Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

joeybee12

(56,177 posts)
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 04:23 PM Dec 2014

WTF!!!! Supreme Court rules no worker pay for security screening

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday handed a victory to employers over worker compensation, ruling that companies do not have to pay employees for the time they spend undergoing security checks at the end of their shifts in a case involving an Amazon.com Inc warehousing contractor.

On a 9-0 vote, the court decided that employees of Integrity Staffing Solutions facilities in Nevada, where merchandise is processed and shipped, cannot claim compensation for the time they spend going through security screening - up to half an hour a day - aimed at protecting against theft.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote on behalf of the court in the important employment law case that the screening process is not a "principal activity" of the workers' jobs under a law called the Fair Labor Standards Act and therefore is not subject to compensation.

For workers to be paid, the activity in question must be “an intrinsic element” of the job and “one with which the employee cannot dispense if he is to perform his principal activities,” Thomas wrote.

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-rules-no-worker-pay-security-screening-151514222--finance.html

9-0 FFS!!!

17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
WTF!!!! Supreme Court rules no worker pay for security screening (Original Post) joeybee12 Dec 2014 OP
No words except... Initech Dec 2014 #1
Some prior discussuion of the ruling on DU in LBN... PoliticAverse Dec 2014 #2
“one with which the employee cannot dispense if he is to perform his principal activities,” House of Roberts Dec 2014 #3
I never expect the supreme psychos to rule in favor of "working folk" etherealtruth Dec 2014 #4
So much for America praising work, when SCOTUS spits on workers AZ Progressive Dec 2014 #12
... and the psycho supremes will NEVER let us forget thiis etherealtruth Dec 2014 #15
BTW the Labor Department submitted a brief on the same side the Court ended up on.,.. PoliticAverse Dec 2014 #5
They should rename it the Department of Involuntary Servitude. n/t lumberjack_jeff Dec 2014 #9
" Justice Clarence Thomas wrote on behalf of the court in the important employment law case" monmouth4 Dec 2014 #6
I guess his family came to the country warrant46 Dec 2014 #10
The Department of Justice and the Obama administration former9thward Dec 2014 #7
Got those "comfortable walking shoes" dusted off for us again, huh. TheKentuckian Dec 2014 #8
Unanimously? Christ's sake. (nt) Posteritatis Dec 2014 #11
Know your Overlords. HereSince1628 Dec 2014 #13
So, just in case you were under the illusion that ANYONE in Washington DC cares... 99Forever Dec 2014 #14
Absurd, Sherman A1 Dec 2014 #16
It's depressing to see intelligent people twist words and reality. The decision is based on a PER- WinkyDink Dec 2014 #17

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
2. Some prior discussuion of the ruling on DU in LBN...
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 04:28 PM
Dec 2014

here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014961126

With also mention of the law and 1951 labor department ruling that led to the 9-0 decision.

House of Roberts

(5,168 posts)
3. “one with which the employee cannot dispense if he is to perform his principal activities,”
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 04:33 PM
Dec 2014

How can an employee 'dispense' with a security screening, if the job requires it? By not working?

How did the court end up 9-0, with inverse logic like this?

etherealtruth

(22,165 posts)
4. I never expect the supreme psychos to rule in favor of "working folk"
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 04:34 PM
Dec 2014

I am disgusted ... but, not even remotely surprised

AZ Progressive

(3,411 posts)
12. So much for America praising work, when SCOTUS spits on workers
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 07:52 PM
Dec 2014

Workers are thus seen as no more than wage slaves.

monmouth4

(9,694 posts)
6. " Justice Clarence Thomas wrote on behalf of the court in the important employment law case"
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 04:42 PM
Dec 2014

. This alone is a shock to me...

warrant46

(2,205 posts)
10. I guess his family came to the country
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 07:50 PM
Dec 2014

After the South was forced to dispense with their quaint customs of Shackles and Chains.

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
14. So, just in case you were under the illusion that ANYONE in Washington DC cares...
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 07:55 PM
Dec 2014

... or is going to do one damn to help the working class in this nation, perhaps now the message is clear.

Pitchfork and guillotine time folks.

 

WinkyDink

(51,311 posts)
17. It's depressing to see intelligent people twist words and reality. The decision is based on a PER-
Wed Dec 10, 2014, 07:51 AM
Dec 2014

VERSION of the law, to wit:

NO, standing isn't part of the actual job, but IT ISN'T THE WORKERS WHO DECIDED TO STAND IN THESE LINES. AMAZON MAKES THEM.

Yet the SCOTUS decided AGAINST THE WORKERS INSTEAD OF THE EMPLOYER WHO MAKES THE EMPLOYEES DO SOMETHING "NOT INTRINSIC" TO THE JOB!!

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»WTF!!!! Supreme Court ru...