4 ms·
> hired to retrieve products from warehouse shelves, not to undergo security screenings, and the company could eliminate the screenings altogether without impai
by tom_mellior 7y ago
> hired to retrieve products from warehouse shelves, not to undergo security screenings, and the company could eliminate the screenings altogether without impairing the employees’ ability to complete their work
Wow. They were hired to do work, not to be locked up for half an hour per day and treated like criminals. Moreover, it is obviously clear that Amazon could just stop locking them up for half an hour per day and treating them like criminals. Therefore Amazon owes them no compensation for locking them up for half an hour per day and treating them like criminals. That is one hell of a Supreme Court ruling.
- colinj2 7y agoIt’s seems degrading to be subject to this but at the same time the majority of theft is from employees. I’ve hear about these type of precautions at UPS sorting centers. It’s also why cash register security cameras are pointed at the register not where a robber would be in clear view. That said I’m almost certain the UPS employees are paid while doing the screening. That’s a benefit of labor unions.
- SmellyGeekBoy 7y agoIndeed. I've worked in electronics and home entertainment retail in the past and been subject to similar checks. The majority of theft is indeed carried out by employees.
- rtkwe 7y agoI'm not really contesting that security screening might be a necessary part of the job just that it's incredible that they're not getting paid for it.
- ummonk 7y agoThe Supreme Court ruling is fine. It's Congress' fault it hasn't fixed the law.