3 ms·

State requirement vs federal requirement. A better question I think is how did the US Supreme Court get the decision so spectacularly wrong?

by ebg13 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
> A better question I think is how did the US Supreme Court get the decision so spectacularly wrong? I think when there is a unanimous decision, you can’t just jump to that premise. Remember, the job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law. Laws can be bad or unjust (without being unconstitutional) and the Supreme Court will go with what the law says.
- _qulr 6y ago
  "The case that the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday turned on the meaning of a 1947 law, the Portal-to-Portal Act" This is the problem. The Supreme Court has no choice but to follow the law. It's up to Congress to change the law. This appears to be an outdated, badly written law that doesn't account for present circumstances.
  - j_walter 6y ago
    This is the biggest frustration that many people have with criticism of SCOTUS...they want them to rule one way or another when congress could simply write new laws to be more clear (ok, it's not simple but it is the correct way). Right vs. Left...conservative vs. liberal...doesn't matter if the laws were written correctly to begin with.
    - _qulr 6y ago
      I think partisanship is the main reason why Congress can't write laws to be more clear. Gridlock is easier than action, which leaves the courts to decide important issues. Imagine the debate over rewriting the 2nd Amendment to be clearer. ;-)
      - j_walter 6y ago
        I couldn't agree more. One of the few things I think Trump has done correctly is that he sunsetted DACA with a timeline that should have been adequate to pass a new law (that was his point actually since the presidential order was not the right way to do it). Enough people were outraged that it should not have been hard to get something done...but still nothing. Better to place blame on Trump than to make sure a permanent law could be passed. Oh...and we shouldn't be leaving it up to the courts...by the time its at SCOTUS the damage has been done and everyone's time is wasted.
- ghaff 6y ago
  From the New York Times article at the time: The case that the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday turned on the meaning of a 1947 law, the Portal-to-Portal Act, which says that companies need not pay for “preliminary” or “postliminary” activities, meaning ones that take place before and after the workday proper. The Supreme Court interpreted the law in 1956 in Steiner v. Mitchell to require pay only for tasks that are an “integral and indispensable part of the principal activities for which covered workmen are employed.” So, if someone disagrees, it seems as if their beef is with the 1947 law rather than the Supreme Court. While I'm sure there are grey areas, there isn't any real disagreement that, in general, workers aren't paid for getting dressed and commuting for example. ADDED: From a lay perspective somewhat related would seem to be the question of whether workers are "on the clock" when changing into work clothes and protective gear. And the answer seems to be only to a limited degree. (Basically yes for special protective gear but not for work clothing in general.) https://blogs.orrick.com/employment/2014/02/05/get-paid-for-getting-dressed-supreme-court-clarifies-changing-clothes-under-the-flsa/ https://blogs.orrick.com/employment/2014/02/05/get-paid-for-...
  - DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
    I'm curious what additional context the SCOTUS applied when interpreting the phrase, “integral and indispensable part of the principal activities for which covered workmen are employed.” My first thought when reading that phrasing is: if we assume that the security checks are NOT integral and indispensable, wouldn't that imply that the employees are free to skip those steps? Or, from another angle, are there any limits on what activities are defined by employers as "integral and indispensable" or "principal"? E.g., could Amazon define the time spent walking from workspace-table to an equipment rack as outside the scope of paid work? IANAL; I'm sure these questions have already been analyzed to death. If anyone knows where a layperson-accessible discussion is available I'd be grateful for a link. [EDIT: reworded for clarity]
    - clairity 6y ago
      > "IANAL .... where a layperson-accessible ..." as a side note, let's not separate ourselves from lawyers in our ability to reason about and determine what's fair, ethical, and just. it's well within our power to interpret and rationalize about human relations. a little specialized training in argumentation doesn't give lawyers special powers in this regard. that is, let's not fall for either regulatory capture or an appeal to authority (that's not to say that lawyers don't often have relevant specialized experience to bring to bear in litigation and negotiation).

State requirement vs federal requirement. A better question I think is how did the US Supreme Court get the decision so spectacularly wrong?

by ebg13 6y ago

State requirement vs federal requirement. A better question I think is how did the US Supreme Court get the decision so spectacularly wrong?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago

> A better question I think is how did the US Supreme Court get the decision so spectacularly wrong? I think when there is a unanimous decision, you can’t just jump to that premise. Remember, the job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law. Laws can be bad or unjust (without being unconstitutional) and the Supreme Court will go with what the law says.

_qulr 6y ago
"The case that the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday turned on the meaning of a 1947 law, the Portal-to-Portal Act" This is the problem. The Supreme Court has no choice but to follow the law. It's up to Congress to change the law. This appears to be an outdated, badly written law that doesn't account for present circumstances.
- j_walter 6y ago
  This is the biggest frustration that many people have with criticism of SCOTUS...they want them to rule one way or another when congress could simply write new laws to be more clear (ok, it's not simple but it is the correct way). Right vs. Left...conservative vs. liberal...doesn't matter if the laws were written correctly to begin with.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    I think partisanship is the main reason why Congress can't write laws to be more clear. Gridlock is easier than action, which leaves the courts to decide important issues. Imagine the debate over rewriting the 2nd Amendment to be clearer. ;-)
    - j_walter 6y ago
      I couldn't agree more. One of the few things I think Trump has done correctly is that he sunsetted DACA with a timeline that should have been adequate to pass a new law (that was his point actually since the presidential order was not the right way to do it). Enough people were outraged that it should not have been hard to get something done...but still nothing. Better to place blame on Trump than to make sure a permanent law could be passed. Oh...and we shouldn't be leaving it up to the courts...by the time its at SCOTUS the damage has been done and everyone's time is wasted.
ghaff 6y ago
From the New York Times article at the time: The case that the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday turned on the meaning of a 1947 law, the Portal-to-Portal Act, which says that companies need not pay for “preliminary” or “postliminary” activities, meaning ones that take place before and after the workday proper. The Supreme Court interpreted the law in 1956 in Steiner v. Mitchell to require pay only for tasks that are an “integral and indispensable part of the principal activities for which covered workmen are employed.” So, if someone disagrees, it seems as if their beef is with the 1947 law rather than the Supreme Court. While I'm sure there are grey areas, there isn't any real disagreement that, in general, workers aren't paid for getting dressed and commuting for example. ADDED: From a lay perspective somewhat related would seem to be the question of whether workers are "on the clock" when changing into work clothes and protective gear. And the answer seems to be only to a limited degree. (Basically yes for special protective gear but not for work clothing in general.) https://blogs.orrick.com/employment/2014/02/05/get-paid-for-getting-dressed-supreme-court-clarifies-changing-clothes-under-the-flsa/ https://blogs.orrick.com/employment/2014/02/05/get-paid-for-...
- DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
  I'm curious what additional context the SCOTUS applied when interpreting the phrase, “integral and indispensable part of the principal activities for which covered workmen are employed.” My first thought when reading that phrasing is: if we assume that the security checks are NOT integral and indispensable, wouldn't that imply that the employees are free to skip those steps? Or, from another angle, are there any limits on what activities are defined by employers as "integral and indispensable" or "principal"? E.g., could Amazon define the time spent walking from workspace-table to an equipment rack as outside the scope of paid work? IANAL; I'm sure these questions have already been analyzed to death. If anyone knows where a layperson-accessible discussion is available I'd be grateful for a link. [EDIT: reworded for clarity]
  - clairity 6y ago
    > "IANAL .... where a layperson-accessible ..." as a side note, let's not separate ourselves from lawyers in our ability to reason about and determine what's fair, ethical, and just. it's well within our power to interpret and rationalize about human relations. a little specialized training in argumentation doesn't give lawyers special powers in this regard. that is, let's not fall for either regulatory capture or an appeal to authority (that's not to say that lawyers don't often have relevant specialized experience to bring to bear in litigation and negotiation).