3 ms·

Talk to Congress about laws, it's their job to change them.

by mentat 7y ago

tom_mellior 7y ago
It was the Supreme Court's job to change the laws about abortion and gay marriage and school segregation when Congress obviously messed up or failed to act.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  Those are issues about treating people humanely and as equals. This issue boils down to whether people have to work 8 vs. 9 hours for a certain amount of pay, with some paperwork issues piled on top. It matters but there aren't any human rights involved in any meaningful way. The law isn't inherently invalid.
  - DangitBobby 7y ago
    I bet traffic problems would be solved overnight if employers were required to compensate employees for commute times. It's time to stop giving freebies on people's backs, tbh.
  - tom_mellior 7y ago
    The entire law doesn't need to be invalid. But if it says that your employer can force you to be present without compensation, that part can be inherently invalid.
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      Define "force". If you mean "hold you against your will", they can't do that. If you mean "you have to do it to stay employed", they can. The question here is how pay is calculated. It's not whether the security checks themselves are a problem.
      - tom_mellior 7y ago
        > The question here is how pay is calculated. Yes. Specifically, whether your employer can make you do work that they don't define as work and therefore don't pay, even though it has all the characteristics of work: Being where they tell you when they tell you doing what they tell you.
        Dylan16807 7y ago
        They pay you every two weeks. From a human rights point of view, it doesn't matter the tiniest bit whether a workday is 8 hours at $12 plus .75 hours at $0, or 8.75 hours at $11. So there is no reason for the supreme court to intervene on that basis. The lawmakers are in charge here, and the law won't be inherently invalid. That's why this is being fought with state law, not the constitution. The federal law is doing something stupid, but the stupidity is mostly an accounting trick. Everyone is still getting paid for their total labor.
        tom_mellior 7y ago
        From a human rights point of view it absolutely matters if you agree to work 8 hours per day, and your employer agrees to pay you for 8 hours of work per day, but also decides to keep you locked up for some extra unpaid time. I see we won't agree here, so I'm out.
        Dylan16807 7y ago
        You're not locked up. You agree to the extra unpaid time as a bundle with the paid time. You can quit any time. And your pay each week is a fair amount.
DangitBobby 7y ago
This source is from another comment in this thread: https://www.idfa.org/news-views/headline-news/article/2014/12/17/supreme-court-decides-case-on-fair-labor-standards-act https://www.idfa.org/news-views/headline-news/article/2014/1... >The FLSA establishes minimum wage and overtime compensation for the time that employees work over 40 hours in one work week. Congress constructed the Act so that employers are not required to compensate employees for activities that occur before and after shifts unless those activities are integral and indispensable to the work an employee is employed to perform. The employer will fire you for not doing it. That makes it essential. Any interpretation of such a law that uses the job description, eg packing and moving boxes, as the be-all-end-all of what is "integral and essential" instead of what the employer will fire or refuse to employ you for not doing is either bought and paid for or anti-labor.

Talk to Congress about laws, it's their job to change them.

by mentat 7y ago

Talk to Congress about laws, it's their job to change them.

It was the Supreme Court's job to change the laws about abortion and gay marriage and school segregation when Congress obviously messed up or failed to act.

Dylan16807 7y ago
Those are issues about treating people humanely and as equals. This issue boils down to whether people have to work 8 vs. 9 hours for a certain amount of pay, with some paperwork issues piled on top. It matters but there aren't any human rights involved in any meaningful way. The law isn't inherently invalid.
- DangitBobby 7y ago
  I bet traffic problems would be solved overnight if employers were required to compensate employees for commute times. It's time to stop giving freebies on people's backs, tbh.
- tom_mellior 7y ago
  The entire law doesn't need to be invalid. But if it says that your employer can force you to be present without compensation, that part can be inherently invalid.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    Define "force". If you mean "hold you against your will", they can't do that. If you mean "you have to do it to stay employed", they can. The question here is how pay is calculated. It's not whether the security checks themselves are a problem.
    - tom_mellior 7y ago
      > The question here is how pay is calculated. Yes. Specifically, whether your employer can make you do work that they don't define as work and therefore don't pay, even though it has all the characteristics of work: Being where they tell you when they tell you doing what they tell you.
      - Dylan16807 7y ago
        They pay you every two weeks. From a human rights point of view, it doesn't matter the tiniest bit whether a workday is 8 hours at $12 plus .75 hours at $0, or 8.75 hours at $11. So there is no reason for the supreme court to intervene on that basis. The lawmakers are in charge here, and the law won't be inherently invalid. That's why this is being fought with state law, not the constitution. The federal law is doing something stupid, but the stupidity is mostly an accounting trick. Everyone is still getting paid for their total labor.
        tom_mellior 7y ago
        From a human rights point of view it absolutely matters if you agree to work 8 hours per day, and your employer agrees to pay you for 8 hours of work per day, but also decides to keep you locked up for some extra unpaid time. I see we won't agree here, so I'm out.
        Dylan16807 7y ago
        You're not locked up. You agree to the extra unpaid time as a bundle with the paid time. You can quit any time. And your pay each week is a fair amount.

DangitBobby 7y ago

This source is from another comment in this thread: https://www.idfa.org/news-views/headline-news/article/2014/12/17/supreme-court-decides-case-on-fair-labor-standards-act https://www.idfa.org/news-views/headline-news/article/2014/1... >The FLSA establishes minimum wage and overtime compensation for the time that employees work over 40 hours in one work week. Congress constructed the Act so that employers are not required to compensate employees for activities that occur before and after shifts unless those activities are integral and indispensable to the work an employee is employed to perform. The employer will fire you for not doing it. That makes it essential. Any interpretation of such a law that uses the job description, eg packing and moving boxes, as the be-all-end-all of what is "integral and essential" instead of what the employer will fire or refuse to employ you for not doing is either bought and paid for or anti-labor.