4 ms·
Not that it is the supreme court's fault, assuming that test is very explicit in the act. But seriously, could that test be any more absurd? The test should n
by FPGAhacker 7y ago
Not that it is the supreme court's fault, assuming that test is very explicit in the act.
But seriously, could that test be any more absurd? The test should not be "of Amazon could eliminate screenings with out affecting the primary job." It should be if the employee could choose not to participate without it affecting their job.
It's the difference between voluntary and compelled.
- tom_mellior 7y ago> Not that it is the supreme court's fault, assuming that test is very explicit in the act. Couldn't the Supreme Court declare the test unconstitutional?
- mentat 7y agoOn what basis?
- tom_mellior 7y agoBeing locked up at work without compensation. I guess the Constitution's "involuntary servitude" wording was meant for other contexts (actual 24/7 slavery), but this still seems like a basic human rights violation. But maybe the US Supreme Court doesn't view itself as a human rights court, so I don't know. That's why I asked.
- s1artibartfast 7y agoThat simply isn't how the Supreme (or any) court works. Perhaps there is a servitude issue at hand, but that is not the argument that the plaintiff made.
- tom_mellior 7y agoSo what you're saying is that this is exactly how the Supreme Court works if someone comes and makes an appropriate argument?