|
At the end of your shift you clock out then stand in the 2 hour line (because all workers leave at the same time). At what point does this move from a security line to improper dentition. So far that appears to be the only limit that establishes an upper bound on how long you can be held for security. As far as 2 hours to get into the building and a write up if your 5 min late while hitting the line 2 hours early, I could see action for cause on the employer for wrongful termination if they intentionally setup crazy long lines or skimped on security to such a point as to cause the 2 hour line. However I am sure Amazon already has a Mandatory Binding Arbitration agreement to prevent both of the above items from going to court.
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I believe the response from conservatives is that those workers should just use the free market and find work elsewhere. Much like Mandatory Binding Arbitration, this will quickly become a take it or leave it position. As long as the cost of security is less than the cost of product walking away from the location anyway. I would assume by find work elsewhere they mean take out huge loans, go to college, and work in a job they approve.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
PyRosflam posted:At the end of your shift you clock out then stand in the 2 hour line (because all workers leave at the same time). At what point does this move from a security line to improper dentition. So far that appears to be the only limit that establishes an upper bound on how long you can be held for security. I could make a lovely pun here but I won't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
PyRosflam posted:How long is too long? Based on the courts rules today the law says "as long as you want it to be". As such expect security lines to only get longer for min wage jobs as all places install just 1 metal detector and xray and 2-3 guards to process people. You could easily have a 2 hour long line and demand all workers pass through it daily and still not pay them. "Worker's rights" aren't particularly well-defined in this example. I'd also note that the workers are apparently at the factory to do something, so it's unlikely that all places will do the absolute minimum because there are other externalities to that action that would hit their bottom line. PyRosflam posted:At the end of your shift you clock out then stand in the 2 hour line (because all workers leave at the same time). At what point does this move from a security line to improper dentition. So far that appears to be the only limit that establishes an upper bound on how long you can be held for security. I don't think it could qualify as false imprisonment unless they prevented people from leaving the line. I don't know that losing your job would qualify as sufficient threat of harm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
How are these required theft test security checkpoints different from mandatory drug tests, for which employers are required to compensate employees for their time?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Stickman posted:How are these required theft test security checkpoints different from mandatory drug tests, for which employers are required to compensate employees for their time? Because a mandatory drug test is a thing that happens when you are already at work. Here, the court ruled the security checkpoints are part of going to or leaving work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Because a mandatory drug test is a thing that happens when you are already at work. Here, the court ruled the security checkpoints are part of going to or leaving work. Well there's the solution, just never leave work! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Because a mandatory drug test is a thing that happens when you are already at work. Here, the court ruled the security checkpoints are part of going to or leaving work. But they don't always happen at work, and the DoL indicates that employers are required to compensate if they happen outside of work hours. Here's the DoL page: http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/hoursworked/screenER13.asp I haven't read the decision or followed the case, so I'm sure that it came up in the arguments, but I'm really not seeing what how drug testing would be more related to the business than a security checkpoint - and at that point it's just "boo-hoo, my bottom line" because of quantity of testing. Just seems like I'm missing something and/or the law as written is bad. Probably both.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Stickman posted:But they don't always happen at work, and the DoL indicates that employers are required to compensate if they happen outside of work hours. Here's the DoL page: DoL's interpretation appears to be wrong given the SCOTUS decision.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Stickman posted:But they don't always happen at work, and the DoL indicates that employers are required to compensate if they happen outside of work hours. Here's the DoL page: It's not preliminary or postliminary to the principal activities, and drug testing outside of work hours doesn't necessarily "occur either prior to the time on any particular workday at which such employee commences, or subsequent to the time on any particular workday at which he ceases, such principal activity or activities". If I read the law plainly drug tests are not really the type of thing that was supposed to be exempted. Whereas "you worked with valuable stuff all day so we're checking to see if you stole any" is pretty much the definition of a postliminary activity. The one I'm really confused about is the earlier example of booting up your computer before you work - it seems like that's exactly the type of thing that should be exempted as a preliminary activity. I'm wondering if there have been any cases decided on that, or if they've all ended in settlements.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
plaintiffs shoulda argued part of their job duties was to not steal poo poo
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
esquilax posted:It's not preliminary or postliminary to the principal activities, and drug testing outside of work hours doesn't necessarily "occur either prior to the time on any particular workday at which such employee commences, or subsequent to the time on any particular workday at which he ceases, such principal activity or activities". If I read the law plainly drug tests are not really the type of thing that was supposed to be exempted. Okay, the decision makes more sense now (from a legal perspective). Basically, if drug testing results came back faster then companies could just implement them at the beginning of the day, call them "preliminary activities", and employees would just have suck it up or find work at a better employer. Sounds like an American law!
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:plaintiffs shoulda argued part of their job duties was to not steal poo poo Couldn't it just be said that the law already requires that of everyone? It's not specifically a job duty, it's required of everyone at all times no matter where they work, if they even do work. What the employer seems to be doing is externalizing costs on it's employees by making them spend additional time in a way they can't avoid. On the other hand, the same could be said about making me come in at 8am instead of 6am thus "forcing" me to spend an extra 10 minutes in rush hour traffic by comparison. It seems kinda ridiculous to say that an employer should pay for an extra 20 minutes because of that, it's the employees responsibility to be aware of their own resources too. What I'm wondering is how much less bad press Amazon would be getting overall if they had funded a settlement before it got this far instead of trying to sell me a Fire Phone. They could have killed two birds with one stone there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Okay, the decision makes more sense now (from a legal perspective). Basically, if drug testing results came back faster then companies could just implement them at the beginning of the day, call them "preliminary activities", and employees would just have suck it up or find work at a better employer. Sounds like an American law! Daily drug tests don't sound like a particularly efficient business practice, but I could totally see bus drivers or construction workers losing 15 minutes by waiting in line for a breathalyzer (if not unionized)
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
Chadderbox posted:Couldn't it just be said that the law already requires that of everyone? It's not specifically a job duty, it's required of everyone at all times no matter where they work, if they even do work. What the employer seems to be doing is externalizing costs on it's employees by making them spend additional time in a way they can't avoid. On the other hand, the same could be said about making me come in at 8am instead of 6am thus "forcing" me to spend an extra 10 minutes in rush hour traffic by comparison. It seems kinda ridiculous to say that an employer should pay for an extra 20 minutes because of that, it's the employees responsibility to be aware of their own resources too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIXz_vzROrw
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Okay, the decision makes more sense now (from a legal perspective). Basically, if drug testing results came back faster then companies could just implement them at the beginning of the day, call them "preliminary activities", and employees would just have suck it up or find work at a better employer. Sounds like an American law! Since the drug test is not part of your travel to-from the work site they could not be exempted in this rule. The rule is fairly narrow in covering activities that are road blocks to you getting to your place of work. As others said, you could require a drug test to come to a motor pool to pick up a truck and refuse to pay people while they wait in line. This ruling should be called Line-Gate, As it allows employers to place line based roadblocks on staff for any and all jobs for any reason or no reason for some tangible benefit to the employer and refuse to pay for this time. Note that simply allowing workers less free time could in some cases be a tangible benefit. Here is a source on the Call Center boot up issue, looks like it passes this test (the worker is past the gate and waiting for a tool to be ready). https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081120/0250062895.shtml - One more link because the first one has a paywall http://www.employmentlawdaily.com/i...cted-employees/
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
IANAL so it's fun speculation time: could you set up two lanes for workers, a lane of "enhanced security" for B class workers, and then a "standard security" lane for A class workers who, say, don't belong to a union? Also would there be a line drawn at some point so you're not ending up with Chinese sweatshops where workers just spend all their time on the corporate "campus", living in barracks and buying their food with scrip? I mean you aren't imprisoned, you can always leave and lose your job (and your livelihood, and wind up living under a bridge).
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
Hate to say it but the TSA is already breaking ground on this, You have TSA Pre and Standard Security, you technically also have Trusted Staff (for Pilots and such) and Badged TSA staff and other staff whose job is bringing stuff from insecure to secure. Places like Apple and Facebook already try to keep staff on campus as often as they can, so nothing stops them from implementing security checks to ensure staff are not taking "Secrets" off site. They could make this check as inconvenient as possible just to ensure people don't leave often. While no script is involved, they do provide free food as a perk which is in effect a company store as you must be an employee to get the perk. The issue really comes down to the basic problem, An employer can, as a matter of law, put arbitrary time consuming roadblocks in front of staff with little to no impact to the employer. Not a big issue when its only warehouse workers at a small subset of jobs, potentially a huge issue when every company who wants to retain staff, prevent shrinkage, drug test drivers, or simply spite unions and finds out this is a weapon that can be used to ensure workers have much less opportunity to move to new jobs or even take time away from the job site. Also It wont start off as bad as all of the above, it will most likely come down as corporate policy that all staff must have a pat down by a manager at a retail job before leaving the work site. Are you off the clock but not given your corporate mandated patdown because the manager has other things to do? O well you better stay till you get it or you're out of a job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
PyRosflam posted:Also It wont start off as bad as all of the above, it will most likely come down as corporate policy that all staff must have a pat down by a manager at a retail job before leaving the work site. Are you off the clock but not given your corporate mandated patdown because the manager has other things to do? O well you better stay till you get it or you're out of a job. There are, thank god, some obvious risks that will likely keep policies like these in the "I can't believe someone actually suggested this" bin of the corporate lawyers. Specifically, Johnny Khaki with a luxuriant assistant manager's wage and an hour of online training probably shouldn't be told, by company policy, to pat down all those high schooler holiday hires.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
PyRosflam posted:Places like Apple and Facebook already try to keep staff on campus as often as they can, so nothing stops them from implementing security checks to ensure staff are not taking "Secrets" off site. They could make this check as inconvenient as possible just to ensure people don't leave often. While no script is involved, they do provide free food as a perk which is in effect a company store as you must be an employee to get the perk. The vast majority of employees at Apple and Facebook are already exempt from the labor laws at issue here, and it would be perfectly legal to work them 100+ hours a week with no additional pay if those companies so desired.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:The vast majority of employees at Apple and Facebook are already exempt from the labor laws at issue here, and it would be perfectly legal to work them 100+ hours a week with no additional pay if those companies so desired. Software employees of Apple, Google, Facebook and the like are also in high demand so if anything gets too uncomfortable they'll leave in droves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Software employees of Apple, Google, Facebook and the like are also in high demand so if anything gets too uncomfortable they'll leave in droves. The Free Market shall provide, PBUH.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
So long as they don't all come to an agreement to not start bidding wars over employees!
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Software employees of Apple, Google, Facebook and the like are also in high demand so if anything gets too uncomfortable they'll leave in droves. The reason Google has a Disneyworld-like campus is so that employees spend as much time at work as possible, and there are people who downright live on the Google campus. Google's perks and benefit package are insane, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:The reason Google has a Disneyworld-like campus is so that employees spend as much time at work as possible, and there are people who downright live on the Google campus. Google's perks and benefit package are insane, though. Unless you want a family, anyway (though that's true of other campuses too). vvv Google was doing that in Mountain View but they got blocked. vvv computer parts fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:The reason Google has a Disneyworld-like campus is so that employees spend as much time at work as possible, and there are people who downright live on the Google campus. Google's perks and benefit package are insane, though. Facebook is building on campus dorm style apartments for employees.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Facebook is building on campus dorm style apartments for employees. That's because they don't want to pay their employees enough to live closer than 3 hours (6 hours in regular traffic) away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:That's because they don't want to pay their employees enough to live closer than 3 hours (6 hours in regular traffic) away. It's probably impossible to do that; the housing market is completely hosed in the Bay Area. Likely all this would do is increase rent further followed by pay going up followed by rents going up... The only solution is more housing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:It's probably impossible to do that; the housing market is completely hosed in the Bay Area. Likely all this would do is increase rent further followed by pay going up followed by rents going up... Or rent controls that can't be circumvented by paper people fuckery.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Rent controls don't help if you want more people at a location than there exists housing. But this is pretty impressively off topic :/
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
It seems a little insensitive to compare the exploitation of tech workers living in company towns with the exploitation of warehouse workers wasting their lives in security lines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Rent controls don't help if you want more people at a location than there exists housing. maybe this can be tied back around to how SCROTUS is going to pretty much make racial discrimination in housing lawful again, probably. bye bye, East Palo Alto's latino population!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:maybe this can be tied back around to how SCROTUS is going to pretty much make racial discrimination in housing lawful again, probably. bye bye, East Palo Alto's latino population! I'm really glad I'm not the only one who replaces SCOTUS with that in my head
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:So long as they don't all come to an agreement to not start bidding wars over employees! So in that whole scandal my understanding is that they would not actively solicit each others' employees but if someone who worked at one applied to work at another they would be considered through the normal process and possibly hired on. It was an anti-poaching agreement rather than a "never hire anyone who works at one of these other companies, ever" agreement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Chadderbox posted:So in that whole scandal my understanding is that they would not actively solicit each others' employees but if someone who worked at one applied to work at another they would be considered through the normal process and possibly hired on. It was an anti-poaching agreement rather than a "never hire anyone who works at one of these other companies, ever" agreement. Naa, Even if they applied for the job out of the blue, the hiring Rep would ensure the app got shitcanned asap. Hiring reps would get fired regardless of the situation (see the email from Steve Jobs when a mistake happened)
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
Chadderbox posted:So in that whole scandal my understanding is that they would not actively solicit each others' employees but if someone who worked at one applied to work at another they would be considered through the normal process and possibly hired on. It was an anti-poaching agreement rather than a "never hire anyone who works at one of these other companies, ever" agreement. It wasn't just an anti-poaching thing, it was an industry-wide wage-fixing scheme and it's going to continue regardless of whatever the settlement reached is. The people behind it should be in prison but nothing is going to happen to people like Schmitt, and Jobs' legacy of bullshit will be untouched by it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:It wasn't just an anti-poaching thing, it was an industry-wide wage-fixing scheme and it's going to continue regardless of whatever the settlement reached is. The people behind it should be in prison but nothing is going to happen to people like Schmitt, and Jobs' legacy of bullshit will be untouched by it. Well, I guess I have some reading to do then. Speaking of Jobs legacy of bullshit, does it bother anyone else that Dennis Ritchie died right around the same time and his accomplishments had WAY more impact on the world, even in financial terms, but nobody really talked about it at the mass media level then or since because he didn't leverage it all into a personal net worth measured in billions?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Chadderbox posted:Speaking of Jobs legacy of bullshit, does it bother anyone else that Dennis Ritchie died right around the same time and his accomplishments had WAY more impact on the world, even in financial terms, but nobody really talked about it at the mass media level then or since because he didn't leverage it all into a personal net worth measured in billions? Who cares? Steve Jobs wanted the spotlight, and got it. Dennis Ritchie wanted to program great things, and did. Both had obits in all major newspapers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
lifg posted:Who cares? Steve Jobs wanted the spotlight, and got it. Dennis Ritchie wanted to program great things, and did. Both had obits in all major newspapers. The "legacy" I was specifically referring to exists in the minds of people still around. I wasn't commenting on what Jobs or Ritchie wanted or got, it was more about pointing out another example of how lovely corporate owned media is and how annoying that can be. I've derailed the thread a little and I'm going to stop now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
Jagchosis posted:maybe this can be tied back around to how SCROTUS is going to pretty much make racial discrimination in housing lawful again, probably. bye bye, East Palo Alto's latino population! Is there a specific case you're referring to?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 02:49
|
|