8 ms·

My personal snapping point as a consumer occurred several years ago, over something that's definitely not anecdotal: When Amazon employees are frisked at the e

My personal snapping point as a consumer occurred several years ago, over something that's definitely not anecdotal: When Amazon employees are frisked at the end of their shift (which is a practice that applies to at least some warehouses), they are not paid for the time they spend waiting in line to be frisked. This is not an anecdote; indeed Amazon fought and won a court case insisting that it has the right to not compensate employees for this time. (See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-amazon-com/u-s-supreme-court-rejects-amazon-warehouse-worker-wage-appeal-idUSKBN1WM1FI https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-amazon-com/u-s-...)

specialp 6y ago
Yes for me too. The fact that Amazon is so cheap that they want employees to sit around for 20-30 minutes after their shift unpaid to get searched to make sure they aren't stealing blew me away. It is one thing if Amazon wants to do this and pay their employees, but to not pay is wrong. And they felt so strongly about this they appealed a case all the way to the Supreme Court... That was the snapping point for me too and I have not ordered from them in a long time.
- pathseeker 6y ago
  Where do you draw the line? Should people be compensated for their commute? It's an interesting debate that has emerged in airports as well: https://www.talbottlawfirm.com/does-an-employer-have-to-pay-employees-for-time-spent-in-security-screenings-u-s-supreme-court-to-decide-this-issue/ https://www.talbottlawfirm.com/does-an-employer-have-to-pay-...
  - jankassens 6y ago
    To me, the door of the building seems to be a pretty clear line. For a fixed location job, the commute is fully under control of the employee and fair not to count as hours. For variable location jobs like in construction, my view is that potential additional commute time should be compensated.
  - ses1984 6y ago
    Waiting to be frisked is not analogous to commuting at all. If amazon isn't paying for your time in line, they have no incentive to make it fast. They can invest the bare minimum to protect their own interests, and fuck over their worker who have to wait in line. If they had to pay workers for their time then there is an incentive for them to make the line move quickly. I can't imagine a setup that is more hostile to your fellow humans as forcing them to waste unpaid time.
    - gffrd 6y ago
      I think that reveals the motive: they don't want the line to be fast. Isn't the purpose of the screens less about catching bad actors and more about cultivating a culture of fear/suspicion, and hopefully getting a few effective informants out of the thing? If the lines go to 2 minutes, or I get paid while in them, where's my incentive to rat out a coworker?
  - stepbeek 6y ago
    A worker has some control over their commute. That same worker cannot enact any control over security practices. We do compensate employees for commuting to somewhere other than their usual place of work.
  - sterlind 6y ago
    my mom used to defend chicken plants on this issue - should workers be paid for the time they spend donning and doffing their smocks and hairnets? the law was ambiguous -- I was put through college on the money from these cases! One of these cases eventually made its way to the Supreme Court [0], but they ruled (in favor of the plaintiffs) about the validity of the collective action, not about whether the Fair Labor Standards Act covered donning and doffing (it does, at least so I believe.) It seems like donning and doffing is considered as time worked because it's a "principal activity" under the FLSA [1], and that includes waiting time. Seems like being frisked would be a "principal activity" as well - it's essentially doffing - so waiting time would be included too. Someone could make a pretty penny bringing a collective suit against Amazon over this. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyson_Foods,_Inc._v._Bouaphakeo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyson_Foods,_Inc._v._Bouaphake... 1. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/field-assistance-bulletins/2006-2 https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/field-assistance-bulletins/...
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    Commute is partially under the control of the worker, where I decide to live has a huge impact on how long my commute is. I can freely decide to trade commute for money, making it my responsibility. Waiting in line to be frisked is something mandated by the employer. They control whether or not I have to do it, and how long the lines are. Since it’s under their control, it’s their financial responsibility.
    - kortilla 6y ago
      That’s a bit disingenuous when short commutes are literally not affordable to some of the people we’re talking about.
      - afiori 6y ago
        But no employer would force you to have long commutes. It may be impossible in some cases to have short commutes, but if, even by chance, you managed to move in the same building as your office no one would force you to go through the metro. Commutes are clearly a grey area, waiting times to be let "free" are less so.
  - specialp 6y ago
    To me, if you are not free to walk out the door and do whatever you please, you have an obligation to an employer, and are therefore working. I worked a college job fixing bowling equipment and they tried to make me clock out for my meals. I refused unless I was then free to leave the building. As if I have to be there on call then I am still working. Amazon is not allowing these people to walk out the door and go home. That is taking their time for company policies. So that is working.
  - joshl325 6y ago
    Should people be compensated for the time they brush their teeth or have breakfast? Of course not. Once you step into your work, you should be paid for your time. Especially when you have no control over that.
  - chiefalchemist 6y ago
    If your employer mandates that you take a certain route to work? And that route takes you more time? Then yes, a line is crossed and you should be compensated.
- MuffinFlavored 6y ago
  > The fact that Amazon is so cheap you mean the company that pays high wages?
  - uoaei 6y ago
    You have a very myopic view of what Amazon is and what roles the majority of its labor force occupy. The bulk of Amazon's workforce are delivery drivers, warehouse workers, and datacenter rats. They are not paid fairly. It's pretty obvious from the numbers. For more supporting evidence, read TFA.
    - MuffinFlavored 6y ago
      https://www.google.com/search?q=amazon+15+hr+minimum+wage https://www.google.com/search?q=amazon+15+hr+minimum+wage
      - afiori 6y ago
        That was a consequence of relentless campaign, but it was not necessarily an raise for the workers. They essentially traded a form of compensations for another. Also 15 dollars per hour can be high or not depending where you live.
  - worik 6y ago
    Yes. That one
- lazyjones 6y ago
  > they felt so strongly about this they appealed a case all the way to the Supreme Court. The felt confident that they were right about it and the SC confirmed it. It's classic double standards if you celebrate one winner at the SC and condemn others based on your political/ideological opinion.
  - karlkeefer 6y ago
    You can be satisfied or disappointed with a result in the supreme court without making the court your moral authority. It can be both legal and wrong. No need for a "double standard".
ganoushoreilly 6y ago
To be fair, almost every single major retail establishment has this same policy. Many of which have also been fined. This is no where near unique to Amazon.
- sdenton4 6y ago
  So what? 'They're doing it too' doesn't excuse bad behavior, whether in the schoolyard or the multinational business world.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Apple did this too, until they lost a lawsuit: https://9to5mac.com/2020/02/13/apple-retail-bag-search-ruling/ https://9to5mac.com/2020/02/13/apple-retail-bag-search-rulin.... Just because it's not unique doesn't mean Amazon shouldn't change their behavior.
- uoaei 6y ago
  "It's legal, so what is everyone complaining about?" Law != ethics
AlexCoventry 6y ago
> See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-amazon-com/u-s-.. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-amazon-com/u-s-.... Where is the 2014 Supreme Court ruling mentioned by this article?
- smoe 6y ago
  Seems to be this one: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/business/supreme-court-rules-against-worker-pay-for-security-screenings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/business/supreme-court-ru... https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-433_5h26.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-433_5h26.pdf
  - AlexCoventry 6y ago
    Thanks.
- tzs 6y ago
  Something went wrong with your link, replacing a large part of it with "..". I think this is the unmangled link [1]. Anyway, there wasn't actually a Supreme Court ruling. The workers appealed their loss in the appellate court to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Aside from a few specific types of cases the Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction rather than mandatory jurisdiction. This was one of those discretionary jurisdiction cases. When they decline to take a case they generally do not give a reason. It may be because they think the appellate court got it right and there is nothing more to say on the issue. On the other hand, it may be because they think the appellate court is not right but what is right is not clear and they want to see the issue arise in other districts and see what the appellate courts in those other districts decide before they take a case on the issue. Or they may be ready to tackle the issue, but they just don't like this particular case as a vehicle for deciding the issue and want to wait for a case that would work better. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-amazon-com/u-s-supreme-court-rejects-amazon-warehouse-worker-wage-appeal-idUSKBN1WM1FI https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-amazon-com/u-s-...
smoe 6y ago
I always think it is a bit odd when a company wins a case like this, but then people blame the company, not the court or the law. Not saying, that you don't disagree with the courts decisions, but I keep getting this feeling especially from the US. Why do people realistically expect a company to not stretch things as far as legally possible? I get why libertarians would see it this way, but everyone else?
- chc 6y ago
  You seem to be conflating blameworthiness and predictability. True story: I know a guy who's a real scumbag, just constantly taking advantage of people who don't know better and abusing those who do know better. I fully expect this person to do a lot of contemptible things. My ability to anticipate his behavior doesn't make me like him any more for it. And the fact that the law doesn't punish a particular misbehavior doesn't shift the blame for his behavior onto the law. In short: It is not ethical to do whatever you can get away with. You can choose to ignore questions of ethics, but if that's how you choose to live your life, expect to have a lot of people hate your guts. People treating you like a monster is a predictable consequence of living like a monster. This doesn't stop being true just because the choices are being made by multiple people under the banner of a corporation.
  - smoe 6y ago
    If you are in a position of power, why should you care whether people hate your guts? And only people that don't depend on you or that don't benefit from a good relationship with you will treat you like a monster. There is quite the discrepancy for example in European history between royals acting like monsters and people treating them as such. Sure, eventually you'll have the people grab the pitchforks and roll out the guillotine, but you might not want to wait that long. How much true accountability is there for those people making the choices under the banner of the corporations? In my opinion, big part of what law should be, whoever is in charge of enforcing it, is a set of rules based on societies ethical compass. If someone can get away taking advantage and abusing others, this begs the question if those acts are in fact unethical, or if the the law needs updating. It is not about shifting blame for behavior onto the law, but how you decide what behavior is blameworthy and should be punished. And I much prefer having a at least a somewhat transparent formalized system for this over Mob justice.

specialp 6y ago

Yes for me too. The fact that Amazon is so cheap that they want employees to sit around for 20-30 minutes after their shift unpaid to get searched to make sure they aren't stealing blew me away. It is one thing if Amazon wants to do this and pay their employees, but to not pay is wrong. And they felt so strongly about this they appealed a case all the way to the Supreme Court... That was the snapping point for me too and I have not ordered from them in a long time.

pathseeker 6y ago
Where do you draw the line? Should people be compensated for their commute? It's an interesting debate that has emerged in airports as well: https://www.talbottlawfirm.com/does-an-employer-have-to-pay-employees-for-time-spent-in-security-screenings-u-s-supreme-court-to-decide-this-issue/ https://www.talbottlawfirm.com/does-an-employer-have-to-pay-...
- jankassens 6y ago
  To me, the door of the building seems to be a pretty clear line. For a fixed location job, the commute is fully under control of the employee and fair not to count as hours. For variable location jobs like in construction, my view is that potential additional commute time should be compensated.
- ses1984 6y ago
  Waiting to be frisked is not analogous to commuting at all. If amazon isn't paying for your time in line, they have no incentive to make it fast. They can invest the bare minimum to protect their own interests, and fuck over their worker who have to wait in line. If they had to pay workers for their time then there is an incentive for them to make the line move quickly. I can't imagine a setup that is more hostile to your fellow humans as forcing them to waste unpaid time.
  - gffrd 6y ago
    I think that reveals the motive: they don't want the line to be fast. Isn't the purpose of the screens less about catching bad actors and more about cultivating a culture of fear/suspicion, and hopefully getting a few effective informants out of the thing? If the lines go to 2 minutes, or I get paid while in them, where's my incentive to rat out a coworker?
- stepbeek 6y ago
  A worker has some control over their commute. That same worker cannot enact any control over security practices. We do compensate employees for commuting to somewhere other than their usual place of work.
- sterlind 6y ago
  my mom used to defend chicken plants on this issue - should workers be paid for the time they spend donning and doffing their smocks and hairnets? the law was ambiguous -- I was put through college on the money from these cases! One of these cases eventually made its way to the Supreme Court [0], but they ruled (in favor of the plaintiffs) about the validity of the collective action, not about whether the Fair Labor Standards Act covered donning and doffing (it does, at least so I believe.) It seems like donning and doffing is considered as time worked because it's a "principal activity" under the FLSA [1], and that includes waiting time. Seems like being frisked would be a "principal activity" as well - it's essentially doffing - so waiting time would be included too. Someone could make a pretty penny bringing a collective suit against Amazon over this. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyson_Foods,_Inc._v._Bouaphakeo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyson_Foods,_Inc._v._Bouaphake... 1. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/field-assistance-bulletins/2006-2 https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/field-assistance-bulletins/...
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Commute is partially under the control of the worker, where I decide to live has a huge impact on how long my commute is. I can freely decide to trade commute for money, making it my responsibility. Waiting in line to be frisked is something mandated by the employer. They control whether or not I have to do it, and how long the lines are. Since it’s under their control, it’s their financial responsibility.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    That’s a bit disingenuous when short commutes are literally not affordable to some of the people we’re talking about.
    - afiori 6y ago
      But no employer would force you to have long commutes. It may be impossible in some cases to have short commutes, but if, even by chance, you managed to move in the same building as your office no one would force you to go through the metro. Commutes are clearly a grey area, waiting times to be let "free" are less so.
- specialp 6y ago
  To me, if you are not free to walk out the door and do whatever you please, you have an obligation to an employer, and are therefore working. I worked a college job fixing bowling equipment and they tried to make me clock out for my meals. I refused unless I was then free to leave the building. As if I have to be there on call then I am still working. Amazon is not allowing these people to walk out the door and go home. That is taking their time for company policies. So that is working.
- joshl325 6y ago
  Should people be compensated for the time they brush their teeth or have breakfast? Of course not. Once you step into your work, you should be paid for your time. Especially when you have no control over that.
- chiefalchemist 6y ago
  If your employer mandates that you take a certain route to work? And that route takes you more time? Then yes, a line is crossed and you should be compensated.
MuffinFlavored 6y ago
> The fact that Amazon is so cheap you mean the company that pays high wages?
- uoaei 6y ago
  You have a very myopic view of what Amazon is and what roles the majority of its labor force occupy. The bulk of Amazon's workforce are delivery drivers, warehouse workers, and datacenter rats. They are not paid fairly. It's pretty obvious from the numbers. For more supporting evidence, read TFA.
  - MuffinFlavored 6y ago
    https://www.google.com/search?q=amazon+15+hr+minimum+wage https://www.google.com/search?q=amazon+15+hr+minimum+wage
    - afiori 6y ago
      That was a consequence of relentless campaign, but it was not necessarily an raise for the workers. They essentially traded a form of compensations for another. Also 15 dollars per hour can be high or not depending where you live.
- worik 6y ago
  Yes. That one
lazyjones 6y ago
> they felt so strongly about this they appealed a case all the way to the Supreme Court. The felt confident that they were right about it and the SC confirmed it. It's classic double standards if you celebrate one winner at the SC and condemn others based on your political/ideological opinion.
- karlkeefer 6y ago
  You can be satisfied or disappointed with a result in the supreme court without making the court your moral authority. It can be both legal and wrong. No need for a "double standard".

ganoushoreilly 6y ago

To be fair, almost every single major retail establishment has this same policy. Many of which have also been fined. This is no where near unique to Amazon.

sdenton4 6y ago
So what? 'They're doing it too' doesn't excuse bad behavior, whether in the schoolyard or the multinational business world.
saagarjha 6y ago
Apple did this too, until they lost a lawsuit: https://9to5mac.com/2020/02/13/apple-retail-bag-search-ruling/ https://9to5mac.com/2020/02/13/apple-retail-bag-search-rulin.... Just because it's not unique doesn't mean Amazon shouldn't change their behavior.
uoaei 6y ago
"It's legal, so what is everyone complaining about?" Law != ethics

AlexCoventry 6y ago

> See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-amazon-com/u-s-.. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-amazon-com/u-s-.... Where is the 2014 Supreme Court ruling mentioned by this article?

smoe 6y ago
Seems to be this one: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/business/supreme-court-rules-against-worker-pay-for-security-screenings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/business/supreme-court-ru... https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-433_5h26.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-433_5h26.pdf
- AlexCoventry 6y ago
  Thanks.
tzs 6y ago
Something went wrong with your link, replacing a large part of it with "..". I think this is the unmangled link [1]. Anyway, there wasn't actually a Supreme Court ruling. The workers appealed their loss in the appellate court to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Aside from a few specific types of cases the Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction rather than mandatory jurisdiction. This was one of those discretionary jurisdiction cases. When they decline to take a case they generally do not give a reason. It may be because they think the appellate court got it right and there is nothing more to say on the issue. On the other hand, it may be because they think the appellate court is not right but what is right is not clear and they want to see the issue arise in other districts and see what the appellate courts in those other districts decide before they take a case on the issue. Or they may be ready to tackle the issue, but they just don't like this particular case as a vehicle for deciding the issue and want to wait for a case that would work better. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-amazon-com/u-s-supreme-court-rejects-amazon-warehouse-worker-wage-appeal-idUSKBN1WM1FI https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-amazon-com/u-s-...

smoe 6y ago

I always think it is a bit odd when a company wins a case like this, but then people blame the company, not the court or the law. Not saying, that you don't disagree with the courts decisions, but I keep getting this feeling especially from the US. Why do people realistically expect a company to not stretch things as far as legally possible? I get why libertarians would see it this way, but everyone else?

chc 6y ago
You seem to be conflating blameworthiness and predictability. True story: I know a guy who's a real scumbag, just constantly taking advantage of people who don't know better and abusing those who do know better. I fully expect this person to do a lot of contemptible things. My ability to anticipate his behavior doesn't make me like him any more for it. And the fact that the law doesn't punish a particular misbehavior doesn't shift the blame for his behavior onto the law. In short: It is not ethical to do whatever you can get away with. You can choose to ignore questions of ethics, but if that's how you choose to live your life, expect to have a lot of people hate your guts. People treating you like a monster is a predictable consequence of living like a monster. This doesn't stop being true just because the choices are being made by multiple people under the banner of a corporation.
- smoe 6y ago
  If you are in a position of power, why should you care whether people hate your guts? And only people that don't depend on you or that don't benefit from a good relationship with you will treat you like a monster. There is quite the discrepancy for example in European history between royals acting like monsters and people treating them as such. Sure, eventually you'll have the people grab the pitchforks and roll out the guillotine, but you might not want to wait that long. How much true accountability is there for those people making the choices under the banner of the corporations? In my opinion, big part of what law should be, whoever is in charge of enforcing it, is a set of rules based on societies ethical compass. If someone can get away taking advantage and abusing others, this begs the question if those acts are in fact unethical, or if the the law needs updating. It is not about shifting blame for behavior onto the law, but how you decide what behavior is blameworthy and should be punished. And I much prefer having a at least a somewhat transparent formalized system for this over Mob justice.