I was watching the news and heard about the Supreme Court Sessions. A few
days later as I was surfing the internet, I saw this case. The Supreme
Court heard arguments over
whether workers at an Amazon warehouse in Las Vegas must be paid for the time
they spend waiting to go through a security screening at the end of the day.
The workers say the process, meant to prevent theft, can take as long as 25
minutes.The
case was filed by Integrity Staffing Solutions, a temporary employment agency,
that hires workers for the plant. Currently, there are 13 class-actions
suits against Amazon. The case was first dismissed by Nevada's District
Court.
According the a New York Times article, the case, that
was heard on October 8th, will turn 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.”
Stating that a security screening takes place "before and after" work is fallacious. The employees are not allowed to leave the work place until it is completed therefore, they are still at work. To require employees to
complete additional "tasks" after they have finished their work day
and not pay them for it is irresponsible. It would be interesting to
watch if this is overturned, will the security
checks suddenly move much faster?
Forbes magazine has an online post
stating, "National Employment Law Project executive
director Christine Owens summed up the question at the center of the case as
follows: “Is this work? Or do these workers have to donate this time to their
employer?”
“If the company had a random surprise
screening process in the middle of the workday, they would be compensated for
that,” she said.
Owens noted that the U.S. Government
which also, naturally, requires many of its workers to complete out-of-hours
security screenings — has already sided with Integrity Staffing Solutions on
this case. The Chamber of Commerce has backed the Amazon contractor."
The links to the article also discussed
paying for travel time to and from work. This is fallacious and could
cause discriminatory hiring of people that lived close proximity to the
employer’s location. I read the entire argument and certainly believe
we should be paid for what our employer requires.