4 ms·

They are also obliged to arrive at the workplace, but their travel time is not necessarily compensated. At least this was put through both a judicial and legal

by fiter 7y ago

They are also obliged to arrive at the workplace, but their travel time is not necessarily compensated. At least this was put through both a judicial and legal process a long time ago in the ruling before and the Portal-to-Portal Act[0]. I do wonder why this was re-litigated; if this will change it seems like it will have to be through an act of Congress. [0]: https://content.next.westlaw.com/6-508-0673?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1 https://content.next.westlaw.com/6-508-0673?transitionType=D...

michaelmrose 7y ago
It is work from which the company derives value in the form of reduced shrink. Furthermore travel to and from work is at the employees discretion and direction they are free to go not only just to and from work but wherever they please and their employer can't be expected to know, care, or pay for it. This is more akin to being locked on the company premises after work has terminated unpaid but unable to leave. If they can't do a bag check in 5 minutes and leave amazon should hire more checkers to do that work or compensate the employees for the time lost. Perhaps the proper thing to assert is imprisonment instead of wage theft.
- fiter 7y ago
  As mentioned elsewhere in the comments, the employees should be free to leave but this could result in their firing. Regardless of the philosophy, what do you think of the legal basis?
simonh 7y ago
Employees generally choose where they live and which jobs they apply for and where, so this is not a reasonable comparison. They have no choice about these checks.
- fiter 7y ago
  Early in your reply you say employees have a choice where they apply for jobs, then you say they have no choice on whether to apply for jobs with security measures.
  - simonh 7y ago
    They didn’t, because apparently the time requirement off the clock isn’t clearly communicated up front when they are hired. You can’t make an informed choice if you don’t have the information. This is why employment legislation is so important - otherwise employers can spring extra costs and demands on employees with impunity. And no, it’s not acceptable to expect them to simply resign. Changing jobs can also incur significant costs on people, which can allow employers to exploit their position of power over employees.
    - fiter 7y ago
      So the law we are looking for is disclosure. I can agree with that. Do you know if such a law already exists?
      - simonh 7y ago
        Yes, precisely but I suspect we mean different things by disclosure. When an employment contract talks about working hours, it should not be necessary to refer to small print or seemingly unrelated clauses to know what that means. It should have a straightforward and unsurprising meaning. Employers should not be able to make up surprising and counterintuitive definitions of things like working hours, and manipulate those in their favour. In general employees should not be required to understand special exceptions from standard expected practice, unless there are specific well understood and communicated reasons that require it. On the face of it, I don't think this case meets that sort of standard. In general I am in favour of a high degree of flexibility in the form of employment contracts. My own working hours and the expectations of my job are somewhat unusual. I work highly variable hours and I am frequently on call. I do get paid for the hours I work though. However I do think this is a reasonable area for legislation because I think that's the only way to ensure employees are not abused, and in this case I think it's pretty clear Amazon did not signal this clearly to prospective employees and is abusing it's position of power over them in an unreasonable way.

by fiter 7y ago

michaelmrose 7y ago

It is work from which the company derives value in the form of reduced shrink. Furthermore travel to and from work is at the employees discretion and direction they are free to go not only just to and from work but wherever they please and their employer can't be expected to know, care, or pay for it. This is more akin to being locked on the company premises after work has terminated unpaid but unable to leave. If they can't do a bag check in 5 minutes and leave amazon should hire more checkers to do that work or compensate the employees for the time lost. Perhaps the proper thing to assert is imprisonment instead of wage theft.

fiter 7y ago
As mentioned elsewhere in the comments, the employees should be free to leave but this could result in their firing. Regardless of the philosophy, what do you think of the legal basis?

simonh 7y ago

Employees generally choose where they live and which jobs they apply for and where, so this is not a reasonable comparison. They have no choice about these checks.

fiter 7y ago
Early in your reply you say employees have a choice where they apply for jobs, then you say they have no choice on whether to apply for jobs with security measures.
- simonh 7y ago
  They didn’t, because apparently the time requirement off the clock isn’t clearly communicated up front when they are hired. You can’t make an informed choice if you don’t have the information. This is why employment legislation is so important - otherwise employers can spring extra costs and demands on employees with impunity. And no, it’s not acceptable to expect them to simply resign. Changing jobs can also incur significant costs on people, which can allow employers to exploit their position of power over employees.
  - fiter 7y ago
    So the law we are looking for is disclosure. I can agree with that. Do you know if such a law already exists?
    - simonh 7y ago
      Yes, precisely but I suspect we mean different things by disclosure. When an employment contract talks about working hours, it should not be necessary to refer to small print or seemingly unrelated clauses to know what that means. It should have a straightforward and unsurprising meaning. Employers should not be able to make up surprising and counterintuitive definitions of things like working hours, and manipulate those in their favour. In general employees should not be required to understand special exceptions from standard expected practice, unless there are specific well understood and communicated reasons that require it. On the face of it, I don't think this case meets that sort of standard. In general I am in favour of a high degree of flexibility in the form of employment contracts. My own working hours and the expectations of my job are somewhat unusual. I work highly variable hours and I am frequently on call. I do get paid for the hours I work though. However I do think this is a reasonable area for legislation because I think that's the only way to ensure employees are not abused, and in this case I think it's pretty clear Amazon did not signal this clearly to prospective employees and is abusing it's position of power over them in an unreasonable way.