Unanimous Decision? Amazon Security Screen Case Results

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Easy E**

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/business/supreme-court-rules-against-worker-pay-for-security-screenings.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled unanimously that a temp agency was not required to pay workers at Amazon warehouses for the time they spent 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.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, said the screenings were not “integral and indispensable” to the workers’ jobs, which involved retrieving products from warehouse shelves and packaging them for delivery to Amazon’s customers. That meant, he said, that no extra pay was required.

The decision was a big loss for workers challenging the security checks, which are common among retailers. According to a brief filed by the agency, there have been 13 class-action lawsuits against Amazon and other companies involving more than 400,000 plaintiffs and seeking hundreds of millions of dollars.

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.”

Jesse Busk, who worked in an Amazon warehouse in Las Vegas, helped start the case that the court decided on Tuesday. Credit Isaac Brekken for The New York Times The case decided Tuesday was brought by Jesse Busk, who worked in a Las Vegas warehouse, and Laurie Castro, who worked at one in Fenley, Nev. They sued Integrity Staffing Solutions, the temp agency, seeking to represent a class of workers and to be paid for the time it took to remove their wallets, keys and belts and to pass through metal detectors.

The plaintiffs said the screenings would not have taken long had the agency added more security screeners or staggered the ends of work shifts. In practice, they said, the waits approached half an hour.

Amazon has disputed that assertion. In a statement in October, when the case was argued, an Amazon spokeswoman said “employees walk through postshift security screening with little or no wait.”
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, had allowed the case to proceed, saying the screenings were for the company’s benefit and were a necessary part of the workers’ jobs. That was enough, the appeals court said, to make the screenings “integral and indispensable.”

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.”

Justice Thomas said Tuesday’s ruling was required by the 1947 law, which was a reaction to Supreme Court decisions that had required pay for a broad range of work-related activities and gave rise to “a flood of litigation” seeking nearly $6 billion. Congress responded by tightening the standards, saying the alternative would have been the “financial ruin of many employers.”

Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story Since then, Justice Thomas said, the court has required pay for activities that were “an intrinsic element of the job” and could not be skipped. Under that test, battery-plant workers had to be paid for the time spent showering and changing clothes because the materials they worked with were toxic. And meatpackers had to be paid for the time it took to sharpen their knives because dull knives would slow production.

Security screenings are different, Justice Thomas wrote. “Integrity Staffing could have eliminated the screenings altogether,” he wrote, “without impairing the employees’ ability to complete their work.”
Justice Thomas noted that the Obama administration had sided with the temp agency, adding that the administration’s position was consistent with a 1951 letter from the Labor Department that did not require pay for screenings at a rocket-powder plant. Workers there were screened for matches and lighters on the way in and to prevent theft on the way out.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the court’s opinion but added a concurrence to stress its limited scope. Activities related to worker safety and efficiency remained covered, she said. But in the warehouse case, she wrote, “employees could skip the screenings altogether without the safety or effectiveness of their principal activities being substantially impaired.”

She added that, as its name suggests, the Portal-to-Portal Act was “primarily concerned with defining the beginning and end of the workday.”

“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,” she wrote, adding that those were activities that Congress clearly meant to make noncompensable.

I have to admit. I really didn't expect it to be unanimous. I thought it would go 5-4 in this direction.

**Ahtman**

Oh thank god. I was worried for a minute we weren't heading back to corporate fiefdoms.

**whembly**

That's... odd.

I agree with Thomas' explanation based on current laws. But, we really need Congress to pass laws to cover that,.

**His Master's Voice**

But in the warehouse case, she wrote, “employees could skip the screenings altogether without the safety or effectiveness of their principal activities being substantially impaired.”

No, they would only get fired.

**Ouze**

Yet another victory for corporate America from those 9 politicians in robes.

**Frazzled**

His Master's Voice wrote:
But in the warehouse case, she wrote, “employees could skip the screenings altogether without the safety or effectiveness of their principal activities being substantially impaired.”

No, they would only get fired.

Agreed this was a bad decision, vs. both the facts and the law in the case. Reeks of someone who's never worked a working class job.

**Bran Dawri**

Reeks of the decision being bought. Especially with a unanimous decision.

It's also apants-on-head slowed.
Is the employer forcing these people to take the time to do this? If yes, then they should get paid for their time. If no, then the checks cannot be enforced, because unless you're paying me for my time, I'm not waiting in that line.

**Frazzled**

Bran Dawri wrote:
Reeks of the decision being bought. Especially with a unanimous decision.

It's also apants-on-head slowed.
Is the employer forcing these people to take the time to do this? If yes, then they should get paid for their time. If no, then the checks cannot be enforced, because unless you're paying me for my time, I'm not waiting in that line.

And that right there is both a concise reading of RAW and RAI prior to GW er SCOTUS mucking everything up with this FAQ.

**Chongara**

Wanted: Part Time Water-Drinker.
Description: The position is for drinking a single 8oz glass of water. The water must be consumed at least a rate of 1oz per minute. You will be paid for the time it takes you to drink the glass of water, or 1 hour whichever is greater.
Note: Due to our security procedures workers must pass a security ID check. Each worker will be mailed a set of personally identifying data-sheets, and will enter them into our system to verify their identity. This process will take approximately 8 hours. However as this data entry is a preliminary activity not vital or integral to your job of drinking a glass of water, the time spent is unpaid.

**SilverMK2**

I think this thread has my record for most exalted posts in a row

If your job involves getting into gear, being shuttled to the worksite, going through security checks etc then you should be paid for the time that you spend doing those activities as they are integral to the job you do. It is sad to see a company which already has a poor reputation for worker treatment get another boost to profits at the expense of workers.

**Da Boss**

Only way to make a difference to these practices is to refuse to use Amazon until they cop on.

**Crablezworth**

Da Boss wrote:
Only way to make a difference to these practices is to refuse to use Amazon until they cop on.

Agreed, amazon won't be getting any of my business until they get their gak together.

**Easy E**

Da Boss wrote:
Only way to make a difference to these practices is to refuse to use Amazon until they cop on.

That or the impacted workers could Unionize?

**daedalus**

Easy E wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
Only way to make a difference to these practices is to refuse to use Amazon until they cop on.

That or the impacted workers could Unionize?

Assuming the company didn't have an opinion that, at best, would be described as "openly and viciously hostile to unions."

**LordofHats**

Easy E wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
Only way to make a difference to these practices is to refuse to use Amazon until they cop on.

That or the impacted workers could Unionize?

You say that like they haven't been trying. I dislike unions too, but lets be honest. Labor laws in the US are slowed. That this decision is legally valid (and it is) just highlights how bad our laws are on this subject. Stupid law produces stupid results. Be it horribly unfair treatment of labor, or horribly managed and conducted unions.

**Tannhauser42**

Random, and probably stupid, question so please forgive me in advance.

Assuming, for a moment, that the court ruled the other way and determined time spent stuck in a security line before leaving is "time worked" and should earn compensation. Well, what about time spent just walking back to your car? Where I work, the parking lot is behind the building, and it's a secure building so we can only go in and out through the front. So, does the 3-5 minutes it takes to go to and from my car count as "time worked"? There's also a security gate at the exit of the parking lot, so would that time extend to when I pass through the gate?

**DarkLink**

Frazzled wrote:
His Master's Voice wrote:
But in the warehouse case, she wrote, “employees could skip the screenings altogether without the safety or effectiveness of their principal activities being substantially impaired.”

No, they would only get fired.

Agreed this was a bad decision, vs. both the facts and the law in the case. Reeks of someone who's never worked a working class job.

Remember, it's the court's job to clarify what the law actually is, not what it should be. It's actually a really, really, really important fundamental concept of how the justice system works. Sure, internet expert guy always knows better, but if you want to point the finger at someone point it at the members of congress who wrote the relevant laws.

**Ouze**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
Random, and probably stupid, question so please forgive me in advance.

Assuming, for a moment, that the court ruled the other way and determined time spent stuck in a security line before leaving is "time worked" and should earn compensation. Well, what about time spent just walking back to your car? Where I work, the parking lot is behind the building, and it's a secure building so we can only go in and out through the front. So, does the 3-5 minutes it takes to go to and from my car count as "time worked"? There's also a security gate at the exit of the parking lot, so would that time extend to when I pass through the gate?

The portal-to-portal act explicitly excludes the activities you are discussing - travel time, and "incidental activities" . But your examples aren't stupid at all, IMO. The security gate specifically is quite similar to the case that was just ruled on.

Obviously, commuting to work is not within the control of an employer so should be excluded, no argument. But in my opinion, if there is something that consumes time that is A.) required by your job and B.) within the control of your employer, I think you should be paid for it. In this specific case, the employer requires employees to wait in a line after work, that line takes 30 minutes to get to, and if they don't wait in the line, they will be fired - I think it really stretches the idea that such an activity is not "work" and is an incidental activity.

To put it differently, if the time clocks to go home were on the other side of the security line, does anyone believe there would be 30 minute long lines? This was the express purpose of the FLSA, that employers are substantially less likely to waste employee's time when they have to pay for it.

When I was a kid I used to love the idea of the Supreme Court - the highest court of the land, the last bulwark against malfeasance and injustice. I sure was a stupid kid, in retrospect.

**MrMoustaffa**

Easy E wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
Only way to make a difference to these practices is to refuse to use Amazon until they cop on.

That or the impacted workers could Unionize?

Amazon will fire you if you so much as whisper the word Union. In the Integrity interview, they hand you a packet of agreements that is mostly typical "I didn't lie about criminal history", "I won't harm or harass coworkers" etc. but snuck into the middle of it is a clause saying that if you try to unionize you're gone. Period. I remember once when I was at the bathroom they even had an anti union type flyer at eye level over the urinal.

If I didn't need the money so badly I wouldn't have gone back this year, but you gotta do what you gotta do sometimes.

**Bran Dawri**

Really? I get paid any commuting time over 30 minutes as well. I'm not sure whether that is the law in the Netherlands or I just have a generous employer, but there it is.

**MrMoustaffa**

Bran Dawri wrote:
Really? I get paid any commuting time over 30 minutes as well. I'm not sure whether that is the law in the Netherlands or I just have a generous employer, but there it is.

Depends on the job here, but I don't think it's a law.

Only time's I've ever been paid to drive to a job site was if it was government work or a particularly far distance away (as in 10 hour drive or something)

Otherwise, that's "free" time and they don't have to pay you for that.

**Sigvatr**

Do we have any info on how long those scans actually take?

Those "up to" infos are worthless as you could also say that a 40k match takes "up to" 10 hours whereas in reality, it's far less.

**AlexHolker**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
Assuming, for a moment, that the court ruled the other way and determined time spent stuck in a security line before leaving is "time worked" and should earn compensation. Well, what about time spent just walking back to your car? Where I work, the parking lot is behind the building, and it's a secure building so we can only go in and out through the front. So, does the 3-5 minutes it takes to go to and from my car count as "time worked"? There's also a security gate at the exit of the parking lot, so would that time extend to when I pass through the gate?

If your SO picked you up at the front door at 5PM, or if you took public transport, or if you walked to and from work, what would your employer do? Would they say "No, it is unacceptable for you to bypass the 3-5 minute walk to the parking lot!"? No, they would not. Amazon has forbidden people from just walking through security, which means that Amazon believes that these security screenings are an essential part of their employment, which means they should pay people to complete that essential part of their employment.

**MrMoustaffa**

Sigvatr wrote:
Do we have any info on how long those scans actually take?

Those "up to" infos are worthless as you could also say that a 40k match takes "up to" 10 hours whereas in reality, it's far less.

Depends on if it goes off.

If you're smart and go out a door people never use that won't have a line, maybe a minute tops, provided the damn thing doesn't randomly go off (which I swear it does occasionally). Even then it'll take maybe a minute more since again, nobody would be going out besides you.

If you want to get to the breakroom with the microwaves and lockers where you can keep a phone, it can take anywhere from a couple of minutes if you snuck over there before you were supposed to to beat the line, to about 10 minutes, providing you don't set it off. It all depends on how many people set off the alarm, as there aren't many officers at the booths. Once you get a line of people needing to be wanded, that's when the long waits usually come in. Since they have to do those people with the wand one at a time, and personally inspect everything like their wallets, lunches, or cigarette packages, that's where you would get that 30 minute waiting time they're talking about in the article. Think about going to the airport, now imagine you only have a 30 minute break and since the time clocks are outside the metal detectors, every second in that line is a second you could be using to try and beat the other 50 people to the microwaves for lunch.

Granted, normally you don't have to wait that long, but I work at Lex 1, which is one of the smaller warehouses to my knowledge. I know that I've found the lines to be such a gamble that now I park in an odd spot of the building where nobody goes in or out just so I don't have to roll the dice on how long the line will take.

**Kilkrazy**

I should not have thought the people would bother to complain if the wait was trivially short.

**LordofHats**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I should not have thought the people would bother to complain if the wait was trivially short.

I go through security at FedEx and I don't complain but I only don't complain because it takes me 30 seconds. If they made me wait in a line for even 10 minutes after work, I'd start getting pretty agitated. That's nearly an hour every week.

**Sigvatr**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I should not have thought the people would bother to complain if the wait was trivially short.

You'd be surprised as to what people complain about.

**Ouze**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I should not have thought the people would bother to complain if the wait was trivially short.

12 minutes a day is an hour a week, which is 52 hours a year they have stolen from their employees, unpaid. The length of a vacation from work plus 12 hours, which could have been spent at the beach or with their kids or painting or reading or sleeping, which was instead wasted standing in line at work, unpaid.

I imagine nearly any employee would be fired if they came in 12 minutes late every day, day after day, but put down they were on time, so I'm not sure why that's acceptable in one direction and not the other.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:

When I was a kid I used to love the idea of the Supreme Court - the highest court of the land, the last bulwark against malfeasance and injustice. I sure was a stupid kid, in retrospect.

So... are you suggesting that the courts should legislate from the bench?

SCOTUS reached the same conclusion reached by all other federal appeals courts, minus th e9th cric, that had considered the issue.

It's pretty compelling that it's unanimous if you ask me.

Any recourse should be done by an act of Congress.

My opinion? It should be considered as part of the job, and thus should be compensated.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

So... are you suggesting that the courts should legislate from the bench?

Siding in favor of the workers would not be legislating from the bench. Even per Thomas' argument the distinction drawn is a matter of interpretation, something which has historically been left to the courts. The battery-plant example he gave is especially specious as ridding oneself of toxic chemicals on the way out of work could easily be considered analogous to going through a security check designed to prevent theft.

All that said, portal to portal is hilariously tragic in the context in which it was passed: "Let's gak on coal town workers some more!". No wonder the progeny of said elected socialist city governments when they managed to escape.

LordofHats wrote:

You say that like they haven't been trying. I dislike unions too, but lets be honest. Labor laws in the US are slowed. That this decision is legally valid (and it is) just highlights how bad our laws are on this subject. Stupid law produces stupid results. Be it horribly unfair treatment of labor, or horribly managed and conducted unions.

Agreed.