5 ms·

The (unanimous) Supreme Court decision was not a "joke". It was an obvious interpretation of an old New Deal-era law. The problem goes to Amazon and to a broken

The (unanimous) Supreme Court decision was not a "joke". It was an obvious interpretation of an old New Deal-era law. The problem goes to Amazon and to a broken Congress unable to fix this. It does not go to SCOTUS. If you feel conflicted, go read the ruling[1]. It's a short one. People need to not judge court decisions solely on whether they think the headline outcome is good or bad. Besides the fact that the actual outcome is frequently more complicated than the headline, the reasoning is just as, if not more, important the outcome. That's the part that constrains future court decisions. [1]https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-433_5h26.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-433_5h26.pdf

clairity 6y ago
you make a decent point, but overstate your case. we can respect the precedent-respecting/-setting nature of supreme court decisions, while also holding the supreme court to task for largely ignoring workers interests. even reading the first few paragraphs, there seemed to be numerous lines of argument the court ignored in this regard. what other complications should we be considering with respect to this otherwise worker-unfriendly decision? frankly, i'd support the (radical) idea that we should pay non-exempt workers at the start of their departure for work all the way to their arrival at their after-work destination. this has the nice side effect of pulling corporations into the fight against excessive, wasted commute times, sprawl and the housing crisis, and spewing excess toxins into our lungs and the environment.
- abstractbarista 6y ago
  Courts are supposed to interpret laws, not legislate from the bench.
  - clairity 6y ago
    no, there are many possible interpretations the court could have legitimately put forth, and interpreting law necessarily overlaps with "legislating" it. both are saying what's in and out of bounds.
eternalban 6y ago
I read "joke" to refer to our governance model, which is supposed to represent "the people" and not just "the very rich people".
MereInterest 6y ago
That people are not required to be paid for activities that are required of them is a joke. Exactly where the setup is might vary, but there definitely is a sad punchline at the end. Reading through the ruling was interesting, and definitely helped me to decide that the problem wasn't with the Supreme Court's decision, but with the poor protections in place on the Portal-to-Portal Act. I hold with the moral statement that actions performed by the employee, and required by the employer, must be compensated. Since the security screenings were mandatory, it is immoral for the employees not to be compensated.

clairity 6y ago

you make a decent point, but overstate your case. we can respect the precedent-respecting/-setting nature of supreme court decisions, while also holding the supreme court to task for largely ignoring workers interests. even reading the first few paragraphs, there seemed to be numerous lines of argument the court ignored in this regard. what other complications should we be considering with respect to this otherwise worker-unfriendly decision? frankly, i'd support the (radical) idea that we should pay non-exempt workers at the start of their departure for work all the way to their arrival at their after-work destination. this has the nice side effect of pulling corporations into the fight against excessive, wasted commute times, sprawl and the housing crisis, and spewing excess toxins into our lungs and the environment.

abstractbarista 6y ago
Courts are supposed to interpret laws, not legislate from the bench.
- clairity 6y ago
  no, there are many possible interpretations the court could have legitimately put forth, and interpreting law necessarily overlaps with "legislating" it. both are saying what's in and out of bounds.

eternalban 6y ago

I read "joke" to refer to our governance model, which is supposed to represent "the people" and not just "the very rich people".

MereInterest 6y ago

That people are not required to be paid for activities that are required of them is a joke. Exactly where the setup is might vary, but there definitely is a sad punchline at the end. Reading through the ruling was interesting, and definitely helped me to decide that the problem wasn't with the Supreme Court's decision, but with the poor protections in place on the Portal-to-Portal Act. I hold with the moral statement that actions performed by the employee, and required by the employer, must be compensated. Since the security screenings were mandatory, it is immoral for the employees not to be compensated.