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.