General Discussion

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)

31. These are NOT Amazon workers.

Reply to TheKentuckian (Reply #28)

Thu Feb 5, 2015, 12:00 PM

Feb 2015

Get a fucking clue.

Amazon was not a party to the lawsuit.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

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