Poll: US Supreme Court Side with Amazon in Security Screening Case

[Hairless Mammoth]

So, I just read a news story that once again makes me really hate how 9 old farts who are unelected[footnote]Not that being elected would change much, in today's lobbyist and corporate funded campaign world.[/footnote] have so much power. (In fact, I got into a shouting match with my monitor as I read some of these stories.) Read a few of these links [https://www.google.com/search?q=supreme+court+ruling+on+amazon+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8] to see why.

Basically SCoTUS (reading that as something else right now) has ruled against Amazon warehouse workers who have to wait in line at end of each day to be screened for pocketing goods for sale. They do not get paid for this, and many say the waits can be nearly a half hour long. The court, looking back on older cases/laws, claimed that this was not a part of their job duties and should not be compensated for, and if Amazon stopped the screenings, it would not affect the job these employees were hired to do.

The problem is courts decades ago have ruled that battery-plant workers get paid for time spent showering and changing clothes to rid themselves of toxic chemicals, and meatpackers get paid for the time it takes to sharpen their knives. Amazon and it's temp service, Integrity Staffing Solutions, obviously aren't going to drop these activities and will probably (read: definitely) fire any employee that refuses to screen. There is also the conflicting case (actually a Department of Labor letter from 1951) on rocket propellant factory workers that says they don't have to been compensated for time waiting to be checked for matches/lighters.

Amazon also says the waits are usually around 90 seconds. Several comments in the stories from that link say that is a half truth, if not an outright lie. Sure the guys in the front get through in no time. But, anyone who didn't get there first, especially for the holiday rush were more workers are hired, is waiting for a hundred other to go through, hence the 30 minute claim and the lawsuit

My opinion of this is it's dirty and the Supreme Court is once again proven to be out of touch with the general public (and modern times). An employee could choose to buy/rent the residence closest to his/her place of work and the fastest method of transport to get there. But (s)he will always be stopped by this gate. Walking from the closest parking spot you can find to lockers/luchroom, then to the time clock is one thing. But, when the company puts this block (which really only benefits them) in one's way and denies paying a couple bucks each day, that's just wrong. I'm sure when they set up this system, the existing employees were giving the choice either in words, or at least implied, that they accept it or find a new job. (Good luck with the latter in that case.) It's understandable a place like a nuclear power plant has good security and a company should be able to protect it's property. But, tacking on unpaid time to a worker's day seems a little more on the "Money, Money, Money!!!" side of things.

This ruling can't bode well for the average worker in many places. I can see many retail chains, warehouses and even non-retail places doing this. Small stores shouldn't matter, but big buildings will. My only hope is that state laws are passed banning this sort of corporate behavior. (Many states have at least starting banning stupidly discriminatory things like demanding you surrender your Facebook account info on job applications or throwing out your application if you don't write down social media info. That's at least a start.)

So what does everyone here think? Is this a perfectly acceptable thing? Or is it a way for Amazon to save some of the chump change they're investing in the checkpoints themselves? Is anyone here a worker (Amazon or not) who has to go through these kinds of checkpoints? Honestly, if someone organizes a boycott, I'd participate in it.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I'll add my two cents on this.

My friend works at Best Buy. After he punches out and is ready to go home, he has to show his bag to the manager at the door. It takes like two seconds and then he's out the door. No harm done. Same thing with Amazon. If it only takes a few seconds to clear them, then there's no reason to be paid. It's like checking out with security when you leave the building.

However, if the person is stuck there for more than five minutes, then yeah, I think they should be paid. Especially if the time is reaching the half hour mark. That's not right. Either Amazon needs to step up and streamline the process better, or start paying their employees for their time--all of their time.
At my job, after the store closes, there were times when the manager would not come up to let us out until half an hour after we punched out. We were trapped, waiting at the door, for the manager to take two minutes (max) to walk up to the door to let us out. So, we started staying punched in until they came up. There were a few times we were yelled at and we just said, "Then let us out when it's time." After that, they made sure that we were let out within five minutes of us punching out. Amazon needs to do the same thing. A company that large can easily find a way to make this better.

 

[Recusant]

So, I just read a news story that once again makes me really hate how 9 old farts who are unelected[footnote]Not that being elected would change much, in today's lobbyist and corporate funded campaign world.[/footnote] have so much power. (In fact, I got into a shouting match with my monitor as I read some of these stories.) Read a few of these links [https://www.google.com/search?q=supreme+court+ruling+on+amazon+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8] to see why.

This particular portion of the US legal system ultimately traces its origins back to the ancient pre-Israelite Hebrew one; thus the endless focus on 'interpretations'. A reasonable course of action when you're dealing with the ineffable will of a distant deity who doesn't give full explanations, but not when you're dealing with fellow humans; I remember an instance, some time ago, when a case went to the Supreme court very rapidly (I unfortunately don't recall either when it was or what the law in question was), to the point where the authors of the bill, as well as nearly everyone who had voted on it, was still in office- and Congress was in session. I found myself shouting at the television "Stop it! Don't waste time arguing over what the framers meant; get up off your lazy butts, walk over to the Capitol building, and just ask them!". Needless to say, they didn't.

My friend works at Best Buy. After he punches out and is ready to go home, he has to show his bag to the manager at the door. It takes like two seconds and then he's out the door. No harm done. Same thing with Amazon. If it only takes a few seconds to clear them, then there's no reason to be paid. It's like checking out with security when you leave the building.

If it only takes a few seconds, there's no reason not to pay them for it. If anything, it'd encourage the employer to clear them faster.

Years ago, I worked at UPS as a package handler, and I was always surprised that the guard shacks everyone passed through had metal detectors on the exit side- but only on the exit side. I could've walked in with a machine gun, mowed down all my co-workers, and so long as I left the gun behind, management apparently would've had no problem with it. The idea, of course, was to prevent employees from stealing anything valuable; while the (relatively) staggered leaving times prevented the lines from ever being too long, the resentment lead to contests between co-workers of 'who can steal the most non-metal stuff'. I didn't participate, but I remember thinking how horribly counterproductive it all seemed.

 

[DRTJR]

The Supreme court not being elected is their best part, their job is to determine what is and is not constitutional. That's it. We here state side are a country of Negative liberties, meaning our government says we can't for example decapitate our boss to claim his position. They determined there was no legal president that favored the workers here but there was that favored the business, and other time "society will be right" in their opinion towards. Their job is not to be loved their job is to ensure that we follow our own constitution.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

This particular portion of the US legal system ultimately traces its origins back to the ancient pre-Israelite Hebrew one; thus the endless focus on 'interpretations'.

We all know how well vaguely worded laws can be interpreted either way, to the benefit of the ones in power. Many laws have been vague enough to let the creators get away with whatever they wanted to do, before it reached a court or was overturned be the next few sessions of Congres/state General Assembly.

That even slightly bit Thomas Jefferson in the butt when he wanted to buy the Louisiana Purchase. His political philosophy was a strict interpretation of the law. The problem was that the Constitution never mentioned anything about the president buying land from a foreign power. He was called a hypocrite for a while because of that.

At my job, after the store closes, there were times when the manager would not come up to let us out until half an hour after we punched out. We were trapped, waiting at the door, for the manager to take two minutes (max) to walk up to the door to let us out. So, we started staying punched in until they came up. There were a few times we were yelled at and we just said, "Then let us out when it's time." After that, they made sure that we were let out within five minutes of us punching out. Amazon needs to do the same thing. A company that large can easily find a way to make this better.

That's exactly what you should have done. I don't know if the workers at Amazon can organize something similar on a massive scale, to make sure they can't be fired and replaced easily, but I'd love to see them do that if the company continues being jerks.

When I worked at AMC, the managers would sit in the office chit-chatting with themselves or on the phone all day. The radio was always calling for them, for customers usually. It took forever for them to get downstairs, when there was a real possibility of a meek high school girl getting the stare-down from some irate customer who wouldn't even let her take care of the line behind the jerk. I am glad they never checked my laptop, to see if I uploaded a movie to it to take home and put on the net (they then would have to be cracked anyway). I had nothing to hide, but I would not wait for their lazy and incompetent selves to ooze down the stairs without me being on the clock.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

The Supreme court not being elected is their best part, their job is to determine what is and is not constitutional. That's it. We here state side are a country of Negative liberties, meaning our government says we can't for example decapitate our boss to claim his position. They determined there was no legal president that favored the workers here but there was that favored the business, and other time "society will be right" in their opinion towards. Their job is not to be loved their job is to ensure that we follow our own constitution.

While that is a necessary duty, it was not it the constitution itself. They gave themselves that power for the Marbury vs. Madsion case, and the other branches accepted it as the final cycle in the system of checks and balances. They basically interpreted that concept into existence, since there was no written rule to follow either way in the case. It should have been the the US Constitution from the beginning, with practical limits, or made an amendment.

And, I can't say them not being elected is a good thing. They are a roughly one third of the highest power in the country. They may be a court that reviews cases, but they also can shift the very laws that come out of Congress, if a trial is brought to them involving said laws. Even that much power should have more limits.

Well, sure that's the theory, but in real life the supreme court is stacked with idealogues who further the agenda of whatever party nominated them to the bench. Currently the Conservatives are in the lead with respect to that. One only needs to look at Citizens United to realize that the Constitution is not the most important consideration in Supreme Court decisions.

Exactly, and to add to that, their terms are life-long. Only if they die, are ruled too sick to perform their duties or retire, can a new Justice be appointed. So, according to Wikipedia, we have to live with each one an average of just under 17 years. That would not be so bad, but as this and a few other recent cases have turned out, it shows that they are more interested in basing their interpretation on laws and cases that are possibly out of date by decades or give more power to the next generations of elected officials, judges, or corporate money sources (either taxes or campaign dollars) rather the relate to the common worker.

You can probably luck out and get them to read a letter you wrote, but there is no way to vote them out. (And the guy we vote for who appoints them is basically a choice between 2 people put in place by powerful groups that are full of rich people trying to get richer and keep their power. And the popular vote isn't even the true vote for the President of the US. The founding fathers put in the Electoral College to keep the most powerful position in the country from being directly selected by the people. That, along with the closed primary elections, means we have even less of a choice in who is deciding what is and isn't constitutional.)

I'd love to see their reaction to their paychecks getting cut by 5 or more percent and making them wait 30 minutes to leave the Supreme Court Building.

 

[Something Amyss]

Either they need more screening areas or they need to pay their employees for this. I don't really care which, but if they're waiting as long as they claim, they deserve compensation.

 

[spartan231490]

So, you completely missed the point of the supreme court. The supreme court is not a legislative body. It was not put there to change things to fit public opinion. It was put there to uphold the law AS IT IS. If you don't like this ruling, write your legislators and ask them to change the law. SCOTUS did its job, but feel free to ***** about it not also doing Congress' job, that makes perfect sense.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

So, you completely missed the point of the supreme court. The supreme court is not a legislative body. It was not put there to change things to fit public opinion. It was put there to uphold the law AS IT IS. If you don't like this ruling, write your legislators and ask them to change the law. SCOTUS did its job, but feel free to ***** about it not also doing Congress' job, that makes perfect sense.

This. The disconnect of people's misconceptions about the various powers of each branch of the US Government is astounding. I swear I want to headdesk until I've lost about 20% of my brain functions every time I have to tell people that the President doesn't make laws, the Supreme Court doesn't make laws, only Congress makes laws and any other branch overstepping that boundary is patently unconstitutional. The most the Supreme Court can do with law is compare it to the baselines of the Constitution and rule whether said law is valid or not along those lines, or refine a law along constitutional lines (Rowe V. Wade). But they can't rewrite the law nor can they set new laws into effect.
Congress is where laws are made folks, and they also should be the people you get pissed at over something not getting done. Likewise they should be the people you credit when something you like is written into law. The President is just a glorified stamp of public approval, and not responsible for, nor empowered to write laws.

EDIT: Forgot to add in my 2 cents. I don't get paid for driving to and from work every day, but that costs me money and time. I do think they should stagger the shifts or hire a few more people to handle the security checks so it doesn't inconvenience people but there are small sacrifices everyone has to make in any job. Also it does suck but one has to really blame those dishonest former (and sometimes current) employees who steal from the job that made this an inconvenient situation and not the company for protecting their bottom line.

 

[chimeracreator]

Unlike every other branch of government the Supreme Court has to write a full justification for their decisions, which is publicly available for all of the world to see, and the quality of their decision affects if future justices will render it moot in the years to come. I haven't had a chance to fully go through this decision, which is only fourteen pages and can be found here http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-433_5h26.pdf, but I did find the logic they used in the syllabus questionable, but given that it was a unanimous decision and hinged on the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 I am relatively certain that their legal interpretation is sound.

That said, while the justices legal interpretation might be sound that does not mean that the law in question is logical and should not be amended. It isn't the job of the Supreme Court to rewrite badly written laws, it's the job of the court to interpret the laws in regard to existing precedent and the Constitution. I do still think the law should be changed, but it isn't up to the courts to do it.