is a difference between what I was petitioning (and it seemed I didn't need to since the government is looking into it anyway), and what you guys are pissing and moaning about.

Mine was about gambling, your is about getting unearned pay.

[The Conservative]

The company determined it principal when it required the task to be done to the tune of 30 minutes per day.

They hire those people to move packages. The anti theft line is directly related to package moving.

Actually, the anti-theft line is so packages don't move.

[Fife]

@Fife - You're assuming an environment in which consumers have access to information about the corporate fuckery that's happening.

Also, you're assuming that there is an alternative corporation, exhibiting less fuckery.

Both are untrue. Consumers are deliberately kept in the dark on all sorts of things. See: Ag-gag laws.

I'm assuming nothing. Let's repeal all the ag-gag laws. Let's repeal and crash every structure allowing corporations to operate in secret.

Oh, BTW, what is the source again of all those structures, e.g., ag-gag laws? Oh yeah, the state. Every. Fucking. Time.