So two wrongs don't make a right, but everybody doing it wrong does?

1. They should get paid for that time, too.

2. The article says "the screening takes around 25 minutes to complete", which is not typical in retail.

I wonder if there is any limit at all. What if the screenings were 3 hours long before and after each employee’s shift? Would the company still be allowed to not pay them during this time? Seems this is pretty abusable. How long is too long [EDIT: according to the law] to force someone to work without paying?

>How long is too long to force someone to work without paying?

0.00hr. You should always be paid for your time unless that person agrees to volunteer it.

...yes, but there is an implicit "If 25 minutes is okay" before that question. The comment is poking at the current law's logic.

Employees should always be paid for their time, regardless of volunteering, or it allows employers to negatively evaluate and find parallel reasons to fire employees who don't 'choose to volunteer' as a method of institutionalized wage theft

Grossly inaccurate is the best way of describing the screening time, I've done the amazon fulfillment center tour and seen employees check in for different shifts, it does not take 25 minutes to go through the screening process. There's no way Amazon with its efficiency mantra would let this happen knowing how it eventually impacts the bottom line.

> Grossly inaccurate is the best way of describing the screening time

Amazon agrees with you... they contend that the screening doesn't actually take this long. I'm not clear on how a question of fact like this can be in dispute unless we are arguing over definitions.

> I've done the amazon fulfillment center tour and seen employees check in for different shifts, it does not take 25 minutes to go through the screening process.

No one is claiming that the check-in process takes a long time. The check-out process is the one where the employees are screened for theft, and that is where the employees claim they must wait (unpaid) for a long time.

> There's no way Amazon with its efficiency mantra would let this happen knowing how it eventually impacts the bottom line.

I find that completely unpersuasive. The courts have just told Amazon that they DON'T HAVE TO PAY for this time. So it isn't inefficient for them to allow it to take lots of time. It doesn't affect Amazon's bottom line until the point where it becomes difficult for Amazon to hire any workers.

> I find that completely unpersuasive. The courts have just told Amazon that they DON'T HAVE TO PAY for this time.

The headline is a little misleading. The appellate court was letting the case vs. Amazon go to trial under state labor law; the Supreme Court decided not to intervene, so the dispute is still being litigated.

(Previously, the Supreme Court said time being screening doesn't require compensation under Federal law).

> There's no way Amazon with its efficiency mantra would let this happen knowing how it eventually impacts the bottom line.

How do workers trying to leave the warehouse affect their bottom line? They are no longer on the clock so it is no longer Amazon's problem. It is a big problem for workers who have to waste 5-15% of their free time on this obligatory work task.

> I've done the amazon fulfillment center tour

I'd be skeptical of how representative a tour is.

> seen employees check in for different shifts, it does not take 25 minutes to go through the screening process

Check-in isn't the situation in dispute.

Sure, but the court case is only going to involve one company. In this case Amazon, which is not surprising, since their policies impact far more workers than almost any other corporation. But the result of the case impacts all the rest.

Well, Amazon also employs more people than entire industries, and has a long track record of grotesque Labour abuses, so this is just an additional data point for when people ask why amazon is awful

It's still less then a 1/3 as many employees as Walmart

Looks like they had similar issues?

https://www.plbsh.com/jury-awards-walmart-employees-6-millio...

"We only treat our warehouse workers as badly as Walmart does!" is not exactly a rousing defense.

The workers in this case were employed by a contractor to Amazon. They were not Amazon employees.

yes, and there have been numerous articles about Walmart being terrible as well :-/

Ah so it is OK then? No, those people should be paid for their time too.