> they felt so strongly about this they appealed a case all the way to the Supreme Court.

The felt confident that they were right about it and the SC confirmed it. It's classic double standards if you celebrate one winner at the SC and condemn others based on your political/ideological opinion.

You can be satisfied or disappointed with a result in the supreme court without making the court your moral authority.

It can be both legal and wrong. No need for a "double standard".

> The fact that Amazon is so cheap

you mean the company that pays high wages?

You have a very myopic view of what Amazon is and what roles the majority of its labor force occupy.

The bulk of Amazon's workforce are delivery drivers, warehouse workers, and datacenter rats. They are not paid fairly. It's pretty obvious from the numbers. For more supporting evidence, read TFA.

That was a consequence of relentless campaign, but it was not necessarily an raise for the workers. They essentially traded a form of compensations for another.

Also 15 dollars per hour can be high or not depending where you live.

Yes. That one

Where do you draw the line? Should people be compensated for their commute? It's an interesting debate that has emerged in airports as well: https://www.talbottlawfirm.com/does-an-employer-have-to-pay-...

Commute is partially under the control of the worker, where I decide to live has a huge impact on how long my commute is. I can freely decide to trade commute for money, making it my responsibility.

Waiting in line to be frisked is something mandated by the employer. They control whether or not I have to do it, and how long the lines are. Since it’s under their control, it’s their financial responsibility.

That’s a bit disingenuous when short commutes are literally not affordable to some of the people we’re talking about.

But no employer would force you to have long commutes.

It may be impossible in some cases to have short commutes, but if, even by chance, you managed to move in the same building as your office no one would force you to go through the metro.

Commutes are clearly a grey area, waiting times to be let "free" are less so.

Waiting to be frisked is not analogous to commuting at all.

If amazon isn't paying for your time in line, they have no incentive to make it fast. They can invest the bare minimum to protect their own interests, and fuck over their worker who have to wait in line. If they had to pay workers for their time then there is an incentive for them to make the line move quickly.

I can't imagine a setup that is more hostile to your fellow humans as forcing them to waste unpaid time.

I think that reveals the motive: they don't want the line to be fast.

Isn't the purpose of the screens less about catching bad actors and more about cultivating a culture of fear/suspicion, and hopefully getting a few effective informants out of the thing?

If the lines go to 2 minutes, or I get paid while in them, where's my incentive to rat out a coworker?

my mom used to defend chicken plants on this issue - should workers be paid for the time they spend donning and doffing their smocks and hairnets? the law was ambiguous -- I was put through college on the money from these cases!

One of these cases eventually made its way to the Supreme Court [0], but they ruled (in favor of the plaintiffs) about the validity of the collective action, not about whether the Fair Labor Standards Act covered donning and doffing (it does, at least so I believe.)

It seems like donning and doffing is considered as time worked because it's a "principal activity" under the FLSA [1], and that includes waiting time. Seems like being frisked would be a "principal activity" as well - it's essentially doffing - so waiting time would be included too.

Someone could make a pretty penny bringing a collective suit against Amazon over this.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyson_Foods,_Inc._v._Bouaphake...

1. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/field-assistance-bulletins/...

To me, if you are not free to walk out the door and do whatever you please, you have an obligation to an employer, and are therefore working. I worked a college job fixing bowling equipment and they tried to make me clock out for my meals. I refused unless I was then free to leave the building. As if I have to be there on call then I am still working.

Amazon is not allowing these people to walk out the door and go home. That is taking their time for company policies. So that is working.

A worker has some control over their commute. That same worker cannot enact any control over security practices. We do compensate employees for commuting to somewhere other than their usual place of work.

To me, the door of the building seems to be a pretty clear line.

For a fixed location job, the commute is fully under control of the employee and fair not to count as hours.

For variable location jobs like in construction, my view is that potential additional commute time should be compensated.

Should people be compensated for the time they brush their teeth or have breakfast?

Of course not.

Once you step into your work, you should be paid for your time. Especially when you have no control over that.

If your employer mandates that you take a certain route to work? And that route takes you more time? Then yes, a line is crossed and you should be compensated.