|
VitalSigns posted:In God We Trust, and Mohammed is His Prophet
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:55 |
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Just a reminder that next week, SCOTUS is holding oral arguments as to whether or not temp workers like those in Amazon warehouses can be unpaid for the 30+ minute security checks they undergo after work. The workers should just burn the warehouse to the ground. What a bunch of bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
quote:Integrity says it doesn’t owe the workers money because the screenings weren’t directly related to their jobs. “No court has ever held that ‘not breaking the law’ is a principal job activity for which compensation must be paid,” the company’s lawyers wrote in a brief last May. They literally wrote this in defense of not paying workers for a mandatory screening, when they are probably saving more than enough to pay for it due to reduction in losses from theft. It was noted that Amazon workers go through the same checks, but they failed to note if they were paid for their screening times. I'm assuming so, otherwise it would have been mentioned. So basically a staffing company is ripping people off and their excuse is "not stealing isn't part of your job description  ".
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
joeburz posted:They literally wrote this in defense of not paying workers for a mandatory screening, when they are probably saving more than enough to pay for it due to reduction in losses from theft. Even the DoJ and DoL are siding with Integrity too. I'm looking forward to seeing the SCOTUS majority's reasons why mandatory security screening like this should be an off the clock thing. This seems even more open and shut that one of the precedent cases for battery factory workers, whom I can easily see Scalia addressing with a "you don't have to wash off that lead and acid" argument. Considering Amazon's now included in the case due to other lawsuits being rolled in to this, and that Amazon's warehouses are as close to sweatshops as they can get away with, I'd be amazed if they're being paid during the security screening.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Their rationale of "you shouldn't be stealing anyway," is pretty funny considering how many people they're inconveniencing for how few they probably actually find stealing. Stealing isn't in the job description, but they sure are behaving like it is by screening everyone. So going by their logic, they shouldn't be doing these security checks at all unless "Happily be presumed to have broken the law." is part of the job description. It's probably part of the job description.  This is pretty much a clear case of unpaid overtime, and goes right on the pile of other bullshit that comes along with lower wage work like not being paid during the training period after hiring, drug tests(sometimes at the expense of the worker), forced unpaid on-call time, getting paid in Visa prepaid cards, and being coerced into purchasing uniforms from the company by having wages withheld despite that technically being illegal if you're a minimum wage worker. Also, sometimes in a hilarious twist, they just straight up refuse to pay. It's been a long time since we outlawed company scrip and other kinds of shenanigans, but businesses sure have been clever about monetizing their employees directly in the last 25 years. ErIog fucked around with this message at 07:42 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
SCOTUS just denied cert on every marriage equality case it had up. They were cases appealing pro-SSM rulings, so that means the lower court ruling stands. You only need four votes for cert, and judges who agree with the ruling generally deny cert, so that means at least one of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito voted against hearing the cases.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:SCOTUS just denied cert on every marriage equality case it had up. They were cases appealing pro-SSM rulings, so that means the lower court ruling stands. You only need four votes for cert, and judges who agree with the ruling generally deny cert, so that means at least one of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito voted against hearing the cases. Could conceivably be Thomas. I can see him reasoning his way into letting the states and their judiciary sort poo poo out on their own in this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
The New York Times has a good article on the Integrity Staffing case.quote:Integrity Staffing wrote in its brief, “Time spent passing through a security screening is a paradigmatic example of an activity that is noncompensable” because it is “postliminary to employees’ principal job activities.” Its counsel of record is Paul D. Clement, one of the nation’s foremost Supreme Court practitioners. I like the end bit quote:Edward A. Brill, who filed a supporting brief for the Retail Litigation Center, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, voiced concern that if the Supreme Court ruled for Mr. Busk, it would encourage a wave of lawsuits and force many retailers to spend a lot of money revamping their security checks and clock-out procedures. Oh my God, the companies would have to move the punch clock to the other side of the security screening area, what an unbearable burden hobbling Fair Dame Industry  Better to just steal 30 minutes a day from every employee, that doesn't impose costs on anyone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
So does this mean gay marriage is now legal in all the states where bans were overturned but stayed pendig appeal? edit: holy poo poo, I never thought Oklahoma would have marriage equality before other states do. Kro-Bar fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
Kro-Bar posted:So does this mean gay marriage is now legal in all the states where bans were overturned but stayed pending appeal? Yep. WI/IN/VA/UT/OK
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
Kro-Bar posted:So does this mean gay marriage is now legal in all the states where bans were overturned but stayed pendig appeal? Yup.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
Is that the whole list? I thought 7 petitions were denied.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Is that the whole list? I thought 7 petitions were denied. There were 3 from Virginia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
Kro-Bar posted:So does this mean gay marriage is now legal in all the states where bans were overturned but stayed pending appeal? Long Answer: The bans that were struck down, but with the decisions stayed, are now permanently struck down, so there are no barriers to gay marriage in those particular states. However, states within the same federal circuit that were not directly involved in the case may still have bans on the books. Those bans are still enforceable, but once challenged, they will/should be summarily struck at the trial court level in light of the very recent appellate circuit court decisions. E.g., Virginia's bans are struck per the 4th Circuit's opinion in Bostic, but bans in South Carolina (also in the 4th Circuit) are still around. Should a stickler in S.C. say "ew gay marriage, no, look at these state laws banning that ungodly practice," a quick trip to the courthouse will fix that problem and a judge will apply Bostic to S.C.'s bans and strike them down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:SCOTUS just denied cert on every marriage equality case it had up. They were cases appealing pro-SSM rulings, so that means the lower court ruling stands. You only need four votes for cert, and judges who agree with the ruling generally deny cert, so that means at least one of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito voted against hearing the cases. Scalia did say in his dissent that this is exactly what the ruling would do and most of the cases cited that so...
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Kro-Bar posted:edit: holy poo poo, I never thought Oklahoma would have marriage equality before other states do.  It's been great seeing progress elsewhere, but it's a whole different feeling when it hits people you know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
The question is what kind of timetable are we looking at for those other states in the circuit since they weren't directly struck down? I'm assuming it could be awhile.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Could conceivably be Thomas. I can see him reasoning his way into letting the states and their judiciary sort poo poo out on their own in this. That or they know there's 5 in favor of marriage equality so they want to avoid hearing the case and letting SSM get a favorable ruling. Given the spite of guys like Scalia I'd pretty much expect this to be the case. Any state with a conservative-run government is going to be smart to simply not try and pass any laws prohibiting SSM for now, as they can simply try to wait and hope for shifts on the courts to favor them rather than getting a ban struck down and having no way to prohibit it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Any state with a conservative-run government is going to be smart to simply not try and pass any laws prohibiting SSM for now, as they can simply try to wait and hope for shifts on the courts to favor them rather than getting a ban struck down and having no way to prohibit it. There's an easy way to force that though, you just have a gay couple walk into the courthouse and ask for a marriage license. If they're denied, you sue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:There's an easy way to force that though, you just have a gay couple walk into the courthouse and ask for a marriage license. If they're denied, you sue. Once the first gay couple marries there is little recourse to turn back the clock. In theory you can stop any future marriages but I have a hard time seeing that happen
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
It only takes four votes to grant cert. That means, at most, only three Justices voted to grant cert. So, really, y'all are looking at it from the wrong perspective: at least one, and likely two (assuming that the losers-on-the-merits Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito voted no, and there wasn't a weird mashup of yes votes from that group), of the winning side voted to not grant cert: Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. It's pretty obvious that one of the no-cert votes was Ginsburg, because she's been basically saying that was her vote during the interviews she's held in the past two weeks. I would also guess that Ginsburg somehow talked either Kennedy or Breyer into voting no, and waiting to see if a circuit split arose. I would ultimately guess Breyer caved, because he's all about letting democracy work and so I'm sure Ginsburg pressed him on not forcing the decision to come down from on high without being necessary (Ginsburg's favorite caveat about abortion rights), and Kennedy is Mr. Ego Pants that would love to write how gay marriage is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
None of the pro-SSM justices voted to grant cert, and they were never going to. You don't grant cert to a ruling you intend to uphold. By voting against cert, the five pro-SSM justices, for all intents and purposes, made SSM the law of the land. They didn't have to be talked into it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Yep. WI/IN/VA/UT/OK Well there are more states, but those were the ones petitioning the court
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:None of the pro-SSM justices voted to grant cert, and they were never going to. You don't grant cert to a ruling you intend to uphold. By voting against cert, the five pro-SSM justices, for all intents and purposes, made SSM the law of the land. They didn't have to be talked into it. edit: It would also imply the Supreme Court never upholds by more than a 5-4 margin. twodot fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
twodot posted:If the analysis were that simple, the case would have been granted cert, because there is very clearly at least 4 no votes on the court. Presumably at least one of the anti-SSM justices is savvy enough to realize that granting cert would only hasten SSM from sea to shining sea because they have no hope of prevailing, and they allied with whichever pro-SSM judges would prefer the court to avoid the controversy of appearing to hand down a dictate from on high. Let's not forget that the punt on Perry was a 5-4 decision with the unlikely majority alliance of Roberts, Scalia, Breyer, Kagan, and Ginsburg. That coalition would only have needed to convince one more justice to deny cert here, and basically anyone but Kennedy could have been swayed by Ginsburg or Scalia. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:None of the pro-SSM justices voted to grant cert, and they were never going to. You don't grant cert to a ruling you intend to uphold. By voting against cert, the five pro-SSM justices, for all intents and purposes, made SSM the law of the land. They didn't have to be talked into it. You don't need a majority to grant cert.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
I wonder which of the four Windsor dissenters voted not to grant the gay marriage cases cert. Was it Antonin "Homosexual Agenda" Scalia, Clarence "I cling to an 18th Century view of the Constitution and discrimination against gay people was legal then" Thomas, Samuel "I hate everyone except Catholics and Mainline Protestants" Alito, or John "I'm literally a Republican politician just with nearly unlimited power" Roberts
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Someone on SCOTUS Blog pointed out that this is more than likely a strategy by the conservatives on the court to put the breaks on nationwide SSM a bit longer, which is ultimately what this decision does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Someone on SCOTUS Blog pointed out that this is more than likely a strategy by the conservatives on the court to put the breaks on nationwide SSM a bit longer, which is ultimately what this decision does. I can dream.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Glow Sticks posted:John "I'm literally a Republican politician just with nearly unlimited power" Roberts That's a pretty good case for it being him given how mainstream Republicans seem to have gotten the message (read the polls) and backed the gently caress off
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Someone on SCOTUS Blog pointed out that this is more than likely a strategy by the conservatives on the court to put the breaks on nationwide SSM a bit longer, which is ultimately what this decision does. Isn't Ginsburg on the record as not wanting to outrun public opinion too quickly? I know she thinks Roe went too far too fast
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
It was probably Thomas on some "let the states hash it out" argument
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Yep, as mentioned, this is at least one of the conservatives trying to slow down the progress of SSM. If any case gets past the circuit level with a ruling against SSM, that will certainly cause cert to be granted and you'll get a national decision. Until then, the court is going to deny cert to appeals of pro-SSM rulings until the conservative justices think they have a shot at a favorable ruling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Glow Sticks posted:John "I'm literally a Republican politician just with nearly unlimited power" Roberts Now there should be another bullet point in the OP for favorite vivid dream with Roberts re-enacting the Emperor in Episode III but instead of a black man, he's electrocuting 60 years of jurisprudence. Or would a black man in a position of authority be a perfect representation of the jurisprudence he's demolishing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Anyone got any opinions on what the implications will be if Busk loses? What new ways will employers gently caress over employees?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:Now there should be another bullet point in the OP for favorite vivid dream with Roberts re-enacting the Emperor in Episode III but instead of a black man, he's electrocuting 60 years of jurisprudence. As long as it ends with Roberts getting thrown down a loving well, sounds like a good dream.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Anyone got any opinions on what the implications will be if Busk loses? What new ways will employers gently caress over employees? It'll depend on the specifics of the ruling, it could be literally anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Anyone got any opinions on what the implications will be if Busk loses? What new ways will employers gently caress over employees? "Waxing my car isn't an integral and indispensable part of your job as a Warehouse Packing Technician so you don't get paid for it, but if you don't do it every Friday afer work, you're fired."
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Oh oh, I wonder if they'll undermine sexual harassment protections.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:55 |
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Could conceivably be Thomas. I can see him reasoning his way into letting the states and their judiciary sort poo poo out on their own in this. That was my first thought.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 21:56
|
|
