General Discussion

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)

25. The legal reason is the security screening is a facility requirement, not an employer requirement.

Thu Feb 5, 2015, 11:45 AM

Feb 2015

The warehouse is not the employer. Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc. is the employer and is a third party engaged by Amazon to do the work.

Amazon does not own the warehouse. Amazon is a customer of the warehouse and houses merchandise to be picked, packed and shipped.

Amazon was not a party in this lawsuit.

So the warehouse, which has multiple customers only one of which is Amazon, has a security requirement when anybody leaves that they must undergo security screening to insure nothing is removed from the facility. They are liable for loss by theft.

This is no different than JFK International Airport requiring security screenings of everybody entering the terminal area. Employees at restaurants in those terminals are required to be screened and are not entitled to be paid for the time they spend in line waiting to be screened.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

60 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court Liberals rule with conservatives in favor of Amazon wage theft [View all] ND-Dem Feb 2015 OP

A very very unfair and anti-worker ruling. nt delrem Feb 2015 #1

"Liberals rule with conservatives"... NaturalHigh Feb 2015 #2

money & war. same thing, really. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #3

Shows you who they are REALLY Working for ChosenUnWisely Feb 2015 #6

+1 Scuba Feb 2015 #8

+1 woo me with science Feb 2015 #9

I don't think you should blame SCOTUS here. Vattel Feb 2015 #59

Sounds like Integrity's lawyers wrote the decision and Thomas Pig & Corp. rubber-stamped it. NBachers Feb 2015 #4

So they can take from you to see if you take from them. Spitfire of ATJ Feb 2015 #5

Nothing even remotely "liberal" about this bad ruling. blkmusclmachine Feb 2015 #7

kick woo me with science Feb 2015 #10

IT was a unanimous ruling MohRokTah Feb 2015 #11

lol. "your true colors..." ND-Dem Feb 2015 #12

LOL, a unanimous SCOTUS decision leaves no room for controversy. MohRokTah Feb 2015 #13

10 Supreme Court Rulings—Before Hobby Lobby—That Turned Corporations Into People ND-Dem Feb 2015 #14

Neither case you are citing was unanimous. MohRokTah Feb 2015 #15

"10 supreme court rulings..." Are non-employees even allowed into Amazon warehouses? I doubt it. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #17

You cited two cases in your post, and only two. MohRokTah Feb 2015 #18

So, if you compartmentalize and outsource then it is okay to screw workers out of their time? TheKentuckian Feb 2015 #28

These are NOT Amazon workers. MohRokTah Feb 2015 #31

You get a clue, I know plenty about shelling around, vendor arrangements, and contracting. TheKentuckian Feb 2015 #50

You seriously don't know shit if you do not understand different legal corporations... MohRokTah Feb 2015 #51

"How they work" and "How they should work" are not the same thing and TheKentuckian Feb 2015 #53

No, at this level we are talking about long standing tort precedence. MohRokTah Feb 2015 #55

But this has NOTHING TO DO with this case. Yo_Mama Feb 2015 #34

When there is a buck to be made. I keep hearing how important supreme court picks are. Autumn Feb 2015 #16

Again ... now a THIRD time of Amazon bashing sunnystarr Feb 2015 #19

ooh. "amazon-bashing". that sounds awful. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #21

Very interesting nichomachus Feb 2015 #24

That's probably why they classify workers sunnystarr Feb 2015 #37

No, not at all -- none of that nichomachus Feb 2015 #49

Which is why you'd expect sunnystarr Feb 2015 #57

I'm a big Amazon fan but this seems like a very unfair ruling to me. Nye Bevan Feb 2015 #20

The legal reason is the security screening is a facility requirement, not an employer requirement. MohRokTah Feb 2015 #25

Thanks for the detailed explanation (nt) Nye Bevan Feb 2015 #35

You are mistaken. SCOTUS did not deny that the security screening is an employee requirement. Vattel Feb 2015 #56

I disagree. That seemed to play no role in the decision. Jim Lane Feb 2015 #58

There was an earlier case involving mine workers. They would arrive at the mine entrance, but it FSogol Feb 2015 #41

Jewell Ridge v. UMW onenote Feb 2015 #44

Thanks. FSogol Feb 2015 #45

I agree with your point about the FLSA amendment Jim Lane Feb 2015 #60

The ruling is harsh and against common sense. However SCOTUS is tasked with neither whatthehey Feb 2015 #22

If you're required to be on a job site, you're working. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #23

If you're required to be on a job site BY YOUR EMPLOYER, you're working. MohRokTah Feb 2015 #26

"intrepid" = lol. keep pushing the line that *integrity* and amazon are separate companies and that ND-Dem Feb 2015 #27

They ARE separate companies. MohRokTah Feb 2015 #29

Very nice explanation. n/t Yo_Mama Feb 2015 #32

Take your outrage to Congress, where it can achieve something. Yo_Mama Feb 2015 #30

^^^ This right here. eom MohRokTah Feb 2015 #39

Any particular reason why this two month old decision is being discussed now? onenote Feb 2015 #33

The OP is mass posting anything negative about Amazon. eom MohRokTah Feb 2015 #40

Amazon, Walmart, wage slaves, slavery, etc doesn't ring a Bell for anyone? FSogol Feb 2015 #42

I think is obvious that you are Jeff Bezos. Where the all the f'ing books I ordered? FSogol Feb 2015 #46

I can only wish I was! MohRokTah Feb 2015 #47

Yes there is a reason ... sunnystarr Feb 2015 #43

He/she posted four last night. eom MohRokTah Feb 2015 #48

All these companies so worried about "time theft" by their employees Brigid Feb 2015 #36

It's not really "wage theft" when the supreme court rules 9-0 taught_me_patience Feb 2015 #38

If its not an "integral" part of the job...then that means they have the right NOT to put up with it VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #52

Nope onenote Feb 2015 #54