
9th Circuit Rules Apple Owes Retail Workers for Time Spent Security Screening - clairity
https://www.macrumors.com/2020/09/03/apple-owes-retail-workers-time-spent-bag-checks/
======
red_hare
As a teenager, I worked running boardwalk games for a very well known theme
park. I don't want to say the name, but let's just say it was one with _many
flags_.

Every day the workflow was as follows:

    
    
      1. Sign-in in the employee entrance office.
      2. Get your cash bag from costumes.
      3. Pick up $200 worth of singles from the cash office for making change which both you and the teller would count out.
      4. Go through a security check.
      5. Walkthrough the park from the employee entrance to where your game was (often the other side of the park).
    

The whole thing took 20 minutes and we would signed-in to start being paid at
_the next_ 15 minute interval from when we arrived at our game.

When we checked out, we did the whole process in reverse but would be signed-
out for the previous 15 minute interval when we left our game area.

All in all, we were losing 40-68 minutes of wages per day. Worse if there were
long lines in the office or costumes or the cash office.

Of course, we were also only paid $6.15 an hour and had to pay union dues out
of that, so in total, it didn't add up to much...

~~~
liability
It's stunning your union would permit this shit. It's no wonder Americans in
general are so sour on unions if this is a representative experience.

~~~
MiroF
Unions are hard because employers can basically do whatever the fuck they want
to fight the union and they usually only get the NLRB injunction/penalty
months/years later, after everyone originally supporting the action has been
removed by the company.

Some unions are also just in the pocket of management. I have friends who are
teamster organizers and they've told me some managers in some industries will
actually request unions.

~~~
tdeck
To expand a bit, a union is supposed to be democratic - the workers themselves
organize to promote their own interests. But many unions that remain these
days have become professionalized. They have their own well-paid
administration and lobbyists, and their levers of power are political
contributions and signing restrictive long-term contracts with employers.

Here is an article I found that goes into this:
[https://www.labornotes.org/2002/06/corporatization-
unions](https://www.labornotes.org/2002/06/corporatization-unions)

~~~
MiroF
> their levers of power are political contributions and signing restrictive
> long-term contracts with employers.

I'm curious how you think this differs from traditional practices, generally i
think of signing security clauses + political influence as basic union 101.

There've always been professional organizers as long as there've been unions.
They're hardly "well-paid" by private standards.

~~~
tdeck
Both styles of union have a long history, but the alternative practice is to
rely more heavily on strikes and other workplace actions, and less on pay-to-
play politics.

It may be "union 101" to sign no-strike clauses but there are unions like the
IWW that have always rejected them.

~~~
zaarn
What you need is a union law similar to germany. In germany, when you apply to
a job where a union has created a union employee contract (ie, standardized
pay, standardized hours & benefits), then you can choose to use that contract
even if you are not part of the union and you are entitled to still do your
own contract even if you are in the union.

The only time you have to accept certain parts in your contract no choice is
if they are mandated by the worker's council, which is voted for
democratically by workers from and for a specific company and they can veto
anything the company does or demand changes with a 50% share in board votes.

~~~
MiroF
I don't see how this is different from a US union contract, which is approved
by the majority of the local.

Generally, the union will not make the dues optional because that is how
unions collapse in the US.

------
learc83
I worked at Best Buy during college, and if you closed you'd have to wait for
a manager to unlock the door for you and check your stuff.

If I had to wait more than a minute or so, I'd fill out a time correction for
the time I was spent locked in the building. Anytime someone said anything
about it, I said if I'm stuck in the building I'm under the company's control,
so I should be paid. Eventually managers just started getting there faster
when I paged them.

A while later Best Buy was sued for this and lost.

~~~
dliff
I worked for Best Buy (Geek Squad) as well, about 12 years ago. I had the same
experience. Even if they were going to pay me for the time, it felt wrong that
they told me I was not able to leave. At times you could be waiting for 15
minutes. It was my first job at 16 years of age, and I didn't have the care or
confidence to correct the time punch. At my store they would have to approve
time punch modifications, so it would have been obvious if you did that every
night.

The one person who did get fired for stealing was simply grabbing laptops,
removing them from their box, and casually walking out with them.

------
quesera
The fact that Apple let this go to court is disappointing.

Apple should do the right thing here, even if they are not legally obligated.

Pay retail employees for all work which is required of them. Do not dither
over trivialities.

~~~
matz1
Disagree, as Apple, it is in their best interest to fight this.

For apple, employee are expenses, reducing expense and increasing profit is
what a company should do.

~~~
jchw
...was it worth the legal costs?

By this logic they might as well try not paying their employees at all and
letting that go to court too.

(To clarify, it's not that I _necessarily_ think there's anything particularly
egregious about the original practice since it seems commonplace, but the
replyee's sentiment that they should've just given in is absolutely correct.)

~~~
matz1
If they won, yes.

>By this measure they might as well try not paying their employees at all and
letting that go to court too

If they can figure out the way to do that, they should.

~~~
jchw
No, no they should not. I am not going to argue with this.

edit: Also, "if they won" \-- that's an assumption that is _already_ false. If
you just disregard risk all the time, you go out of business.

~~~
matz1
Not saying to disregard risk. Of course the cost vs benefit analysis have to
be done.

~~~
jchw
OK, but you also shouldn't disregard ethics. Even if you have the most
egregiously simplified view of capitalism, disregarding ethics continuously
can catch up with you. Plus, there are _plenty_ of other reasons to not short-
change your employees. Your employees are.. You. They're your company. If you
try to skimp on paying your employees, they will find ways to return the
favor. Trust me, I worked in retail.

~~~
matz1
Not saying to disregard ethics.

>you try to skimp on paying your employees, they will find ways to return the
favor.

That would be included in the cost/risk part. If the cost/risk of skimp on
paying your employees < benefit then they should do it.

~~~
jchw
Looking at the world through the lens of only corporate cost/benefit and
essentially disregarding externalities feels unwise. You could always just
follow the rules as they were intended to be followed, not end up in the news,
not pay court fees, and have happier employees, regardless of if your bottom
line will _technically_ better at year-end. (I know roughly ~nobody actually
does this, but wishful thinking.)

Regardless, at this point you seem to basically be saying, "They should do it,
unless it's not worth it." Everyone else is saying "It's not worth it, and
that's why they should not do it."

~~~
JoshTriplett
> Regardless, at this point you seem to basically be saying, "They should do
> it, unless it's not worth it." Everyone else is saying "It's not worth it,
> and that's why they should not do it."

Some people are also saying "whether it'd be worth it or not, they should not
do it."

------
skunkworker
Will this also apply to the California Supreme Court ruling that Amazon won
back in 2013?

[https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/business/supreme-court-
ru...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/business/supreme-court-rules-
against-worker-pay-for-security-screenings.html)

~~~
granzymes
Judging by this quote, there’s a good chance SCOTUS overturns a ruling on this
topic by the 9th circuit a second time.

> Justice Thomas disagreed, saying the appeals court had “erred by focusing on
> whether an employer required a particular activity.” The right test, he
> said, was whether the activity “is tied to the productive work that the
> employee is employed to perform.”

Maybe the 9th will overturn en blanc before it reaches SCOTUS.

~~~
azinman2
That’s a very silly viewpoint. If I have to travel to the North Pole to change
a lightbulb, should I only get paid for changing the lightbulb? If the
security screening takes 9h, would we really expect employees not to be paid?
If so, these would be pretty terrible job arrangements.

~~~
NationalPark
It's based on the wording of a 1947 law, maybe it's time to change that law. I
can see the need for clarity here though. Should employers pay their workers
for time spent commuting to a job site/office? Can I live three hours away and
make a cool 6 hours of extra wages listening to audio books on my way to/from
work?

~~~
jfk13
For commuting to their regular workplace? No. If an employee chooses to live
three hours away from the office, that's their problem.

~~~
MereInterest
What if an employer chooses to be located three hours away from the nearest
affordable housing?

~~~
smabie
Then don't take the job.

------
jws
Always amazing to see how things are decided by tiny reading of the English
language. The law states…

 _Hours worked’ means the time during which an employee is subject to the
control of an employer, and includes all the time the employee is suffered or
permitted to work, whether or not required to do so_

The lower court read that as "hours worked is the time under employer control
where the employee can work whether they do it or not". The supremes cut that
into two statements at the ", and" and made "subject to the control of the
employer" stand alone in addition to when they could be made to work.

By definition the supremes are correct, but the judges that ruled the other
way are also very experienced judges.

Also important… Apple (probably accidentally) forfeited the "de minimis"
argument which says employees don't have to be paid for small, incidental
periods of time off the clock. I was expecting this case to be a declaration
on reasonable "de minimis" requirements. Instead we got a sentence diagramming
exercise.

~~~
mehrdadn
> The lower court read that as "hours worked is the time under employee
> control where the employee can work whether they do it or not". The supremes
> cut that into two statements at the ", and" and made "subject to the control
> of the employer" stand alone in addition to when they could be made to work.

(1) I think you meant "time under _employer_ control"?

(2) Are you suggesting the lower court just ignored the "is suffered" part?

~~~
jws
1 - thanks, fixed.

2 - the lower court appears to have used the back half of the sentence as
describing the components of the first half.

Given the supremes’ reading, the back half doesn’t need to even be there,
though I guess if you can conceive of someone working for a company but not
subject to the control of the company it would cover some ground. Heaven knows
I’ve had employees like that.

~~~
mehrdadn
2 - But if the circuit court used the back of the sentence to read the first
half, time going through security screening would've seemed like a pretty
obvious example of time that the employee "is suffered", right?

My understanding was that's not what happened though. See page 7 for the
summary of the district court's reasoning.

~~~
Thorrez
Are you saying "is suffered" stands alone? What does that mean? I read it as
"is suffered to work", meaning the employee is allowed to work, which in this
case it sounds like it might not apply.

~~~
mehrdadn
Yes. I understand to "be suffered" here means "to be made to go through
something unpleasant/undesired/etc."... which is what a security check is. The
point I take being that if you make employees "suffer", you can't use their
inability to perform work during that time as an excuse not to pay them. (Note
the word in between is "or", not "to".)

~~~
Thorrez
That's not my understanding of "be suffered".

"He suffers a loss" means a man is suffering a loss. The loss is hurting him.

"A loss is suffered" means someone/something is suffering a loss. The loss his
hurting someone/something.

"The employee is suffered" means someone/something is suffering the employee.
The employee is hurting someone/something.

Your definition would match "the employee suffers", but that's the opposite of
"the employee is suffered".

~~~
mehrdadn
> "The employee is suffered" means someone/something is suffering the
> employee. The employee is hurting someone/something.

Huh, interesting. How does this make sense in context though? The text says _"
all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work"_ must be
compensated, so you're saying the law says that an employee must get paid for
all the time he spends doing either of {hurting someone/something, being
permitted to work}? Why would there be a law to mandate paying employees that
hurt people...?

~~~
Thorrez
I think they're using an alternate definition of "suffer".

> 4 : to allow especially by reason of indifference

>> the eagle suffers little birds to sing

> — William Shakespeare

[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suffer](https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/suffer)

So "is suffered" would actually just be a synonym for "is permitted" in this
case. So essentially "is suffered" could be removed with no change in meaning,
since "is permitted" is already in the law. As for why lawmakers decided to
insert what appears to be a useless and confusing synonym, I'm not sure.

~~~
mehrdadn
Oh interesting! Thank you!

------
falcolas
Good. It’s not a part of their commute, and it’s required to start/end
working. So, just fricking pay them.

~~~
refurb
Yeah, the Amazon ruling never made sense to me. If your employer is
restricting what you can do with your time (I.e. wait for a security screen
before leaving work) then they need to pay you for that time.

~~~
ghshephard
It's not so much what makes _sense_ \- I think the vast majority, if not
everyone, on HN would agree that it makes sense to pay an employee if they are
required to perform a particular time-consuming security screening while on
the work site as part of their job. The question is, what does the _law_ say -
and, rather than have judges go against the law, and do what _they think_
makes sense, the proper approach is to change the law.

~~~
anigbrowl
Equity stands on equal footing with law in the Constitution, and is often more
efficient. Specific performance in paying the back wages and and injunction
against further shenanigans is an equally viable approach.

It's worth reflecting on the fact that people on the more powerful side of
asymmetrical contract relationships are often motivated to do whatever they
can get away with, and the absence of a sufficiently specific law is often
treated as a license to shift a cost burden onto the weaker party. The problem
with your approach is endless multiplication, specification, and complexity of
law, which drives up the cost of getting into a legal dispute for everyone.

~~~
Karunamon
The problem with the opposite approach is "legislating from the bench", which
leads to legal uncertainty and comes with plenty of its own problems. That
complexity you mentioned doesn't go away, it just gets shifted into case law
instead of statutory law.

Law isn't complex just for the benefit of lawyers.

------
ClumsyPilot
This should have been an open-and-shut case, its unbelievable that it took
years to re-affirm established norm that employees must be paid for their
time, no matter what the firm decides to waste it on. So don't waste it.

------
ldoughty
Like many people, I worked retail. I never got angry at the security guy
trying to let me out the door, but it was frustrating to wait 5 minutes here
and there unpaid.

I agree that people should be paid for that time.. but I'm also curious where
the line is drawn? I left the city to work on a small town because my commute
5 miles/day was 15-20 hours/week. I suppose you can argue many jobs pay well
enough to cover that... But people also work retail in those areas.

An ideal solution would be to spread out the cities -- encourage more remote
working (though not like we currently see)... But in lieu of that, where is
the limit?

Is employee parking, which is a 5 minute walk to the back of the lot, covered?
I had a friend that works at a car factory... If you don't drive that
manufacturers car, you park in lot B, an extra minute or three away. Is that
any different then being forced to stand at the for to leave a few minutes now
and then? (It's not always 5-15 minutes, where this example is a constant).

Please accept this as a thought experiment... Not a criticism against better
pay for retail. Everyone deserves the pursuit of happiness.

~~~
GeneralMayhem
The limit, legally, is pretty cut and dry: commute time is not paid, anything
on site is. If you have to wait in line for security, that's paid. If it takes
10 minutes to count out your till at the end of a cashier shift, that's paid.
If you're sent to another location in the middle of the day, time getting
there from your normal place of work is paid.

There are a small handful of edge cases that vary by state (e.g., if you have
to change into a uniform when you get to work, that's considered on-the-clock
in California, but not federally), but not many.

~~~
ldoughty
How do you feel about "employee parking" being an extra minute or two away?
That time adds up to... And it's virtually the same thing -- ”company policy
mandatees you ___"...

I agree with everything you're staying, but add I said, this is a thought
experiment... What would be a good line to draw?

~~~
HeyZuess
> What would be a good line to draw?

Parking is a convenience, a benefit as such. Your responsibility is to arrive
at the entrance, ready for work on time (or clock in). When someone from the
company prohibits you from entry to clock in or leave on time, that is on the
company.

Another aligned argument here, could be that the closet food restaurant is 20
minutes away and you have 60 minutes for lunch. It is not the companies
responsibility to make sure you make it there and back in 60 minutes, you
account for traffic, ordering time, eating time etc. But if the company stops
you at the door with a security guard for 10 minutes, before you can go get
your lunch, and when you enter back from lunch then it's their problem.

~~~
unishark
> Your responsibility is to arrive at the entrance, ready for work on time (or
> clock in).

This seems circular, like saying you shouldn't get paid for working on a
project at home because you agreed to be responsible for completing the
project at home. In both cases it is a task that requires time and effort,
which you are doing for the company's benefit, not your own.

Ultimately these factors are included in the employee's mind when they seek
and negotiate for jobs. All things being equal, you take the job with shorter
commute and same pay because the commute is part of the job in your mental
calculation. You can also negotiate for more pay to offset a long commute.

~~~
HeyZuess
> Ultimately these factors are included in the employee's mind when they seek
> and negotiate for jobs. All things being equal, you take the job with
> shorter commute and same pay because the commute is part of the job in your
> mental calculation. You can also negotiate for more pay to offset a long
> commute.

There are many choices at play here, some may even may live further away to
offset the cost of living or have a bigger back yard etc. I am sure that many
do this in the cities.

But all things being equal if you are wage earner, you generally get paid by
the hour and thus time spent at work at the companies need or request, should
be paid for. If you cannot leave your job on time, then you should be paid for
that time.

Some things are just inflexible in any workplace, both from an employee's and
an employer's perspective, and a legal one.

Now those fortunate people who are salary earners, they get to negotiate a
little more. However generally (unless they have a flexible agreement), there
is still hours of work which are committed to.

All others like contractors etc fall into a different pile.

~~~
unishark
> Some things are just inflexible in any workplace, both from an employee's
> and an employer's perspective, and a legal one.

They're just shifted from official numbers to some form of hidden cost. The
economic situation is the same. I'm presuming no one at the apple store
actually makes minimum wage, so ultimately Apple will counter an increase in
hours clocked by a reduction in hourly pay. Though I'd expect them to be
sneaky about it.

The cutoff for reporting hourly wage is something like $47k. Everyone either
negotiates directly or else affects the wage indirectly by not competing for
the job (requiring the company to offer more to attract employees). Companies
give regular raises to their wage workers for completely rational self-serving
reasons. And obviously a business wants to employ from a larger (and therefore
better) pool of potential employees beyond those who live on the same block.
Common sense says people are going to consider the cost of the commute (both
in time and money) when considering the gross income they would get from the
job. So for everyone apart from minimum wage workers, there's still some
overall average component of pay based on how much people think the commuting
part is worth.

------
bigtex
Many decades ago something similar happened with Best Buy employees and
waiting to leave the building. My memory is fuzzy but I recall it having to do
with some ruling by a government authority. Basically at night shift we could
clock out but had to wait for the manager to let us out of the building.
Sometimes were were waiting for 15 + minutes. All employees got back pay.

------
wtn
The circumstances of this case seem similar to Integrity Staffing Solutions v.
Busk, which involved workers at an Amazon warehouse in Nevada.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity_Staffing_Solutions,_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity_Staffing_Solutions,_Inc._v._Busk)

~~~
d3nj4l
This is exactly what I thought about when I saw the headline. Amazon won that
case and refused to pay for the security checks, does this ruling mean that
they'll have to start paying too?

------
andybak
The fact that this awful nickle and diming of staff doesn't get vetoed by
someone with a shred of awareness about PR, morale, good management and
anything else beyond short-term balance sheet thinking speaks very ill of the
company concerned.

~~~
nerdponx
They know that the bad PR won't affect their bottom line much, if at all,
unless it turns into some kind of Draconian regulation/penalties, which it
won't.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
It seems there was a similar case in 2014 about Amazon workers not getting
paid for screening time. The US Supreme Court decided unanimously that Amazon
did not have to pay them.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/business/supreme-court-
ru...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/business/supreme-court-rules-
against-worker-pay-for-security-screenings.html)

How is this case different from the precedent established by the Amazon case?

Edit:

In the 2014 case, it was the 9th Circuit that was being overruled. I wonder if
this decision is destined for the same fate.

~~~
ebg13
State requirement vs federal requirement. A better question I think is how did
the US Supreme Court get the decision so spectacularly wrong?

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
> A better question I think is how did the US Supreme Court get the decision
> so spectacularly wrong?

I think when there is a unanimous decision, you can’t just jump to that
premise. Remember, the job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law. Laws
can be bad or unjust (without being unconstitutional) and the Supreme Court
will go with what the law says.

~~~
ghaff
From the New York Times article at the time:

 _The case that the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday turned on the meaning of a
1947 law, the Portal-to-Portal Act, which says that companies need not pay for
“preliminary” or “postliminary” activities, meaning ones that take place
before and after the workday proper. The Supreme Court interpreted the law in
1956 in Steiner v. Mitchell to require pay only for tasks that are an
“integral and indispensable part of the principal activities for which covered
workmen are employed.”_

So, if someone disagrees, it seems as if their beef is with the 1947 law
rather than the Supreme Court. While I'm sure there are grey areas, there
isn't any real disagreement that, in general, workers aren't paid for getting
dressed and commuting for example.

ADDED: From a lay perspective somewhat related would seem to be the question
of whether workers are "on the clock" when changing into work clothes and
protective gear. And the answer seems to be only to a limited degree.
(Basically yes for special protective gear but not for work clothing in
general.)

[https://blogs.orrick.com/employment/2014/02/05/get-paid-
for-...](https://blogs.orrick.com/employment/2014/02/05/get-paid-for-getting-
dressed-supreme-court-clarifies-changing-clothes-under-the-flsa/)

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
I'm curious what additional context the SCOTUS applied when interpreting the
phrase, “integral and indispensable part of the principal activities for which
covered workmen are employed.”

My first thought when reading that phrasing is: if we assume that the security
checks are NOT integral and indispensable, wouldn't that imply that the
employees are free to skip those steps?

Or, from another angle, are there _any_ limits on what activities are defined
by employers as "integral and indispensable" or "principal"? E.g., could
Amazon define the time spent walking from workspace-table to an equipment rack
as outside the scope of paid work?

IANAL; I'm sure these questions have already been analyzed to death. If anyone
knows where a layperson-accessible discussion is available I'd be grateful for
a link.

[EDIT: reworded for clarity]

~~~
clairity
> "IANAL .... where a layperson-accessible ..."

as a side note, let's not separate ourselves from lawyers in our ability to
reason about and determine what's fair, ethical, and just. it's well within
our power to interpret and rationalize about human relations.

a little specialized training in argumentation doesn't give lawyers special
powers in this regard. that is, let's not fall for either regulatory capture
or an appeal to authority (that's not to say that lawyers don't often have
relevant specialized experience to bring to bear in litigation and
negotiation).

~~~
tzs
> as a side note, let's not separate ourselves from lawyers in our ability to
> reason about and determine what's fair, ethical, and just. it's well within
> our power to interpret and rationalize about human relations.

It should be noted, though, that appellate court opinions usually contain many
citations to prior cases, quoting excepts from those cases and applying much
subtle reasoning to try to justify saying the present case is like the prior
cases whose ruling are similar to the present court's ruling, and much subtle
reasoning to try to distinguish the present case from those prior cases that
came to a difference conclusion.

It's real easy to go off track when trying to follow this. When reading cases
in law school I had to resort to using something like 6 different colors of
highlighter at once to mark up the cases in my book to help keep track of what
was going on.

Yes, we indeed can (mostly) all reason about and determine what is fair,
ethical, and just. But we usually don't have to provide extensive
justification for how we reached our conclusions, and most situations where we
have to make such determinations are fairly straightforward.

Courts are usually dealing with edge cases, where there are conflicting
interests and it is not possible to come to a fair, ethical, or just outcome
for everybody.

~~~
clairity
that's a good point, i took some (cross-discipline) law classes in college and
did experience that intricate web of argument across time and jurisdiction a
bit, which was not fun to say the least.

and certainly we can't be fair, ethical, and just for everyone all the time,
but i don't think that means we should cede legal authority to only a special
class because the arguments can get subtle and intricate. if anything, it
seems to be good rationale to me for putting more effort into making the law
simpler and less opaque (realizing that's harder than it sounds).

------
one2know
So does this mean Amazon is going to start paying for their security
screenings?

~~~
Trias11
Sure.

They could easily charge thousands of their shady vendors peddling fakes to
customers an extra fees to compensate for that.

------
spaetzleesser
The notion that an employer can mandate things to do but not pay for that time
is completely ridiculous. This is a good decision.

------
codyb
Awesome that’s great. It’d be interesting if you could some how extend that to
commuting, so hourly workers taking trains in for service work are compensated
for their times in transit.

~~~
piyush_soni
I (and probably many people here might) have thought about that in the past as
well. It will surely be great from the employee's perspective, but thinking
more about it, let's say a work day is 8 hours long. What if I stay 4 hours
away from the office? I come and go everyday, and technically get paid for
full day's work. There has to be some limit to it from the employer's
perspective.

Please note that Europe had ruled a few years back that the time spent in
commuting 'for work' must be counted as work hours (e.g. plumber travelling to
client's location). But employees travelling to the same office everyday were
excluded from that rule as far as I remember.

------
blintz
Does it strike anyone else as absurd that a $2 trillion company has spent 5
years and untold millions arguing over whether it must compensate employees
for the 15 minutes it takes for a company-mandated frisk?

In fact, Apple lawyers argued before the California Supreme Court that the
time was not mandated since employees could waltz just opt to ‘not bring
things with them’. How insane is that - the search is not technically
‘required’ since people don’t technically ‘need’ to bring things with them
when they come to work? Who doesn’t need to bring a purse/phone/backpack to
work?

The whole thing feels straight out of some alternative (dystopian?) future
America like Infinite Jest.

~~~
krapp
>Does it strike anyone else as absurd that a $2 trillion company has spent 5
years and untold millions arguing over whether it must compensate employees
for the 15 minutes it takes for a company-mandated frisk?

As an Amazon employee, no, it does not.

~~~
Ericson2314
It's almost like the big corps are in collusion to keep wages down, whether
they employ tons of low-wager workers or only a few.

~~~
CarbyAu
We all know it is about motivation, money and economies of scale.

Motivation - make money for rentiers, otherwise get sued.

Economies of scale - many low paid employees means differences in how you
treat them can add up to millions.

Result - employ people to reduce those millions in costs.

Don't blame the man, blame the game.

~~~
aspenmayer
When the referee blows their whistle, the individual player who transgressed
against the rules or spirit of the game is individually punished, and
collectively all players benefit from this, even the one penalized. That the
one penalized may not agree with or comply with the referee is beyond the
scope of accountability of one referee’s ability to enforce the rules of the
game.

~~~
Ericson2314
But Apple's economies of scale are in east Asian factories, no Apple stores.

------
gumby
This is really great. How did amazon’s case manage to get the opposite ruling,
years ago?

~~~
colejohnson66
Amazon was ruled using federal law as not everyone in the suit was based in
California. In this case, it’s Californians suing under California law.

~~~
gumby
The ninth circuit is a federal court with no jurisdiction over state laws.

~~~
colejohnson66
Either the Ninth Circuit overstepped their jurisdiction when they ruled[0] on
whether Apple violated “California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order
No. 7”,[1] or they actually _do have jurisdiction_.

My knowledge of the courts is that they are pretty strict about jurisdiction,
so I’m led to believe that they actually _do_ have it.

Also, they mention that they do:[2]

> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

[0]:
[https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/09/02/1...](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/09/02/15-17382.pdf)

[1]: [0;p.9 “III”]

[2]: [0;p.9 “I”]

~~~
gumby
Thanks.

------
heimatau
Now onto Amazon, meat plants, and many other large-ish businesses that do this
corrupt abuse of their workers time.

------
deviation
I don't understand- how were they not being paid? If I had to show up for a 9
to 5 and there was 15 minutes of security screening, I'm showing up at 9 and
getting paid for it, not showing up early. Am I OOTL on something here? Were
they threatened with termination?

~~~
learc83
This isn't screening to get in, it's screening to leave. So your shift ends at
5, and they make you wait in a line to get out the door--after you'd already
clocked out. And yes, you would be threatened with termination if you didn't
wait in the security line

------
LatteLazy
Didn't this already get ruled the other way by scotus?

~~~
ensignavenger
Federal law in the Amazon case, California law in this Apple case.

~~~
LatteLazy
Ah! That makes sense. Thanks!

------
ponker
The idea that they wouldn’t is laughable/horrifying.

------
ehnto
edit: wrong thread

