It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The Supreme Court Says Unanimously Your Boss Can Make You Work For Free

page: 13
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 09:46 PM
a reply to: ForteanOrg

if youre offended by me saying people will always steal then i dont really dont know what to tell you
i said it because it is true. i did not say all people
i already told you why there are all those cameras...

let me tell you again

cause people steal...not just customers but employees as well

why are you so delicate?

ive never known a person to get offended by someone else saying people will always steal

posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 09:49 PM
a reply to: sputniksteve

youre right. it does say that...
life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to work a no skill amazon job for like a million dollars a day
its been a while since i read it

posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 10:42 PM
a reply to: Grovit

There is a slight difference with your analogy. Any company can't physically force you to get into your vehicle. They can make the workers stay with security.

posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 10:49 PM
a reply to: js331975

and any worker can quit any time they want
you know, unlike slaves

posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 02:14 AM

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Aazadan

So if Amazon's contract said that each employee had to sign their first born over to them, it would be completely fine because the employee agreed to the contract?

Absurdities will get you nowhere.

If you find that concept to be absurd, then you're admitting that there's a point at which a contract isn't valid even though a person is agreeing to it. At what point is that?

On top of that, contracts signed under duress aren't valid. Every low skill position an adult is going for is signed under duress. Your need to eat and have a roof (which in some cases it is illegal to not have) outweigh your ability to choose jobs based on offering reasonable employment conditions.

Simply saying it's in the contract so too bad isn't an excuse.
edit on 16-12-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 02:19 AM

originally posted by: Grovit
a reply to: js331975

and any worker can quit any time they want
you know, unlike slaves

No, they cannot. In many towns it is illegal to be homeless, and even when not illegal it is extremely hard to pick yourself back up from that condition. Low skill workers don't make enough to have savings and have the luxury of picking and choosing jobs based on where they want to work or what employment conditions are like. They have little choice but to take and keep those jobs.

posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 04:11 AM
ATS has linked this Thread to FB and I was just reading through the responses there, interesting stuff. For the most part the sentiment is about the same as here, only with some much more colorful language !! There was a response from someone claiming to work for Amazon and he said that the wait times are much less then 25 min. and he also claimed that part of the problem was people bringing in their own stuff to work, such as cell phones and that it holds up the lines when security has to determine that what your leaving with is your property.

There was another response from someone claiming that Amazon was the biggest employer in their home town and he felt people living there had very limited employment options. Since they have many distribution centers I would imagine the conditions and security checkpoints vary from center to center.

Many people seemed to feel the title was misleading, and I would agree with that to a point.....I simply used the title of the article I was referencing in the I apologize and perhaps should have created a different Thread title. Maybe something like " SCOTUS rules in favor of Amazon, Employees must agree to security searches lasting up to 25 min. once they are off the clock " ?

I think at the end of the day my opinion still remains the same, if someone is NOT allowed to leave without being fired they are still on the clock. I think this is a symptom of a much bigger problem...basically Corporations rights trumping Individuals rights.....I'm not sure if this is accurate but I read somewhere that since 2011 the SCOTUS has sided with Corporations 88% of the time. I'm still pissed that Monsanto has managed to lobby enough that they are now untouchable in the court system, but they can sue a friggin State whose voters don't want their poison in their States and we can't even get the crap labeled !!

posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 04:55 AM
If policy is going to be based on the lowest common denominator " People Steal " then let's also keep this in mind " Give an inch and they will take a mile " ! If we have become "The Corporation of America" then at the very least as the "stock holders" of this Company , we The People, should have a Human Resources Dept. ( SCOTUS ) that settles differences in the best interests of the Company ( The people/taxpayers ) not the other way around. I hope that makes sense ?

posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 07:22 AM
When there are court cases, it is a good idea to read the decision and opinion of the court, as it gives a clear meaning and definition as to what the justices were thinking and why they ruled the way they did.

There are activities that the courts are saying that an employer is not really responsible for paying a person to do. If you show up at work and need to change into your uniform, then your employer is not responsible for paying you from the time you get there, and get dressed for your work shift. And it is also not really applicable when it comes to screening the employee before and after their shift to prevent theft of product. As the time of the screenings, they are not on the clock, then there is no work involved in said case.

At the heart of the case is that point, and if it is integral and indispensable to the employees’ principle activities. If the screenings were held say all day long where employees were screened during the day, then it could be argued that this was a part of the job and that the company needed to pay. But there are no screenings at the beginning of the work shift, no screening during the work day, in fact the only time the screenings take effect is when an employee is leaving, after they clock out. And that is to prevent theft by the employees.

If anything one could say it was bad timing on the part of the employer for scheduling so many people coming and going at the same time. And furthermore, how much of that could be reduced if said employees were not to bring non items in with them when they had to go through the checkpoints? If they are bringing large numbers of items with them, it would slow the process way down and ultimately cause problems for those in the back of the line.

Amazon is a large business with millions of dollars in product and thus they have to be given some leeway to protect their assets from theft while under their control, and ultimately in doing such. If anything it should be pointed that if they are having to go to these measures, then there is a good chance that there has been loss and shrinkage at said plant before and it is a large enough loss, then it would be reasonable to believe that it walked out with the employees and that they are not wanting to take another hit.

posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 07:33 AM
The problem most of you have is that your blaming the wrong people. For all that are complaining because Amazon doesn't pay employees while being searched in security...think about this. My ex-wife is a manager at Amazon and just mentioned the other day that people get caught trying to steal thousands in merchandise all the time. Would you pay me to fix your computer if I stole your TV? The thieves are the issue here. The ones complaining are probably the temporary employees for the holidays anyways.

posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 08:13 AM
That many of you are in support of this is disturbing for several reasons. The tone of that support seems to have a capitalist/libertarian shade - so allow me to make some very important points. I encourage you to argue.

All business and government is supported by the labor of the people. The people, in this case citizens, provide a working service (labor) in exchange for the monetized representation of that labor (a paycheck). That is all, ladies and gents. When you get a job, any job, you don't sign your rights away. In fact, the amount of 'labor' that an individual provides is often in excess of the amount of 'capital' they recieve in exchage.

By passing this bill, they are saying the followin, and I am shocked any right thinking, democratic, patriot would allow this: A job may hold you without pay and without choice (forced at pain of losing their job), in order that you may be searched for contraband. That's awesome! So not only iss your privacy violated by your employer, but they assume you are guilty (apparently capitalism and a legal system where one is innocent until proven guilty are not very friendly), and they can do this completely at your expense.

My time is valuable. I've worked freelance and 1099 many times and I get paid for every damn minute, and most of my expenses are a tax right-off. That's the way the government treats my expensive white butt. This is nothing more than oppression and anothr tax on the poor. What if they have children in daycare? Elderly that needs care? Medical problems?
Or best yet, what if they are purely innocent?

You should be ashamed for yoruelf if you agree with this policy and consider yourself a patriot. It is unjust, unfair, unequal, and oppressive. The only time it WOULD be fair is if the process would be a paid one. And get another job? Have you tried that recently? Shame on all of you. We are supposed to stand up for the weak, innocent, and downtrodden. read the statue of liberty for God's sake.

posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 08:14 AM
a reply to: Aazadan

give me a break man.
if they got that job they can get another.
i dont mean walk out with no job but they could do that too
if youre not happy you grind it out while you apply for other jobs. every day. online shooting out a few applications.

let me guess, there is a reason they cant do that as well right

and now they are signing contracts under duress?

really stretching man

posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 08:19 AM

originally posted by: MountainLaurel

originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: Lil Drummerboy

You illustrate perfectly the true source of our world's problems.

It is sad the contempt many people seem to have for people doing good, honest work !

Unfortunately this policy is no doubt in effect because at least some of these "good, honest workers" have been caught stealing from their employer. I doubt Amazon really wants to pay security people for all that overhead just to ensure their own employees aren't stealing from them.

posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 08:47 AM

originally posted by: Grovit
there are other jobs out there.

If only this were true.

posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 08:48 AM
a reply to: CryHavoc

it is true
just cause they dont fall into peoples laps does not mean they do not exist

posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 09:38 AM
a reply to: Herolotus

What bill was passed? Are you confused? This was a SCOTUS ruling based on laws that have already existed for quite some time...

posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 11:55 AM
a reply to: projectvxn

A lot of this hinges on the local and federal labor laws and what kind of employee these people are. You seem to have direct experience here, and I agree with you wholeheartedly - if this is all covered in their employment contract they had absolutely no ground to stand upon in their lawsuit.

I work in contract law. In my experience, too many people don't value contracts for the legally binding documents that they are.

The title is misleading, as I first took it to mean hourly wage employees are being forced to work overtime and not getting paid for it.

Salaried employees is a whole 'nother ball game, but generally at that point, depending on your job description or employment contract, you can be required to work overtime / etc. (depending on local and federal law).

It seems to me that this article comes from a political blog that heavily favors the left. It is not surprising that their spin on this case misses all of these aspects I just mentioned. People need to know what they are getting into when they sign a contract of employment!

posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 12:22 PM
People don't get paid for sitting in traffic traveling to and from work.

People who work in skyscrapers don't get paid for the time they have to wait and ride elevators to and from their floor.

So people shouldn't get paid for waiting in a security line either. They aren't not getting paid for the title of this thread says...they aren't getting paid to go through security.

If anything, and only for employee satisfaction reasons, Amazon could help this out by setting incremental shifts...even by 10-15 minutes so a horde of people don't enter or exit all at the same time.

posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 12:30 PM
Here is the issue that no seems to be discussing. That is Amazon is mandating that employees remain on premises after scheduled work hours to participate in a company required activity. If this is a part of their contract then this absolutely the correct ruling. However, how many of you would be happy if your boss came to and said from now on, every day you must listen to my motivational message after you clock out. This message will vary in time, you cannot leave until it is done and you do not receive any compensation for the time spent listening to the message. Mind you, the message is integral to the business as it keeps you motivated.

So, as an employee, you must take 30 minutes of your personal time every day to participate in employer mandated practices and you are not free to refuse to participate without losing your job. Soon, this time will be extended to cover other practices that are necessary for business purposes. You do not have the right to not give your personal time for the benefit of the corporation. You truly belong to us.
edit on 16-12-2014 by ObservingTheWorld because: Why not?

posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 12:36 PM
a reply to: ObservingTheWorld

its not the same thing and it has been posted by someone that worked there that it is part of the contract/job description so, your hypothetical story really does not matter

new topics

top topics

<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in