33 ms·

Will this also apply to the California Supreme Court ruling that Amazon won back in 2013? https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/business/supreme-court-rules-again

Will this also apply to the California Supreme Court ruling that Amazon won back in 2013? 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...

granzymes 6y ago
Judging by this quote, there’s a good chance SCOTUS overturns a ruling on this topic by the 9th circuit a second time. > Justice Thomas disagreed, saying the appeals court had “erred by focusing on whether an employer required a particular activity.” The right test, he said, was whether the activity “is tied to the productive work that the employee is employed to perform.” Maybe the 9th will overturn en blanc before it reaches SCOTUS.
- azinman2 6y ago
  That’s a very silly viewpoint. If I have to travel to the North Pole to change a lightbulb, should I only get paid for changing the lightbulb? If the security screening takes 9h, would we really expect employees not to be paid? If so, these would be pretty terrible job arrangements.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Furthermore, this would open the door to Apple making any time consuming and unreasonable demands. This ia rife for abuse.
  - NationalPark 6y ago
    It's based on the wording of a 1947 law, maybe it's time to change that law. I can see the need for clarity here though. Should employers pay their workers for time spent commuting to a job site/office? Can I live three hours away and make a cool 6 hours of extra wages listening to audio books on my way to/from work?
    - Frondo 6y ago
      Well, maybe, maybe not, but once you're on the job site, you're entitled to be paid for whatever the employer decides to do with you, like security screenings.
    - errantspark 6y ago
      Yes they should be expected to pay for that, it's your time that you can't use for whatever you want because now you have to spend it getting to work. I think it would have to be limited to something reasonable, but yes, unequivocally your employer should be on the hook for that. I believe I should be paid for the imposition on my time. I also think that forcing hourly people to take a 30 minute unpaid lunch needs to be fixed, I absolutely hated the one job I've had where this was enforced. I would have much rather just worked a straight 8 hours so I wasn't robbed of 30 minutes of my life every day. Both of these are hard to fix and I don't know how to implement it, but they definitely should be.
    - jfk13 6y ago
      For commuting to their regular workplace? No. If an employee chooses to live three hours away from the office, that's their problem.
      - MereInterest 6y ago
        What if an employer chooses to be located three hours away from the nearest affordable housing?
        smabie 6y ago
        Then don't take the job.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    They would be pretty terrible job arrangements. Although I'd point out that a non-trivial number of people have 3 or 4 hours of commuting a day. Now, you can argue that this is optional and perhaps it is to some degree. Nonetheless a lot of people spend work-related time that's not on the clock.
  - OldHand2018 6y ago
    I think they should get paid for this time too. But... I think that the general idea that the court system upholds is that the employee is free to get a different job if they don't like the unpaid portion of their work. And if it is hard to get new employees to agree to unpaid work, then the employer will either start paying or they will increase the wages to make up for it.
    - chihuahua 6y ago
      Maybe so, but it encourages employers to find ways to circumvent minimum wage laws. An sufficiently creative employer could find ways to have employees on-site for 8 hours per day, but only classify 4 of those 8 hours as paid work and find excuses why the remaining 4 hours are off the clock. E.g. setting things up, putting tools away, doing paperwork, etc.
  - smachiz 6y ago
    If you are the facility manager for a location in the north pole, you wouldn't get paid for travel time to your place of employment. Bear in mind this is a devil's advocate argument - I think they likely should be paid. But there are plenty of places where pay is weird - airline flight attendants for example are paid door close to door open - boarding, offloading, waiting in the airport security lines, waiting at the airport for delayed flights, are all mostly unpaid. The thinking being is that their substantially higher per hour pay makes up for it and it - and I'm sure Apple will make a similar argument. I would bet airport workers - or the people working the dunkin donuts in the food court - aren't paid for the time it takes to get through TSA either.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      Flight attendants aren't paid all that much. At the majors it seems to be around $25-30/hr. (And presumably less on the regional jets).
      - ygjb 6y ago
        So uh, for the most part, $50-$60k/year is a middle class income, and depending on where you live, can be upper middle class (in the US, in USD; in Canada the numbers are lower in CAD). For the vast majority of workers in North America, $25-$30/ hour is well paid. Many people buy houses and raise families in households with one middle class income and one lower income.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > $50-$60k/year is a middle class income, It's perhaps a middle income income, but its not an income that is typical of the middle class (petit bourgeoisie).
        leetcrew 6y ago
        this is needless hairsplitting. I doubt you can find two people who agree on exactly what "middle class" means. some people use class as a direct proxy for income. for others class might be tied to the way you make money (hourly wage, salary, or returns from capital), level of education, and/or "lifestyle". the wikipedia page for "petit bourgeoisie" lists the following as examples: * Successful small business owners. * Middle managers in the service sector (middle management). * Lawyers working in small partnerships. * Private GP practices. depending how successful "successful" is here, the first and second examples could be people making $50-60k in a low-mid COL area. I don't think most people would consider a lawyer to be middle class (maybe upper-middle), and I definitely don't think they would consider a doctor with their own practice to be middle class.
- dv_dt 6y ago
  Maybe the right test hasn't been applied yet. If one is at work say at a burger place, and were working as a cashier, then need to go back to do food prep and need to wash your hands, are you suddenly off the clock while washing your hands? Are you working the whole time? If you travel to your work, and get in line at work to get security screened or wash your hands why would it be different in the middle than at the start of the day?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  Why do you think that one-sentence quote from the dissent makes it likely the SCOTUS would overrule this? I mean, what makes you think a Supreme Court majority would agree that that is the correct test?
  - granzymes 6y ago
    You are completely correct! I misread the start of the sentence. Too late to fix it now.
gamblor956 6y ago
State law vs federal law. Amazon case was a matter of federal law so it would not govern here.
tssva 6y ago
That was a U.S. Supreme Court ruling and not a California Supreme Court ruling. The plantiffs in that case were not all workers in CA and the case was based around the federal portal to portal law. This decision is based upon California state law and involves only employees in California for which state law would apply.

granzymes 6y ago

Judging by this quote, there’s a good chance SCOTUS overturns a ruling on this topic by the 9th circuit a second time. > Justice Thomas disagreed, saying the appeals court had “erred by focusing on whether an employer required a particular activity.” The right test, he said, was whether the activity “is tied to the productive work that the employee is employed to perform.” Maybe the 9th will overturn en blanc before it reaches SCOTUS.

azinman2 6y ago
That’s a very silly viewpoint. If I have to travel to the North Pole to change a lightbulb, should I only get paid for changing the lightbulb? If the security screening takes 9h, would we really expect employees not to be paid? If so, these would be pretty terrible job arrangements.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Furthermore, this would open the door to Apple making any time consuming and unreasonable demands. This ia rife for abuse.
- NationalPark 6y ago
  It's based on the wording of a 1947 law, maybe it's time to change that law. I can see the need for clarity here though. Should employers pay their workers for time spent commuting to a job site/office? Can I live three hours away and make a cool 6 hours of extra wages listening to audio books on my way to/from work?
  - Frondo 6y ago
    Well, maybe, maybe not, but once you're on the job site, you're entitled to be paid for whatever the employer decides to do with you, like security screenings.
  - errantspark 6y ago
    Yes they should be expected to pay for that, it's your time that you can't use for whatever you want because now you have to spend it getting to work. I think it would have to be limited to something reasonable, but yes, unequivocally your employer should be on the hook for that. I believe I should be paid for the imposition on my time. I also think that forcing hourly people to take a 30 minute unpaid lunch needs to be fixed, I absolutely hated the one job I've had where this was enforced. I would have much rather just worked a straight 8 hours so I wasn't robbed of 30 minutes of my life every day. Both of these are hard to fix and I don't know how to implement it, but they definitely should be.
  - jfk13 6y ago
    For commuting to their regular workplace? No. If an employee chooses to live three hours away from the office, that's their problem.
    - MereInterest 6y ago
      What if an employer chooses to be located three hours away from the nearest affordable housing?
      - smabie 6y ago
        Then don't take the job.
- ghaff 6y ago
  They would be pretty terrible job arrangements. Although I'd point out that a non-trivial number of people have 3 or 4 hours of commuting a day. Now, you can argue that this is optional and perhaps it is to some degree. Nonetheless a lot of people spend work-related time that's not on the clock.
- OldHand2018 6y ago
  I think they should get paid for this time too. But... I think that the general idea that the court system upholds is that the employee is free to get a different job if they don't like the unpaid portion of their work. And if it is hard to get new employees to agree to unpaid work, then the employer will either start paying or they will increase the wages to make up for it.
  - chihuahua 6y ago
    Maybe so, but it encourages employers to find ways to circumvent minimum wage laws. An sufficiently creative employer could find ways to have employees on-site for 8 hours per day, but only classify 4 of those 8 hours as paid work and find excuses why the remaining 4 hours are off the clock. E.g. setting things up, putting tools away, doing paperwork, etc.
- smachiz 6y ago
  If you are the facility manager for a location in the north pole, you wouldn't get paid for travel time to your place of employment. Bear in mind this is a devil's advocate argument - I think they likely should be paid. But there are plenty of places where pay is weird - airline flight attendants for example are paid door close to door open - boarding, offloading, waiting in the airport security lines, waiting at the airport for delayed flights, are all mostly unpaid. The thinking being is that their substantially higher per hour pay makes up for it and it - and I'm sure Apple will make a similar argument. I would bet airport workers - or the people working the dunkin donuts in the food court - aren't paid for the time it takes to get through TSA either.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    Flight attendants aren't paid all that much. At the majors it seems to be around $25-30/hr. (And presumably less on the regional jets).
    - ygjb 6y ago
      So uh, for the most part, $50-$60k/year is a middle class income, and depending on where you live, can be upper middle class (in the US, in USD; in Canada the numbers are lower in CAD). For the vast majority of workers in North America, $25-$30/ hour is well paid. Many people buy houses and raise families in households with one middle class income and one lower income.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > $50-$60k/year is a middle class income, It's perhaps a middle income income, but its not an income that is typical of the middle class (petit bourgeoisie).
        leetcrew 6y ago
        this is needless hairsplitting. I doubt you can find two people who agree on exactly what "middle class" means. some people use class as a direct proxy for income. for others class might be tied to the way you make money (hourly wage, salary, or returns from capital), level of education, and/or "lifestyle". the wikipedia page for "petit bourgeoisie" lists the following as examples: * Successful small business owners. * Middle managers in the service sector (middle management). * Lawyers working in small partnerships. * Private GP practices. depending how successful "successful" is here, the first and second examples could be people making $50-60k in a low-mid COL area. I don't think most people would consider a lawyer to be middle class (maybe upper-middle), and I definitely don't think they would consider a doctor with their own practice to be middle class.
dv_dt 6y ago
Maybe the right test hasn't been applied yet. If one is at work say at a burger place, and were working as a cashier, then need to go back to do food prep and need to wash your hands, are you suddenly off the clock while washing your hands? Are you working the whole time? If you travel to your work, and get in line at work to get security screened or wash your hands why would it be different in the middle than at the start of the day?
dragonwriter 6y ago
Why do you think that one-sentence quote from the dissent makes it likely the SCOTUS would overrule this? I mean, what makes you think a Supreme Court majority would agree that that is the correct test?
- granzymes 6y ago
  You are completely correct! I misread the start of the sentence. Too late to fix it now.

gamblor956 6y ago

State law vs federal law. Amazon case was a matter of federal law so it would not govern here.

tssva 6y ago

That was a U.S. Supreme Court ruling and not a California Supreme Court ruling. The plantiffs in that case were not all workers in CA and the case was based around the federal portal to portal law. This decision is based upon California state law and involves only employees in California for which state law would apply.