3 ms·

Brilliant piece, also in comparison to Walmart: "Meanwhile, both companies have studiously avoided unionization and treat their workers miserably. In one famou

Brilliant piece, also in comparison to Walmart: "Meanwhile, both companies have studiously avoided unionization and treat their workers miserably. In one famous incident, Amazon hired paramedics to revive heat-sick employees at a Pennsylvania warehouse rather than buy an air-conditioning unit."

pjmlp 12y ago
They also use lame processes here in Germany, by hiring people from the job centers in a situation that they cannot reject offers, with a salary that barely gets to the end of the month and bad working conditions.
icebraining 12y ago
I think that's a great reason to force them to indemnify their workers and ex-workers, and to provide safe working conditions. I don't see how it justifies breaking Amazon up. It's not like smaller firms don't often do the same - for example, the Chinese restaurant workers we read about just a few days ago weren't exactly hired by multinationals.
tzs 12y ago
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in a case involving Amazon working conditions, although the workers involved are actually employees of Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., which provides staffers for Amazon warehouses. The workers are required to go through security screening at the end of their shifts, to make sure they aren't stealing from Amazon. There are only two check stations for the entire warehouse they work in, and it often takes workers 25 minutes to get through the line and leave. They are required to clock out BEFORE they get in line, so that's 25 unpaid minutes. The workers won in the 9th Circuit, and that spawned several class action suits seeking compensation for about 100000 workers who are subject to post-shift security screenings. CVS Pharmacy and Apple are also facing such suits. The company is arguing that time waiting in line for a security check is similar to commuting time, which companies do not have to pay for. That law is that employers have to pay for things that are "integral and indispensable part of the principal activities" of the job. Several Justices seemed skeptical that this covered security screenings on exit--it's not a principal activity of the job. The lawyer for the employees argued that an employee is hired to do what he's told to do, and so should be paid for things that the employer requires him to do. Some Justices did seem receptive to the worker's case. Justice Kagan noted that what makes Amazon special is that they have a better inventory control system than their competitors, and it is very important for them to know where everything is. Merchandise security is a principle activity of Amazon's operations, and so the security checks would be a principle activity of the job. The Obama administration is siding with Amazon.
- humanrebar 12y ago
  Not germane to this case, but I've recently started to wonder why employers aren't more responsible for commute times. There aren't really incentives to situate places of employment in affordable neighborhoods. Long commute times end up being a regressive drain on the time of employees, and employers bear no responsibility to alleviate the problem though they are complicit in its creation.

pjmlp 12y ago

They also use lame processes here in Germany, by hiring people from the job centers in a situation that they cannot reject offers, with a salary that barely gets to the end of the month and bad working conditions.

icebraining 12y ago

I think that's a great reason to force them to indemnify their workers and ex-workers, and to provide safe working conditions. I don't see how it justifies breaking Amazon up. It's not like smaller firms don't often do the same - for example, the Chinese restaurant workers we read about just a few days ago weren't exactly hired by multinationals.

tzs 12y ago

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in a case involving Amazon working conditions, although the workers involved are actually employees of Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., which provides staffers for Amazon warehouses. The workers are required to go through security screening at the end of their shifts, to make sure they aren't stealing from Amazon. There are only two check stations for the entire warehouse they work in, and it often takes workers 25 minutes to get through the line and leave. They are required to clock out BEFORE they get in line, so that's 25 unpaid minutes. The workers won in the 9th Circuit, and that spawned several class action suits seeking compensation for about 100000 workers who are subject to post-shift security screenings. CVS Pharmacy and Apple are also facing such suits. The company is arguing that time waiting in line for a security check is similar to commuting time, which companies do not have to pay for. That law is that employers have to pay for things that are "integral and indispensable part of the principal activities" of the job. Several Justices seemed skeptical that this covered security screenings on exit--it's not a principal activity of the job. The lawyer for the employees argued that an employee is hired to do what he's told to do, and so should be paid for things that the employer requires him to do. Some Justices did seem receptive to the worker's case. Justice Kagan noted that what makes Amazon special is that they have a better inventory control system than their competitors, and it is very important for them to know where everything is. Merchandise security is a principle activity of Amazon's operations, and so the security checks would be a principle activity of the job. The Obama administration is siding with Amazon.

humanrebar 12y ago
Not germane to this case, but I've recently started to wonder why employers aren't more responsible for commute times. There aren't really incentives to situate places of employment in affordable neighborhoods. Long commute times end up being a regressive drain on the time of employees, and employers bear no responsibility to alleviate the problem though they are complicit in its creation.