Supreme Court Basically Rules That Your Employer Doesn't Owe You Any Money for Treating You Like a Thief

Comments

In the ruling the Nine Guardians of Freedom and Justice said: (paraphrased) - "this is a matter for the negotiation table, not within the scope of the wage & hour law".

Wow, these idiots ARE out of touch.

Karlheinz Arschbomber on December 9, 2014 at 2:44 PM

I think the Supreme Court justices should be required to come in on weekends and clean all the toilets in the courthouse--- but since it's not an "integral part of their job," they won't get paid for it.

monorail on December 9, 2014 at 2:45 PM

When I worked for COMAIR at CVG (Cincinnati) I wasn't paid for the time it took to wait for and ride the employee shuttle bus, airport security and inter-terminal train/bus. I don't imagine employees at SeaTac today are either. So why should Amazon act any different for their equivalent security procedures?

Gordon Werner on December 9, 2014 at 2:47 PM

OK - exact quote from page 9 of the decision:

These arguments are properly presented
to the employer at the bargaining table, see 29 U. S. C.
§254(b)(1), not to a court in an FLSA claim.

FLSA=Fair Labor Standards Act (1938)

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14p…

Karlheinz Arschbomber on December 9, 2014 at 2:48 PM

Clarence fucking Thomas WROTE a decision?

Wonders never cease!

Max Solomon on December 9, 2014 at 2:49 PM

I don't agree with the decision, but the details are interesting:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/no-ove…

Essentially, the Supreme Court ruled the same law that doesn't require employers to pay for your commute applies here. Still seems absurd to me, but there you go.

geekboy on December 9, 2014 at 3:29 PM

The decision is well-written, and if you bother to read it, you might learn something about the history of FLSA, its judicial interpretation, and the Portal-to-Portal act that Congress passed to rein in that judicial interpretation. There's a reason this decision was 9-0. Their hands are tied here by the law.

If the test could be satisfied merely by the fact that an employer required an activity, it would sweep into “princi- pal activities” the very activities that the Portal-to-Portal Act was designed to address.

pfffter on December 9, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Funny how the security check time was reduced to 5 min. after the employer thought they might have to pay for it. Employers are rarely concerned for workers unless they have to pay.

wl on December 9, 2014 at 3:33 PM

No doubt the lawyers working on this case were billing in 15-minute increments.

bigyaz on December 9, 2014 at 3:35 PM

@2 -- but if they didn't do it they'd be fired. Makes sense to me.

this guy I know in Spokane on December 9, 2014 at 4:02 PM

@9 usually it's 6 minute increments.

pfffter on December 9, 2014 at 4:04 PM

Now would be a very good time for Amazon workers to go on strike.

dwightmoodyforgetsthings on December 9, 2014 at 4:10 PM

@5, his law clerk wrote it.

sarah91 on December 9, 2014 at 4:51 PM

@11: Actually it varies. But 6-minute increments are actually cheaper, because for a 2-minute phone call you only get billed for 6 minutes, not 15.

bigyaz on December 9, 2014 at 4:51 PM

This reminds me of when I was working fast food as a teenager and my boss made me come in before opening time to do setup and prep work, but I wasn't allowed to clock in until we unlocked the doors. I was there primarily to run a cash register, y'see...

Jenkitty on December 9, 2014 at 4:57 PM

15 comments and no asshole has yet complained that if the employees don't like it they should just get another job?

McBomber on December 9, 2014 at 5:10 PM

Let me get this straight...

Following a law, however ugly it appears is "ridiculous"?

You know, Paul, learning about reality is a good start to any opinion. When one has proven oneself to be oft-ignorant of even casually understandable points of fact, at some point there should be an adult in the room to quietly remark, "Y'r kinda making y'rself look foolish." Why can't The Stranger rely upon experts to report on issues that need expertise?

Dan has been quite verbal in his admitted ignorance of all things that relate to a woman's private parts.

Hint: That's what y'all need to learn. Stop opining on things for which ignorance is the core competency.

I'm Cool on December 9, 2014 at 5:41 PM

Leave it to Thomas to hide his tied hands behind the FLSA. Why did the supremes agree to hear the case if in fact, it's not within their jurisdiction of remedy? Alas, it matters not. Fxck Amazon.

Ruthie5230 on December 9, 2014 at 6:12 PM

@17: Reading comprenehsion: some don't have it.

venomlash on December 9, 2014 at 6:27 PM

@18, actually the hands are tied by the fact that the complaint is seeking remedy under a law, FLSA, that judicial interpretation of which has been reined in by a further act of Congress, the Portal-to-Portal act. They took the case because the court felt the appeals court, in this case, the 9th circuit, had incorrectly applied the law. It was a unanimous decision, the court didn't disagree. Yes, even badass Ruth Bader Ginsburg signed onto this one.

I'm not saying I like the outcome, but there's nothing mysterious going on here. Don't like it? Elect a different Congress. Or revolt.

pfffter on December 9, 2014 at 6:42 PM

I used to work ina Wal-Mart and we had these security checks. The message was, "We know you must be stealing, because you couldn't possibly make an honest living on what we pay you."

Clayton on December 9, 2014 at 7:36 PM

To be fair: the justices actually said that it's not against current law for your employer to not pay you for certain activities that they still require you do.

Hanoumatoi on December 9, 2014 at 7:47 PM

Hey, @18, read @20 a few times.

There's a difference between laws that we don't like and the rule of law.

This is not even a subtly nuanced point. It's quite simple. I don't like the ruling, and even though I am not a law student, I understand the quite simple precedent that was the instigator and determinant for the 9-0 ruling which even swayed the most liberal members of SCOTUS.

Getting angry with reality is...it's just not smart. That's like being a Truther or refusing to admit that climate climate change is man made or that Darwin was right.

Let facts be facts and let intelligent reflection be more important than bias and opinion.

I'm Cool on December 9, 2014 at 8:26 PM

@23 "Let facts be facts and let intelligent reflection be more important than bias and opinion."

Aren't you the same bozo who wrote a completely fictional op-ed for the Stranger under the guise it was your actual accounting figures or something? Only to be called out on it, defend it for a day, and then complain that your fake numbers are just as good as the actual numbers you wouldn't divulge?

tike0vitz on December 9, 2014 at 11:13 PM

@24, so what it he/she was? That doesn't negate the fact that @23 may be (and is) right about this particular situation.

sarah91 on December 9, 2014 at 11:22 PM

Law or not, precedent or not, I would not be happy with a job that forced me to stand around for 2.5 hours every week with no pay. That would fill me with rage, actually.

emor on December 10, 2014 at 7:44 AM

@25
It was a very big deal during the Minimum Wage debate, in which he lied extensively. So, why should anyone believe him now?

This is also the second time I've caught him smugly telling others to stick with "the facts", while I find him a prime source of disinformation.

tike0vitz on December 10, 2014 at 10:38 AM

@25 Continuing to give credence to people's opinions long after they proved themselves untrustworthy is asinine at best.

"so what it he/she was? That doesn't negate the fact that @23 may be (and is) right about this particular situation."

This kind of thinking is why the same people who said privatizing liquor would be the end of life as we know it could two years later say the same about legalizing marijuana.

tike0vitz on December 10, 2014 at 11:00 AM

I disagree with the sentiment that unions can't help these workers. Of course though the whole point of a union is that these workers would be helping themselves if they are willing to organize .

Also I don't understand how hardly anyone is drawing a distinction between a commute to and from work at one's leisure vs an employer mandated security check that would prohibit an employee from the freedom to even leave their work site. It absolutely is an essential work task (or whatever the verbage used)

Upchuck on December 10, 2014 at 8:42 PM

Supreme Court Basically Rules That Your Employer Doesn't Owe You Any Money for Treating You Like a Thief

Comments

Please wait...

Add a comment

Preview

Editors' Picks

What a Year of Lockdown Tells Us About the Nature of Human Time

After Waiting Years for Cities to Act, People Are Painting Their Own Crosswalks

"I'd Buy That For a Dollar"

The Fight for Pride in Arlington

The Urban Archipelago

HoneyHole or HoneyHell?

Support The Stranger

Comments

Please wait...

Add a comment

Preview

Editors' Picks

Just Can't Get Enough?

Sign up for our newsletter for news recaps, updates, and more!