Supreme Court Hears Argument- Should I get paid to be searched?

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.

Supreme Court rules: Are corporations really people?

Supreme Court rules:  Are corporations really people?

I was having a discussion with my family regarding some of the Supreme Court rulings.  The Citizen’s United Organization came up and we talked about the background and even listened to a few of Steven Colbert’s monologs. I did a bunch of research including the NPR website. This topic has been in the newspaper, on television and talk radio.  

The background to the ruling was fascinating.  Back in 1886 there was a matter brought before the Supreme Court called Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company.  It dealt with the taxation of railroad properties. During the proceedings a court reporter made a headnote regarding protections to corporations as well as natural persons.  The headnote was added to the law and the constitutional protections were granted.  Essentially, this opened the door for corporations to be treated as people.  This seems fallacious. Corporations are not individual and should not be allowed the same rights.  Yet under this law they get the benefits of being individual but are exempt from punishment.   The fact that the headnote the court reporter added to the law wasn’t even part of the original bill is noteworthy. 

In 2008, 122 years later, an organization called the Citizen’s United was involved with a dispute regarding a film about Hillary Clinton.  The film was scheduled to air just prior to the primary elections.  There was a law suit filed and ultimately the decision was made allowing the Citizens United the freedom of speech.  The ruling includes corporations being allowed to  make campaign contributions.  Much like the 1886 ruling, corporations were given the same rights as individuals.  It has now become acceptable for them to funnel billions of dollars for their favorite candidate. It seems that lobbying has taken on a whole new mantra.

Corporations are allowed to spend unlimited funds on ads and other political tools.  With this birthed the political action committees or PAC’s.  Much controversy has come in their wake.  The campaign contributions have increased  dramatically, these groups spent more than $600 million in the 2012 election cycle.  There are no limits on amounts that can be spent.  In a nutshell, the high court’s 5-4 decision said that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate.

Presently there is new attention to the bill related to  Citizen’s United Organization. Senator Tom Udall has introduced an amendment authorizing Congress and the states to regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.  I feel like this is also fallacious.  Instead of confining the amendment to not allow corporations to donate, the senator is asking to set limits on what the candidates can spend.  The proposed amendment grants Congress and the states the power to implement and enforce this amendment by appropriate legislation, and to distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections. This is cogent.  Distinguishing between corporations and people has needed clarification since 1886.

There are 42 Senators who don't want the amendment to pass. They claim that the increasing sums of money from big donors to finance elections is mere free speech, which means that billionaires and multinational corporations deserve more influence and access to set the political agenda than the teacher, the barista, or the hairdresser. The vast majority of Americans, 73 percent in the most recent poll, - disagree and support a constitutional amendment.

The need for free speech is cogent.  The means for politicians to be bought through campaign funds needs to be stopped.  The First Amendment is something that will be spoken about and debated for many years to come. 

Opposition Constructive- Minimum Wage Increase With Tenure

Opposition Constructive

Minimum Wage Increase with Tenure

The case stated that it would propose we raise the minimum wage based on tenure of the employee.  I don’t believe this has merit.  We should not reward an employee based solely on how long they have worked.  I have had the opportunity to manage employees for more than 15 years and I can give personal account that often my best employees, the ones deserving of an increase, are not the ones that have been with the company the longest.  I don’t think you can make a generalized statement that “all employees who work more than 2 years are good.  Therefore, based on time worked, they are worth a $1.50 more per hour.”

It also stated in the case that an increase in the minimum wage would hurt small business. According to a national scientific opinion poll conducted for Small Business Majority, small business owners widely agree our federal minimum wage should increase so that small business employees and consumers have more money in their pockets. More than two-thirds of small business owners support increasing our federal minimum wage—up from the $7.25 an hour and adjusting it yearly to keep pace with inflation.  A sweeping 85% of small business owners surveyed do not pay any of their employees the federal minimum wage of $7.25.

There is a  minimum wage exception already in place for young employees.  The case addressed age 16 stating the expectation would be to pay them the increased minimum wage. Currently, according to the Federal Department of Labor, an employer is not required to pay greater than $4.25 for the first 90 days of employment to an employee under the age of 20. This law already addresses the young employee.

It was introduced in the first constructive that 34 percent of 18-24 year old still live with their parents. Should we look at why?  A recent article in the Boston Globe quoted a study that showed 85 percent of this age group is in school or working — albeit many in low-wage jobs. Instead of the Generation Y stereotype of “The New American Idle” perhaps we should consider paying a decent wage. This will give them a better chance of being self-sufficient while getting an education. 

The case stated that about half  of the total minimum wage workforce are workers under the age of 25.  I maintain that leaves about 50 percent of the total minimum wage workforce who are folks trying to support a family.  If you annualize the current $7.25 per hour, that’s $15,080.00 per year.  That’s just not enough to live on. It would be very difficult without some type of assistance.

Last fall there was a story in Forbes Magazine about a food drive at Walmart.  The appalling fact was that the drive was for the actual employee’s themselves. There were food donation bins set up in the break room of the Canton, Ohio store.  These employees are paid so poorly that they need donations to even have Thanksgiving dinner .

 The case based a portion of the proposal on the data reported regarding the cost to replace an employee.  It stated it is about $5,505.00 based on a poll done by Sasha Corporation.  I did more research on the Chron.com link he had quoted relating to the Sasha Corporation.  There was no direct link to Sasha listed in the article.  I tried numerous times to vet this source and am not confident of the reliability.  The only site I could find had a pdf.file with the report. Also, all members of the board listed for this company are the same person. I looked for some concrete data regarding this topic.  I was unable to find a trustworthy source related specifically to the cost of training a new hire who earns minimum wage.

The case proposed that if the minimum wage were tiered it would deter employers from unethical turnover of employees.  I propose it could be just the opposite. I called a small business owner who runs a company that assists in construction.  He has had anywhere from 10-50 employees over the past 5 years depending on the rate of construction in the St. George area.  I pitched the  tiered minimum wage proposal that was pitched to us last week.  After he thought about it for a few minutes he shared a concern.  He stated that he has a myriad of jobs within his company, some that can be taught proficiently in less than a week.  These jobs are very basic and would fit the typical minimum wage criteria.  He said that if he were going to be required to increase someone by $1.50 at two years based only on longevity, he would consider firing them and hiring new employees at the lower rate.  I can see how this could be a possibility in menial jobs. This could open Pandora’s box with labor laws and employee law suits.

According to the Labor Department ,  there are Twenty-one states and D.C. that have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage of $7.25. That means that 42 percent of the States are independently managing payments higher than the  minimum wage. 

An article in  The Associated Press states, "In the 13 states that boosted their minimums at the beginning of the year, the number of jobs grew an average of 0.85 percent from January through June. The average for the other 37 states was 0.61 percent. Nine of the 13 states increased their minimum wages automatically in line with inflation: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Four more states — Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island — approved legislation mandating the increases.” 

In conclusion, I believe the case is too generalized.  We can’t assume “longer tenured employees will help businesses to be more efficient”. We can’t increase someone’s pay based solely on longevity and not consider their performance. Most importantly, heads of household cannot sustain a family on $17,160 for two years while waiting for an increase.