4 ms·

Interesting related court case from a couple years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity_Staffing_Solutions,_Inc._v._Busk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I

by firasd 9y ago

Interesting related court case from a couple years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity_Staffing_Solutions,_Inc._v._Busk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity_Staffing_Solutions,_...: "a unanimous decision by the United States Supreme Court, ruling that time spent by workers waiting to undergo anti-employee theft security screenings is not "integral and indispensable" to their work, and thus not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Court delivered their ruling on December 9, 2014." I found this because I had a vague memory about a case about time spent "closing down stores" but maybe it was this or something else.

DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
I was really shocked at that ruling, and especially at the court's unanimity regarding it. Perhaps there's some deeply technical reason that it makes sense, but the conclusion seems absurd to me based on common sense.
- lr4444lr 9y ago
  From the actual ruling: Finally, respondents’ claim that the screenings are compensable because Integrity Staffing could have reduced the time to a de minimis amount is properly presented at the bargaining table, not to a court in an FLSA claim.[0] The petitioner brought the claim under FLSA. It sounds really bad on face that the workers have to do this as a condition of employment, but imagine if instead of this pat-down, the complex property was really big, and employees had to walk an extra 25 minutes to their station because public transit could not access those roads, no employee cars were allowed, and no shuttles were provided. It boils down to a worker/employer bargaining dispute, not a labor violation. [0]https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-433_5h26.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-433_5h26.pdf (page 2 as numbered)
- icebraining 9y ago
  Seems like a sensible application of the Portal-to-Portal Act, which specifically says that "activities which are preliminary to or postliminar" to the main job activity are not compensable. I.e., blame Congress.
- creepydata 9y ago
  I guess it is not really that different than the parking area being really far away and you have to spend time either waiting for/taking the shuttle or walking.
- HappyTypist 9y ago
  It's about free market at work. You can choose to work for another company that pays you more, or pays you for that time.

by firasd 9y ago

DoofusOfDeath 9y ago

I was really shocked at that ruling, and especially at the court's unanimity regarding it. Perhaps there's some deeply technical reason that it makes sense, but the conclusion seems absurd to me based on common sense.

lr4444lr 9y ago
From the actual ruling: Finally, respondents’ claim that the screenings are compensable because Integrity Staffing could have reduced the time to a de minimis amount is properly presented at the bargaining table, not to a court in an FLSA claim.[0] The petitioner brought the claim under FLSA. It sounds really bad on face that the workers have to do this as a condition of employment, but imagine if instead of this pat-down, the complex property was really big, and employees had to walk an extra 25 minutes to their station because public transit could not access those roads, no employee cars were allowed, and no shuttles were provided. It boils down to a worker/employer bargaining dispute, not a labor violation. [0]https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-433_5h26.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-433_5h26.pdf (page 2 as numbered)
icebraining 9y ago
Seems like a sensible application of the Portal-to-Portal Act, which specifically says that "activities which are preliminary to or postliminar" to the main job activity are not compensable. I.e., blame Congress.
creepydata 9y ago
I guess it is not really that different than the parking area being really far away and you have to spend time either waiting for/taking the shuttle or walking.
HappyTypist 9y ago
It's about free market at work. You can choose to work for another company that pays you more, or pays you for that time.