The Supreme Court Says Unanimously Your Boss Can Make You Work For Free

Thanks for all the different responses.....it's interesting to get a pulse on what you all think about this decision. I think I'm from the camp that feels, as another member said so well, "That this is not a Good work model".....It truly concerns me on every level when people believe ANYTHING goes in the name of business, profits and keeping their jobs.

I certainly think that if searching people before they can leave work, drug screening people, running background and credit checks is SO Important on employees doing the most "unskilled" jobs ..it should be an absolute requirement for the people who make policy for others......it's the double standard that offends me.

a reply to: MountainLaurel

Searches before leaving work is not limited to unskilled labor. Background checks, drug screening and other things are also not for unskilled labor only.

All this ruling says is that waiting in line for the search is not considered work.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: MountainLaurel

Searches before leaving work is not limited to unskilled labor. Background checks, drug screening and other things are also not for unskilled labor only.

All this ruling says is that waiting in line for the search is not considered work.

The ruling is wrong.
They wouldn't be IN line if they weren't 'employed' by amazon...so it is work related, and the imposte should be payed by the employer, not the employee...

Consider that amazon 'employs' approx 88,400 people @ 90 seconds per day (waiting in line Av. according to amazon themselves) - that's 88.000 hrs p/year (conserv) they would have to pay...instead of installing a wizzbang modern security system consistent with modern inventory systems...that's a hell of a saving to perpetuate the "We can't find good temp workers myth"...but then they are saving filthy lucre, and the ruling only justifies their poor work policy.

amazons first port of call should have been dedicated security cameras (which is legal, if people know they are there and are made aware of them)...instead, employees wait in line after they have ended a shift (of course they're not 'working') - but they wouldn't be waiting in line if they weren't 'employed' by amazon - so they aren't randoms off the street - I'm sure the insurance, registration, petrol paid on the company vehicles driven by upper management is not paid by upper management - but as part of a package that is paid by the company - some of these fully paid-for vehicles are driven home, into fast-food drivethrus...know what I mean?

Lazy business...imagine the amount of money they would lose if employees began work 90 seconds late as a protest for just one week...after all, it's only 90 seconds...mass layoffs guaranteed...even though they haven't 'started' work...

The ruling perpetuates a double standard, that folk are rightfully miffed at - being treated like thieves, no-hopers from the outset - and somehow should be thankful for the employment and the privelege to wait in line and pay for a search because the most intelligent solution amazon execs (on premium pay) could come up with in the 21st century is a search line...brilliant use of company money paying for the geniuses who would have the gall to even defend a position like this...

A99

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: MountainLaurel

Searches before leaving work is not limited to unskilled labor. Background checks, drug screening and other things are also not for unskilled labor only.

All this ruling says is that waiting in line for the search is not considered work.

The ruling is wrong.
They wouldn't be IN line if they weren't 'employed' by amazon...so it is work related, and the imposte should be payed by the employer, not the employee...

I would not pay for gas if I was not employed, or drive to work. Can I claim my drive time "work"?

What about if it takes me a long time to get out of the parking lot in my car, is that "work"?

Work related does not automatically entitle you to money, actual work does.

Either way my response was to someone claiming this could be used to not pay for actual work, it can not.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: MountainLaurel

Searches before leaving work is not limited to unskilled labor. Background checks, drug screening and other things are also not for unskilled labor only.

All this ruling says is that waiting in line for the search is not considered work.

The ruling is wrong.
They wouldn't be IN line if they weren't 'employed' by amazon...so it is work related, and the imposte should be payed by the employer, not the employee...

I would not pay for gas if I was not employed, or drive to work. Can I claim my drive time "work"?

What about if it takes me a long time to get out of the parking lot in my car, is that "work"?

Work related does not automatically entitle you to money, actual work does.

Either way my response was to someone claiming this could be used to not pay for actual work, it can not.

If you are Exec material...who the damn cares...ha ha...put anything on your driving log book, they won't be stopping you at the front gate to inspect it...will they?...and if they did that every night after your shift - you'd jack up too...no-one is stopping anyone getting out of the car park except other employees - so that's kinda dumb...

'Work related doesn't automatically entitle you to money'...except if you drive a company car - in which case you are in a position to claim it under a package...These people are smart enough to understand tax breaks, but apparently not smart enough to get into the 21st century on security - AMAZING!

Employees are being payed for 'actual' work (hopefully so)...they are also paying for an inadequate security solution foistered upon them by a worldwide company that doesn't trust its employees who made it a large worldwide company...that's some kohunas...now agreed upon by a supreme ruling...

Anyway, I wasn't arguing with you personally - just utilising some of the comments...hope that's ok...

A99

a reply to: akushla99

Just because the system is not working the way it should does not mean this should be classified as work. I have to wear very specific clothing for my job, it's work related, doesn't mean I don't have to buy it myself.

This is not the same as doing actual prep work. There is no work involved. Classifying this as work would be wrong, and just because there are other wrongs does not mean we should add to them.

Really this is simple to figure out. If the average delay is "less than 90 seconds", Amazon would have no reason not to place the off-work point after the search. 90 seconds would make nearly zero difference in total labor costs. Since they are unwilling to do this it seems to be a given that the labor cost would be much more than 90 seconds worth, which makes it obvious the workers have a valid concern.

Employees have every bit as much right to seek changes in the workplace as employers.

I guess the employees really had no collective solidarity, because in the hands of a professional bargainer, they really would have had them by the short and curlies.

This is the crunch time for Amazon, and no other time is more important financially to them. The employees at Market Basket showed them how to do it, albeit not for the same reasons, but certainly with the same overall effect.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: akushla99

Just because the system is not working the way it should does not mean this should be classified as work. I have to wear very specific clothing for my job, it's work related, doesn't mean I don't have to buy it myself.

This is not the same as doing actual prep work. There is no work involved. Classifying this as work would be wrong, and just because there are other wrongs does not mean we should add to them.

Understood.

Then if these employees are not 'working', they have the right to refuse search, and the police should be called on a charge of unlawful detainment, or the company can call the police and claim suspected theft...if all the employees (or a sizeable section) decided to take this route, the company (and any company with this policy) would change its security to reflect a 21st century model. That is the problem. It has nothing to do with the employees, except those that are thieves...and they would be caught by the INTELLIGENT implementation of modern security and inventory systems that reflects the 21st century.

As far as I have read (and correct me if I'm wrong) employees have not said they would not submit to a search if they were paid - amazon will not, because they would have to pay for that time...

I am reminded of the 'Time is money' posters I have seen on lunchroom walls over the 50 years I have worked - motivational one-way traffic...

A99

originally posted by: akushla99

Understood.

Then if these employees are not 'working', they have the right to refuse search, and the police should be called on a charge of unlawful detainment, or the company can call the police and claim suspected theft...if all the employees (or a sizeable section) decided to take this route, the company (and any company with this policy) would change its security to reflect a 21st century model. That is the problem. It has nothing to do with the employees, except those that are thieves...and they would be caught by the INTELLIGENT implementation of modern security and inventory systems that reflects the 21st century.

Except they agreed to the searches. They can refuse the searches by not going to work. There is no right being violated here.

As far as I have read (and correct me if I'm wrong) employees have not said they would not submit to a search if they were paid - amazon will not, because they would have to pay for that time...

The person is no longer working, that is why Amazon will not pay them.

I am reminded of the 'Time is money' posters I have seen on lunchroom walls over the 50 years I have worked - motivational one-way traffic...

A99

Unless you are volunteering .. or driving to work .. or a million other things you do not get paid for.

It would be nice if Amazon paid them, I do not think they have a legal obligation to do so though.

originally posted by: projectvxn
I used to work at the Amazon warehouse in Fernley, Nevada.

Those security measures are there for a reason. Theft is rampant. It is also covered in the employee orientation BEFORE you are allowed to work there. It is literally something you sign up for and give Amazon permission to do as a condition or your employment. It is in your contract.

Contracts only have merit when both sides have negotiating power. No warehouse employee has the ability to negotiate the searches or time spent waiting for them out of their contract.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: akushla99

Understood.

Then if these employees are not 'working', they have the right to refuse search, and the police should be called on a charge of unlawful detainment, or the company can call the police and claim suspected theft...if all the employees (or a sizeable section) decided to take this route, the company (and any company with this policy) would change its security to reflect a 21st century model. That is the problem. It has nothing to do with the employees, except those that are thieves...and they would be caught by the INTELLIGENT implementation of modern security and inventory systems that reflects the 21st century.

Except they agreed to the searches. They can refuse the searches by not going to work. There is no right being violated here.

As far as I have read (and correct me if I'm wrong) employees have not said they would not submit to a search if they were paid - amazon will not, because they would have to pay for that time...

The person is no longer working, that is why Amazon will not pay them.

I am reminded of the 'Time is money' posters I have seen on lunchroom walls over the 50 years I have worked - motivational one-way traffic...

A99

Unless you are volunteering .. or driving to work .. or a million other things you do not get paid for.

It would be nice if Amazon paid them, I do not think they have a legal obligation to do so though.

I wonder how smallprint the 'You will be searched' (and agree to be searched without payment) was...privacy laws would prevent the perusal of that document surely...and the regular lucky monkey (just happy to have a job) probably wouldn't have noticed it.

So this story is really about 1 Jack out of 88.000 that has decided to buck the perfect 21st century system...the only one who has a complaint about detain&search?

It would be nice if amazon paid them - if not for the excellent PR...what have they got to lose? Because I will be telling 10 people, who will tell 10 people etc. etc. etc...

They may not have a legal obligation...but they may just have a business obligation to their own customer base.

Cheers

A99

originally posted by: akushla99

I wonder how smallprint the 'You will be searched' (and agree to be searched without payment) was...privacy laws would prevent the perusal of that document surely...and the regular lucky monkey (just happy to have a job) probably wouldn't have noticed it.

What privacy laws. You lose many expectations of privacy in the workplace.

So this story is really about 1 Jack out of 88.000 that has decided to buck the perfect 21st century system...the only one who has a complaint about detain&search?

It would be nice if amazon paid them - if not for the excellent PR...what have they got to lose? Because I will be telling 10 people, who will tell 10 people etc. etc. etc...

They may not have a legal obligation...but they may just have a business obligation to their own customer base.

Cheers

A99

What they have to lose is a lot of money paying people who are not doing anything productive. If they lose more money not paying them they will.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

'What privacy laws. You lose many expectations of privacy in the workplace.'

Apparently not, though...it seems amazon has a rampant thievery problem...

'What they have to lose is a lot of money paying people who are not doing anything productive. If they lose more money not paying them they will.'

The OP relates directly to 'search' (I thought), and not to productivity...clearly such a large worldwide company has 'productivity' covered...they wouldn't have become this big under the auspices of the geniuses who thought of lining people up and searching them...

A99

a reply to: akushla99

Yes. You lose the right against search when there is a high risk for theft. So no privacy laws are being broken.

It's related to productivity (work). The employees are no longer working (being productive) so Amazon is not obligated to pay them.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: akushla99

Yes. You lose the right against search when there is a high risk for theft. So no privacy laws are being broken.

It's related to productivity (work). The employees are no longer working (being productive) so Amazon is not obligated to pay them.

We're going in circles...

There would be minimal theft if the security was 21st century, and search would not be an issue, because the figures relating to theft would not be as high - because of a proper inventory control system...the employees do not design the systems, so this does not look good for amazon, regardless of the ruling...

Their best bet would be to slash some upper management pay and invest in a modern form of inventory control...somehow I don't see that happening...

A99

a reply to: akushla99

What they should do in your opinion has no bearing on legal obligations though.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: akushla99

What they should do in your opinion has no bearing on legal obligations though.

My 'opinion' and countless others does, however, have a bearing on their customer relations obligations...

10 tell 10 tell 10 tell 10...see how that works?

For them this will be an exercise in modernising or crashing.

Most folk don't have a problem with internal security procedures, as long as they don't impact unduly on their lives - that has been the challenge for everyone in the times we live...it takes intelligence to work through it and make issues like security as streamlined and unobtrusive as possible...this doesn't seem (to me) to be what amazon is doing with a search line...

Cheers, I'm out

A99

a reply to: crazyewok

Used to be Airline pilots and flight attendants only got paid from block out to block in.. So if you had a trip that left at 07:00 you were on property doing paperwork and preflight stuff one hour before I.E. 06:00.. Then let's say your big trip for the day is a 45 minute flight to Garden Spot America with 5 hours ground time.. Then you fly back to your home base.. You got paid for 1.5 hours of work even though you were on duty for close to 8 hours.. Throw in a random drug test upon returning to home base (which took at least 30 minutes) and you are feeling abused !

Amazon has their security procedures because of a history of their products walking out the door with their employees.. If there is a problem then have different shifts spread out over 30 minutes or an hour for arriving and getting off work.. Crowds at shift ending would be greatly reduced or have more security stations so the wait time is reduced..

Having to wait like that for an honest person would start to grind on one's nerves if it was a 25 to 30 minute wait everyday... So I can certainly understand ...

However, the company darn sure has it's reasons for the security searches IMO... they are just not doing it in a way that is efficient for the well being of the employees and the company.. Again just my opinion.

a reply to: MountainLaurel

Yeah,
I want to be paid for all the time I spend waiting in line.
Think how much I would make for spending a day at the DMV!

There is nothing keeping them from reading a book while standing in line.