Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 6
Posted: 10/3/2014 3:14:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/3/2014 3:16:30 PM EST by tcrpe]
Amazon.com (AMZN) warehouses are full of stuff people like. To cut down on theft, workers who box and ship it are required to pass through security checkpoints after their shifts, waiting in lines that can take almost 30 minutes to get through.

On Oct. 8 the Supreme Court will hear arguments about whether that time counts as work. In 2010 two former employees of Integrity Staffing Solutions, a temp agency that supplies workers at many of Amazon’s U.S. warehouses, sued the company demanding back pay for the time they spent in security lines after clocking out at Amazon warehouses in Nevada. The security checks, the plaintiffs argued, were required by Integrity and therefore part of the job. (Amazon-employed workers go through the same checks.)
View Quote


Linked for details.

Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:15:53 PM EST
As described, I would agree that should be paid time.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:16:15 PM EST
Yep, the company is requiring they use their time in a specific way expressly for the benefit of the company. Pay up suckas.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:17:35 PM EST
In my utopia, it's "Their business, their rules. Don't like it? Quit".

Back here in America though...yeah. Pay the employees while you're detaining them like that. Make them clock out on the other side of the security line.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:20:58 PM EST
set up the clock in/out stations on the other side of the security checkpoints.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:21:12 PM EST
Pay them, or let them off the floor 30 minutes prior to their shift ending so they don't go over in hours.
If they are working a 40 hour week and spend 30 Mins each way in and out of the warehouse you could be taking 5 hours of OT a week.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:22:31 PM EST
It's not Amazon which will be paying them (just a guess)
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:22:39 PM EST
I would raise hell if I had to spend 30 minutes of my time just to leave work everyday.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:23:28 PM EST
By clocking after going through security checkpoints, Amazon will have a more accurate idea of costs associated with their security. As it stands now, there is no reason for their security company to expedite security checking and can under man the checkpoints. Once Amazon sees these costs, they will be more likely to streamline their security.

Also, if the employer requires the screening prior to departure, it's a job duty and Amazon needs to pay.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:24:22 PM EST
Employees should be punching out after the check.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:26:03 PM EST
Time is Money.

They should be paid.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:26:26 PM EST
Stagger start and quitting times so nobody has to wait.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:26:27 PM EST
One can argue that Amazon has poor hiring policies which cause the theft problem. Their policies, pay up.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:27:35 PM EST
I agree. They should be paid. Better keep them happy before they unionize. They've skirted it once already...
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:29:43 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mk4dubbin:
I would raise hell if I had to spend 30 minutes of my time just to leave work everyday.
View Quote
Yep.

Amazon consistently supports so-called progressive policies. Then, they out-source the staffing for many of their facilities to insulate themselves from the consequences of their politics. Fuck 'em. The company to which this was out-sourced needs to pay those people for required company activities and then pass on the cost to Amazon.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:30:23 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By operatorerror:
Stagger start and quitting times so nobody has to wait.
View Quote


That's actually a good idea, but most companies probably wouldn't be willing to think that far outside the box
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:31:26 PM EST
FPNI
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:31:31 PM EST
Originally Posted By tcrpe:
Amazon.com (AMZN) warehouses are full of stuff people like. To cut down on theft, workers who box and ship it are required to pass through security checkpoints after their shifts, waiting in lines that can take almost 30 minutes to get through.

On Oct. 8 the Supreme Court will hear arguments about whether that time counts as work. In 2010 two former employees of Integrity Staffing Solutions, a temp agency that supplies workers at many of Amazon’s U.S. warehouses, sued the company demanding back pay for the time they spent in security lines after clocking out at Amazon warehouses in Nevada. The security checks, the plaintiffs argued, were required by Integrity and therefore part of the job. (Amazon-employed workers go through the same checks.)
View Quote


Linked for details.

View Quote
Packing houses paid big bucks several yrs ago. Retroactively paying workers for cleaning their equipment after shift.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:32:12 PM EST
The place I worked they made us come to work early, before we were on the clock, to pick up equipment etc. and get to our work site before the other person's shift ended. We won a settlement in the tens of millions for thousands of employees nationwide. I personally was paid somewhere above $8,000.

Our supervisor's locally then made us come to work early to pick up equipment and get searched before entering work. We warned them this would violate the previous settlement. They didn't care.

Another suit was filed and crawled through the unfair labor practice system and was decided some years after I retired. The settlement involved hundreds of employees at my prior work site. It involved a few million dollars, current employees received up to $50,000 each, I'm still waiting on my settlement as a prior employee during the period covered.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:32:22 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mk4dubbin:
I would raise hell if I had to spend 30 minutes of my time just to leave work everyday.
View Quote


Ditto. It's like the Running of the Bulls here at 5:00PM every day.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:32:46 PM EST
It is most unusual that every response so far is basically in agreement.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:33:26 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Subnet:
In my utopia, it's "Their business, their rules. Don't like it? Quit".

View Quote


I'm usually on that side, but not here.

If you're making them be somewhere, and their employment is conditional on them being there, you gotta pay them.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:34:22 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Boomslang64:
It is most unusual that every response so far is basically in agreement.
View Quote


I have faith that some people get that occasionally, businesses do need to listen to their employees and compromise. Failure to do so leads to unionization, which is 100x more destructive in the end than just ponying up for uniforms and time spent in security check in.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:35:23 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Subnet:
In my utopia, it's "Their business, their rules. Don't like it? Quit".

Back here in America though...yeah. Pay the employees while you're detaining them like that. Make them clock out on the other side of the security line.
View Quote


Nothing utopian about it to me. If they didn't agree to it as a part of their employment they should have sought employment elsewhere. Suing for money after the fact is FSA bullshit and I generally hate the way people throw that acronym around here.

I am curious to see how many people say they should be paid with there being so many anti-union people here though.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:39:27 PM EST
Their business, their rules. Employees time, employee gets paid. If that costs too much, change the rules or the process. When I was at Menards Distribution this was the SOP as well, but maybe a 1 minute wait for the guard to check your lunchbox. I can't imagine being detained 30 minutes off the clock on a daily basis. If they make $15/hour that's almost $8,000 a year.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:39:40 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AndrewS:


Nothing utopian about it to me. If they didn't agree to it as a part of their employment they should have sought employment elsewhere. Suing for money after the fact is FSA bullshit and I generally hate the way people throw that acronym around here.

I am curious to see how many people say they should be paid with there being so many anti-union people here though.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AndrewS:
Originally Posted By Subnet:
In my utopia, it's "Their business, their rules. Don't like it? Quit".

Back here in America though...yeah. Pay the employees while you're detaining them like that. Make them clock out on the other side of the security line.


Nothing utopian about it to me. If they didn't agree to it as a part of their employment they should have sought employment elsewhere. Suing for money after the fact is FSA bullshit and I generally hate the way people throw that acronym around here.

I am curious to see how many people say they should be paid with there being so many anti-union people here though.



I'm reasonably sure that at no time during the hiring process did the HR people say "Oh, by the way, we don't trust you at all and you will be forced to perform an unpaid security check for a half hour at the end of each shift".

That's not something that will be known until after you start working there.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:40:33 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Boomslang64:
It is most unusual that every response so far is basically in agreement.
View Quote


If you're not free to leave, it ain't free.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:41:56 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AndrewS:


Nothing utopian about it to me. If they didn't agree to it as a part of their employment they should have sought employment elsewhere. Suing for money after the fact is FSA bullshit and I generally hate the way people throw that acronym around here.

I am curious to see how many people say they should be paid with there being so many anti-union people here though.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AndrewS:
Originally Posted By Subnet:
In my utopia, it's "Their business, their rules. Don't like it? Quit".

Back here in America though...yeah. Pay the employees while you're detaining them like that. Make them clock out on the other side of the security line.


Nothing utopian about it to me. If they didn't agree to it as a part of their employment they should have sought employment elsewhere. Suing for money after the fact is FSA bullshit and I generally hate the way people throw that acronym around here.

I am curious to see how many people say they should be paid with there being so many anti-union people here though.
They should be paid.

This has nothing to do with unions.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:42:40 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By kallnojoy:
As described, I would agree that should be paid time.
View Quote

Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:42:40 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AndrewS:


Nothing utopian about it to me. If they didn't agree to it as a part of their employment they should have sought employment elsewhere. Suing for money after the fact is FSA bullshit and I generally hate the way people throw that acronym around here.

I am curious to see how many people say they should be paid with there being so many anti-union people here though
.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AndrewS:
Originally Posted By Subnet:
In my utopia, it's "Their business, their rules. Don't like it? Quit".

Back here in America though...yeah. Pay the employees while you're detaining them like that. Make them clock out on the other side of the security line.


Nothing utopian about it to me. If they didn't agree to it as a part of their employment they should have sought employment elsewhere. Suing for money after the fact is FSA bullshit and I generally hate the way people throw that acronym around here.

I am curious to see how many people say they should be paid with there being so many anti-union people here though
.


Because they, unlike yourself, understand that dick moves like this are what cause unions to form in the first place.

But hey, don't let us ruin your "fuck the FSA parade" you're on at the moment.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:42:51 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Boomslang64:
It is most unusual that every response so far is basically in agreement.
View Quote


You spoke too soon. There's always a fly somewhere in every punch bowl.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:45:06 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AndrewS:


Nothing utopian about it to me. If they didn't agree to it as a part of their employment they should have sought employment elsewhere. Suing for money after the fact is FSA bullshit and I generally hate the way people throw that acronym around here.

I am curious to see how many people say they should be paid with there being so many anti-union people here though.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AndrewS:
Originally Posted By Subnet:
In my utopia, it's "Their business, their rules. Don't like it? Quit".

Back here in America though...yeah. Pay the employees while you're detaining them like that. Make them clock out on the other side of the security line.


Nothing utopian about it to me. If they didn't agree to it as a part of their employment they should have sought employment elsewhere. Suing for money after the fact is FSA bullshit and I generally hate the way people throw that acronym around here.

I am curious to see how many people say they should be paid with there being so many anti-union people here though.


It would take a real unionista to think that being anti union as they stand now as being anti worker.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:45:30 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By WildMadDog:



I'm reasonably sure that at no time during the hiring process did the HR people say "Oh, by the way, we don't trust you at all and you will be forced to perform an unpaid security check for a half hour at the end of each shift".

That's not something that will be known until after you start working there.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By WildMadDog:
Originally Posted By AndrewS:
Originally Posted By Subnet:
In my utopia, it's "Their business, their rules. Don't like it? Quit".

Back here in America though...yeah. Pay the employees while you're detaining them like that. Make them clock out on the other side of the security line.


Nothing utopian about it to me. If they didn't agree to it as a part of their employment they should have sought employment elsewhere. Suing for money after the fact is FSA bullshit and I generally hate the way people throw that acronym around here.

I am curious to see how many people say they should be paid with there being so many anti-union people here though.



I'm reasonably sure that at no time during the hiring process did the HR people say "Oh, by the way, we don't trust you at all and you will be forced to perform an unpaid security check for a half hour at the end of each shift".

That's not something that will be known until after you start working there.


They probably didn't. However, the employee made the choice to stay with the company after finding out. They could have quit and found employment elsewhere. When the employee found out is irrelevant. They could have instituted this policy with a work force that has been there for 5 years and the employee still has the option to leave.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:48:07 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By forker:
They should be paid.

This has nothing to do with unions.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By forker:
Originally Posted By AndrewS:
Originally Posted By Subnet:
In my utopia, it's "Their business, their rules. Don't like it? Quit".

Back here in America though...yeah. Pay the employees while you're detaining them like that. Make them clock out on the other side of the security line.


Nothing utopian about it to me. If they didn't agree to it as a part of their employment they should have sought employment elsewhere. Suing for money after the fact is FSA bullshit and I generally hate the way people throw that acronym around here.

I am curious to see how many people say they should be paid with there being so many anti-union people here though.
They should be paid.

This has nothing to do with unions.


The employees should have quit.

Sure it does. There are already 3 posts saying this would encourage unionization.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:49:05 PM EST
These kind of cases seem very common and the companies seem to always lose.

My mom used to work at a food processing place and, of course, required employees to suit up in the white jump suits, hairnets, shoes, etc. A couple years after she retired she got a surprise check in the mail along with a letter from a lawyer explaining what it was. The check was for 25 yrs of backpay for all the time she spent getting suited up at the job.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:49:50 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TonyTiger76:


Because they, unlike yourself, understand that dick moves like this are what cause unions to form in the first place.

But hey, don't let us ruin your "fuck the FSA parade" you're on at the moment.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TonyTiger76:
Originally Posted By AndrewS:
Originally Posted By Subnet:
In my utopia, it's "Their business, their rules. Don't like it? Quit".

Back here in America though...yeah. Pay the employees while you're detaining them like that. Make them clock out on the other side of the security line.


Nothing utopian about it to me. If they didn't agree to it as a part of their employment they should have sought employment elsewhere. Suing for money after the fact is FSA bullshit and I generally hate the way people throw that acronym around here.

I am curious to see how many people say they should be paid with there being so many anti-union people here though
.


Because they, unlike yourself, understand that dick moves like this are what cause unions to form in the first place.

But hey, don't let us ruin your "fuck the FSA parade" you're on at the moment.


I didn't say fuck anyone. I really don't care what they do because if I were in their shoes I would have had the good sense to quit.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:52:04 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By retgarr:


It would take a real unionista to think that being anti union as they stand now as being anti worker.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By retgarr:
Originally Posted By AndrewS:
Originally Posted By Subnet:
In my utopia, it's "Their business, their rules. Don't like it? Quit".

Back here in America though...yeah. Pay the employees while you're detaining them like that. Make them clock out on the other side of the security line.


Nothing utopian about it to me. If they didn't agree to it as a part of their employment they should have sought employment elsewhere. Suing for money after the fact is FSA bullshit and I generally hate the way people throw that acronym around here.

I am curious to see how many people say they should be paid with there being so many anti-union people here though.


It would take a real unionista to think that being anti union as they stand now as being anti worker.


I am neither pro nor anti union/worker. Drawing divisive lines like that is how people manipulate you. Most of Arfcom has drawn a line though and I find the responses so far pretty interesting.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:52:11 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By kallnojoy:
As described, I would agree that should be paid time.
View Quote


Yep.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:53:14 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Zaphod:


Yep.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Originally Posted By kallnojoy:
As described, I would agree that should be paid time.


Yep.

Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:53:41 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/3/2014 3:54:32 PM EST by AudiDat]
I'll see your "their company their rules", and raise you a "their state their laws".

There are employment laws for a reason, Amazon is going to find out pretty quickly that it's costly to dick over employees; rules or not.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 3:57:36 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By HeavySix:
set up the clock in/out stations on the other side of the security checkpoints.
View Quote


Yepp.. pretty simple actually.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 4:00:20 PM EST
Pay them, unless you catch them stealing. Next caller.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 4:08:36 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AndrewS:

The employees should have quit.

Sure it does. There are already 3 posts saying this would encourage unionization.
View Quote


Realistically not everyone can afford to quit based on principle unfortunately.

Employer is requiring them to work, they should be paid. It's pretty simple.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 4:11:42 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RolandofGilead:


Realistically not everyone can afford to quit based on principle unfortunately.

Employer is requiring them to work, they should be paid. It's pretty simple.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RolandofGilead:
Originally Posted By AndrewS:

The employees should have quit.

Sure it does. There are already 3 posts saying this would encourage unionization.


Realistically not everyone can afford to quit based on principle unfortunately.

Employer is requiring them to work, they should be paid. It's pretty simple.


Realistically not everyone can afford a lot of things.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 4:12:13 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By retgarr:
Yep, the company is requiring they use their time in a specific way expressly for the benefit of the company. Pay up suckas.
View Quote


This.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 4:13:20 PM EST
Amazon is gonna lose their ass.

Place I worked went through the same shit. Someone got pissed and the "Portal to Portal" rule was thrown down, management got a case of the ass, and it went to court for about .0004 seconds.

As soon as you are on premises and in the building, you are on the friggin' clock at the agreed to time of shift start, until agreed to time of shift end, and any company requirements during that time before and after are to be treated as on the clock.

In our case it was in uniform and armed, until changeover and signed out. This meant not being armed(Drawing equipment) until AFTER shift start and briefing.
Anyone arming up before briefing was on the clock, and no one could be in the briefing room until on the clock.....it made a goat rodeo out of showing up early to get some damn coffee.

Standing in line and detained until searched, is definitely a condition of employment, and thus subject to compensation.
Our company wasn't the first to get hammered, and IIRC, the company that set the precedent, was one of the larger employers nation wide.

How much ya wanna bet the Union is going to go for back wages owed in a class action?
OUCH!!!!

Link Posted: 10/3/2014 4:13:51 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AndrewS:


Realistically not everyone can afford a lot of things.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AndrewS:
Originally Posted By RolandofGilead:
Originally Posted By AndrewS:

The employees should have quit.

Sure it does. There are already 3 posts saying this would encourage unionization.


Realistically not everyone can afford to quit based on principle unfortunately.

Employer is requiring them to work, they should be paid. It's pretty simple.


Realistically not everyone can afford a lot of things.



So your solution is that these employees just work for free?

I understand your logic, and I'm a big believer in "their company their rules" however applying a principle like that across the board without also applying some common sense will get you into trouble.

Employees should be compensated for time worked. I don't see how anyone could disagree with that.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 4:14:17 PM EST
30 minutes?



yup, pay them.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 4:17:32 PM EST
If they are not free to leave then they need to be paid, simple as that.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 4:18:19 PM EST
I worked on a particular job site with approximately 200+ people from different trades. The GC wanted everyone to have their tires fire hosed off before driving on the street to cut down on the mud.

That policy lasted one day once they were presented with all of the extra tickets for overtime.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 4:19:21 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ValleyGunner:


This.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ValleyGunner:
Originally Posted By retgarr:
Yep, the company is requiring they use their time in a specific way expressly for the benefit of the company. Pay up suckas.


This.

How their lawyers, HR folks, or managers with brains thought this was a good and legal move is beyond me.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 6
Top Top