3 ms·
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 inval
by 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 agoDefine "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 agoThey 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 agoFrom 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 agoYou'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.