
U.S. Supreme Court rejects Amazon warehouse worker wage appeal - SolaceQuantum
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-amazon-com/u-s-supreme-court-rejects-amazon-warehouse-worker-wage-appeal-idUSKBN1WM1FI
======
FPGAhacker
It seems eminently reasonable and obvious that workers should be compensated
for performing the Duties of their job while at work or in premises. Clearly
submitting to a security check before being allowed to leave work is an
obligation they incur as an employee.

They should not be able to “clock out” until after such security checks.

~~~
breakerbox
Amazon gets all the attention because it's Amazon. Work a retail job anywhere
and you will discover that MILLIONS of retail workers must do similar checks.

~~~
ceejayoz
1\. They should get paid for that time, too.

2\. The article says "the screening takes around 25 minutes to complete",
which is _not_ typical in retail.

~~~
subsaharancoder
Grossly inaccurate is the best way of describing the screening time, I've done
the amazon fulfillment center tour and seen employees check in for different
shifts, it does not take 25 minutes to go through the screening process.
There's no way Amazon with its efficiency mantra would let this happen knowing
how it eventually impacts the bottom line.

~~~
mcherm
> Grossly inaccurate is the best way of describing the screening time

Amazon agrees with you... they contend that the screening doesn't actually
take this long. I'm not clear on how a question of fact like this can be in
dispute unless we are arguing over definitions.

> I've done the amazon fulfillment center tour and seen employees check in for
> different shifts, it does not take 25 minutes to go through the screening
> process.

No one is claiming that the check-in process takes a long time. The check-out
process is the one where the employees are screened for theft, and that is
where the employees claim they must wait (unpaid) for a long time.

> There's no way Amazon with its efficiency mantra would let this happen
> knowing how it eventually impacts the bottom line.

I find that completely unpersuasive. The courts have just told Amazon that
they DON'T HAVE TO PAY for this time. So it isn't inefficient for them to
allow it to take lots of time. It doesn't affect Amazon's bottom line until
the point where it becomes difficult for Amazon to hire any workers.

~~~
mlyle
> I find that completely unpersuasive. The courts have just told Amazon that
> they DON'T HAVE TO PAY for this time.

The headline is a little misleading. The appellate court was letting the case
vs. Amazon go to trial under state labor law; the Supreme Court decided not to
intervene, so the dispute is still being litigated.

(Previously, the Supreme Court said time being screening doesn't require
compensation under _Federal_ law).

------
jedberg
Ok, so the key ruling here was in 2014, which said "the Supreme Court declared
that such screening procedures were not an 'integral' part of the job.
Integrity’s staff at the warehouses...were hired to take products off the
shelves and package them for shipment to Amazon’s customers, not to go through
security screenings. The Court also found that Integrity could have eliminated
the screenings without affecting the workers’ ability to complete their normal
tasks." [0]

So it seems like if the security isn't integral to the job, then someone
should be able to just walk out without doing the screening. Then of course
they would get fired for that, and could then sue that they got fired despite
the fact that the screening isn't integral to their job duties. The company
would either have to claim that the security is integral, or allow others to
skip it too.

Now of course, a warehouse worker doesn't have the resources to engage in such
a lawsuit or live without a job while it plays out, which is what Amazon
counts on here. But what if someone agreed to pay all the legal fees and pay
the employee an equivalent wage to be a test case?

[0] [https://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/no-overtime-pay-for-
after...](https://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/no-overtime-pay-for-after-work-
security-check/)

~~~
Bartweiss
The Court was looking at whether screenings violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and specifically at 245 of the Portal-to-Portal Act, which restricted the
requirement to pay for pre/post work activity. I get two parts of the
rationale, and it's bizarre, but I'm pretty sure the result is that even if
Integrity fires you for not doing it, the work still doesn't have to be paid.

First, the Court found that performing screenings is not what employees are
hired to do: they're not the point of the job, just a condition of employment.
This is fairly obvious, but necessary to establish because someone who _was_
paid to do screenings (e.g. as a physical security pen-tester) would obviously
need to be paid for that.

Second, it found that those screenings are not "integral" to the job. This
sounds odd for a required screening, but the context is specifically about the
_work_ of the job and not the terms of employment. Pre/post work like donning
safety gear or a toolbelt is (legally or practically) necessary to complete
the work, so past cases have found that it's effectively part of the labor and
must be paid. This is also the context of the final holding: if Integrity
could eliminate the screenings without affecting the workers' ability to pick
and package goods, they must not be an intrinsic aspect of the job.

The Portal to Portal Act says that any labor which benefits the employer must
be paid, while generally asserting that other pre/post work does not need to
be paid, with commuting as a specific example of necessary-but-unpaid time. So
"you'll get fired if you don't do it" isn't actually enough to qualify.

Perversely, the result of the act is that employers _can 't_ require unpaid,
necessary tasks, but _can_ require unpaid, _unnecessary_ tasks. On one level,
this makes sense: if putting on a toolbelt, wetsuit, or whatever else is
necessary for the work, every employer will require it and failing to pay for
that time is clearly harmful. But if an employer makes you recite a corporate
chant before starting work, you can quit and go somewhere else. On another
level, the contract system seriously distorts the logic: you can only be
employed at that Amazon warehouse by fulfilling this restriction.

Ultimately, though, the court doesn't care about that. Congress passed a law
which effectively says useless work time doesn't need to be paid, so this
practice is legal. Which I believe holds all the way through the absurd case:
if these screenings took 80 hours a week, they'd still be legal to not pay.

------
rtkwe
So, trying to follow the sequence of thrown out and overturned, it seems like
now it would be going all the way back down to the original court that threw
out the lawsuit to go forward? Seems crazy that it's taking this long to
settle the question.

Tangentially it seems crazy they're not required to pay for the time spent
going through security. If they're paid hourly and not free to go they're
still on the job.

~~~
rayiner
Yes. The Supreme Court rejected a claim in 2014 under federal law. Plaintiffs
replead claims under state law. While a district court found the claims barred
by state law as well, the Sixth Circuit found the claim were not. The Supreme
Court declined to review the Sixth Circuit‘s ruling, meaning the case can go
forward under the Sixth Circuit’s decision.

The Supreme Court (and appellate courts) are a batch system, with high
throughout but poor latency. The Supreme Court reviews 7,000-8,000 petitions
for certiorari each year, rendering judgment in the merits after oral argument
on about 80-100 cases per year. Each case typically has hundreds of pages of
briefing, rulings below, etc., and requires reference to hundreds of
additional pages of precedent and other authorities. All that is done by the
nine justices, each with the assistance of four clerks.

~~~
JackFr
If I understand your comment (which is much clearer than the article) the 2014
US Supreme Court decision with respect to the 1947 Act is still valid Federal.
The 6th Circuit ruled that the US Supreme Court decision and the 1947 Act do
not preclude lawsuits on the state level. That makes more sense, because it
seemed odd that if the 6th Circuit disagreed with a 2014 Supreme Court ruling,
they would hear it.

~~~
azernik
Amazon's argument wasn't that the FLSA prohibited state suits; it was about
interpretation of Nevada state law. Specifically, Nevada had defined "work" to
be "whatever the definition of work is under the federal FLSA". The appeals
court ruled that, since the FLSA said the security checks exception was
specifically an exception, it was still legally defined as work, and Nevada
had not adopted the federal exceptions.

~~~
JackFr
Lawyer is a weird job.

~~~
azernik
There's a reason tabletop gamers call it "rules lawyering".

------
trenning
Is it not crazy that is has to come down to a Supreme Court case for Jeff
Bezos and Amazon to treat their employees fairly?

This isn't a company that's on a sink or swim margin where this will collapse
the company. Not when they're fine stocking all the break rooms in corporate
offices with starbucks and AWS people get shelves full snacks all day. But
give an hourly employee a little more money to accommodate their self enforced
security is a line too far.

If you're an Amazon corporate employee, you support these decisions by working
there.

~~~
jon-wood
I disagree with this decision, but Amazon are fairly well known for being one
of the few big tech startups that don't have fully stocked snack supplies on
every floor, and expecting staff to pay for those out of their own pocket. In
all the Amazon offices I've gone to the only thing being given out for free is
borderline acceptable coffee, hot water, tea bags, and milk.

~~~
notyourwork
Some have a bit more than the basics you describe but generally you are
correct.

------
hypersoar
The Supreme Court decision related to this is being unfairly maligned in these
comments, even though I'm in total agreement that the end result was bad.

I recommend reading the ruling [0] itself; it's readable and quite short,
under 2,500 words.

The unanimous 2014 decision concluded that Amazon (technically, a contractor)
could not be penalized under federal law for not paying workers for time spent
getting through security screenings. It turned on the 1947 Portal-to-Portal
Act. IANAL, but, looking at the decision, I don't see how they could have
reasonably ruled any other way.

To summarize:

In the 1940s, courts had interpreted the Fair Labor Standards Act (source of
the minimum wage, overtime pay, etc.) to imply very broad definitions of
"work" and "workweek". This allowed mine workers to sue for back pay for all
the time they spent traveling between mine portals and work areas. This wasn't
consistent with pre-FLSA practice, and companies suddenly faced huge,
unexpected lawsuits for back pay and damages. Congress passed the Portal-to-
Portal Act explicitly to clarify the definition of time "on the clock" and
prevent these lawsuits, excluding "preliminary" and "postliminary" activities.

It is this law that results in Amazon not having to pay their workers for the
screenings. Quoting from Sotomayor's concurrence:

    
    
      The security screenings at issue here fall on the 
      “preliminary . . . or postliminary” side of this line. 
      (*citation*) The searches were part of the process by 
      which the employees egressed their place of work, akin 
      to checking in and out and waiting in line to do so 
      activities that Congress clearly deemed to be 
      preliminary or postlimininary. See (*citation*). 
      Indeed, as the Court observes, the Department of Labor 
      reached the very same conclusion regarding similar 
      security screenings shortly after the Portal-to-Portal 
      Act was adopted
    

So, I believe that, obviously, Amazon should have to pay workers for these
hours. But the blame for their not having to do so lies with the federal
government's inability to update a 1947 law rather than with the courts.

~~~
mlindner
Thanks for the accurate breakdown of this. People should not be relying on the
courts to make law. If people are upset with the law being wrong then the law
needs to be fixed through the legislature (Congress, or alliteratively States'
Congresses)

~~~
hypersoar
I get why people do rely on the courts, though. Our lawmaking process is
horribly broken. Major legislation doesn't get passed because it requires
overwhelming control of Congress and the Whitehouse. Constitutional amendments
are all but impossible when it's unlikely to get 34 state legislatures to
agree on which way is North. The judiciary and executive action are the only
ways left to make anything actually happen.

------
dlgeek
"A judge there dismissed the case, citing the 2014 Supreme Court ruling, since
Nevada wage laws track their federal counterparts. The Cincinnati, Ohio-based
6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2018 overturned that decision."

So, if the appeals court overturned the dismissal, wouldn't the appeal the
Supreme Court denied be to uphold it, meaning that the case should be moving
forward? Such a badly worded article.

~~~
michaelt
Agreed. The title - "rejects Amazon warehouse worker wage appeal" doesn't even
make it clear which side filed the appeal which was rejected.

------
kevin_b_er
It seems crazy that our worker laws are so degraded by corporate interests
that the worker can be compelled to do a task without pay.

Fortunately Nevada is taking a stand against slavery that the US Supreme Court
refused to do in 2014.

------
salimmadjd
Slightly better worded article:

Amazon Rejected by U.S. Supreme Court on Pay Claims by Workers

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-07/amazon-
re...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-07/amazon-rejected-by-
u-s-supreme-court-on-pay-claims-by-workers)

------
whack
If Amazon is paying people minimum wage, then it could be argued that the
extra 30 minutes would push them over the edge of minimum wage laws.

However, from what I recall of Amazon's announcement this year, they pay all
warehouse workers at least $15/hr. This means they are significantly above the
minimum wage requirement, even if you factor in the 30 minutes spent in
security screenings.

In an ideal world, Amazon would factor in the time spent in security
screenings, when advertising the job's hourly rate. Ie, workers are spending
5% of their time in security screenings, so the advertised hourly rate should
be 5% lower than $15/hr. I would also like for all food-prices in restaurants
to factor in taxes for the same reason, but I've thrown the towel on that
fight. Ultimately, this seems like a purely cosmetic change with little
substance behind it.

------
wingspar
I guess I can’t read English anymore. The headline to me reads that the
WORKERS appeal was rejected, but it’s a ruling FOR the workers, rejecting
AMAZON’s appeal.

~~~
mikelyons
Key paragraph:

 _The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Amazon.com’s bid to avoid
a lawsuit seeking to ensure that warehouse workers ... get paid for the time
it takes them to go through extensive post-shift security screenings._

------
JMTQp8lwXL
It sounds like the post-shift screening shouldn't be necessary. If they're not
paying you, you should be free to go. The worker should try opting-out of the
screening: it should be an OSHA issue if you can't freely leave the building
at anytime.

~~~
paxys
"Sure you are free to go. And don't bother showing up tomorrow."

~~~
JMTQp8lwXL
If everyone started refusing, they might be willing to change policy. That
much overturn at once could be problematic.

~~~
paxys
All workers banding together and presenting a united front? Sounds familiar..

------
jerf
Bear in mind the base rate of acceptance is single-digit percent low:
[https://supremecourtpress.com/chance_of_success.html](https://supremecourtpress.com/chance_of_success.html)

------
greggman2
So according to this, as of April 2019, Walmart got in trouble in California
for security screening in the sense that it was manditory and they were not
paying for it. California requires breaks for workers and Walmart was
effectively making workers use part of their break time to go through security
screening.

[https://www.plbsh.com/jury-awards-walmart-
employees-6-millio...](https://www.plbsh.com/jury-awards-walmart-
employees-6-million-for-security-check-policy/)

I suppose that's not exactly the same since it only covers security time
eating into break time not, after work time.

------
avar
I'm surprised this hasn't come up before, isn't the US full of e.g. military
installations where employees work by the hour and clock in/out, and where
there's some gate check going in & out of the installation that might take a
non-trivial amount of time? E.g. the CIA & NSA have such gates, and presumably
the same goes for a bunch of military and security contractors.

~~~
SamReidHughes
Exactly -- can you imagine managing compensation for that time? Would you
require hourly employees to have no conversations, no stopping to check their
phone, on their way out of the office?

------
olliej
Ignoring the obvious immoral nature of wage theft, let’s look at the argument
people keep saying “they could go work somewhere else”.

What if there aren’t any other companies they can work for, because Amazon has
undercut all their competitors by, among other things, systematically engaging
in wage theft.

If wage theft is helping to keep the prices down, and other businesses went
bust because they were unable to compete with a large business that was
ignoring the law, then that isn’t a free market economy, and the victims are
now in a position where they have even less power to prevent abuse and wage
theft.

The fact that the US courts seem to have decided that mandatory unpaid
presence is somehow not something that violates existing Labour law is absurd.

If my booked hours are from X-Y and it takes 25 minutes for your company to
get me to the door, then I should have stopped “working” at Y-25 minutes.

If you don’t want to pay me to sit around for 25 minutes you can fix your
processes so that it doesn’t take 25 minutes.

Or alternatively: you aren’t permitting me to leave, your not paying me, and
you don’t believe I’ve actually stolen anything (eg you’re waiting for police
to come and arrest me), then that’s false imprisonment and the entire
management chain involved in it should be sent to jail.

I kid of course, the management chain are the people with money contributing
to politicians that are saying illegal imprisonment is awesome.

------
mruts
If I would get fired for not wearing clothes, should I get compensated for the
time it takes me to get dressed?

Also we could also talk about: dry clean suits, taking showers, cutting hair,
shaving, putting on make-up, etc.

~~~
edoceo
No, you're generally not on-prem for those tasks. And time for putting on your
kit, for jobs that require that, is paid time

~~~
mruts
So it would be all good if Amazon did security checks at home?

~~~
edoceo
That's not what "on-prem" means at all. I obviously meant Amazon should comp
for on-prem time in security screen

~~~
mruts
Yes, fine. I agree. But if Amazon did the security screens off their property,
should they be comped?

Moreover, why not just make the workers salaried so they can’t complain?

