Unpaid Leadtime
Some Amazon employees are suing over unpaid security searches:
A Pennsylvania man who works for Internet retail giant Amazon says the company is taking advantage of workers by putting them through daily security checks that last anywhere from 10 to 20 minutes — and eat into unpaid hours, before work, after work and during lunch breaks.
He’s kicked off a class-action suit against the company, filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, NBC reported.
Lead plaintiff Neal Heimbach, from Allentown, Pa., has worked in the company’s warehouse in Breinigsville for nearly three years. His complaint is that daily, nearly 100 workers at the facility are forced to undergo security searches without pay — that take place during times when they’re officially off-the-clock, NBC said.
There are two ways of looking at this. The first is that since you aren’t working, you cannot reasonably expect to get paid. It’s like a commute in that respect. We are not generally paid for commuting times, even though they can really eat into our day. The second way of looking at it is that whether you’re working or not you are nonetheless doing what the employers require of them. I am not sure what the law is, but if the plaintiff’s claims are true, I’d assume that they would favor the plaintiff.
As a matter of what should be, I am more inclined towards the plaintiff in any event. I have never had to deal with 10-20 minute security checks, but I remember when I was taking calls for a satellite company and how they had us do this routine before we could log in. If the computer was still on, we had to shut it down and restart it. There was no way that they could know for sure whether you did this or not, but if you didn’t the likelihood was far greater that your computer would crash. The computers were pathetically weak, which meant that reboots every four or five hours were generally a good idea. It also meant that the time required for bootup to occur was forever. Often in excess of ten minutes. You couldn’t even do it and leave because you could come back and find some vulture at your workstation. If they could nab someone else’s computer, they’d save their own bootup time.
Employers cannot generally be made to pay people for their commute because a commute is variable depending on the decisions made by the employee. Someone could, at least in theory, get a job further away so that they could get the overtime or work fewer hours. Security searches, on the other hand, are as loose or as vigorous as the employers choose to make them. If it’s on the employee’s dime, they don’t have any real incentive to not go full-TSA. Likewise, the computers at the call center were entirely the province of the employer. If they didn’t want to pay us for ten minutes of waiting for a computer to boot up, they need to have faster computers.
A similar case involves defining clothes:
In 2012, a group of 800 steelworkers at a U.S. Steel plant in Gary, Indiana brought suit against their employer, asking for “work time”—that is, paid time—to include the time it took them to put on and take off their work clothes. For steelworkers, “work clothes” aren’t just suits or coveralls; they include flame-retardant jackets and pants, protective leggings, Kevlar sleeves, gloves, steel-toed boots, hard hats, safety glasses, earplugs, and hoods. When you work with molten metal, getting dressed for work—and, then, un-dressed—takes some time.
Unlike the security searches and bootup times when benefit only the employer (either loss prevention or lower equipment costs), the safety gear benefits both. You can argue “Well, if you’re going to hire welders, you have to factor in the costs of paying them to get suited up!”… but you can just as easily argue that if you’re going to be a welder, you really ought to factor in the fact that you’re not going to be paid for getting suited up and that’s just a cost of the profession.
When I was the solo IT guy at a fabricating plant, our employees were not generally paid for squat except working. I mean, when we got a major order out on time we would throw a mandatory afternoon party where attendance was expected and the workers were expected to be clocked out. I always thought that was kind of a bummer because it meant that (barring overtime) everyone would get paid for 36 hours instead of 40. On the other hand, if we just got an order out the door, there was a great chance that overtime was involved. It was still probably nice to have an afternoon that didn’t involve open torches in a warehouse with temperatures of 90 degrees outside. Even so, they might prefer to spend the time with their families or grabbing a beer. Theoretically they could go home and come back, but beer was out of the question because it tended to be timed so that there was still an hour worth of work at the end and you don’t want people handling torches and heavy machinery having just gotten a beer.
So once again, I find myself more sympathetic to the plaintiffs. Down with the man.
Because searches are inherently invasive, the workers should definitely get paid. You can’t look at or touch the girls in the strip club for free either.Report
Nothing else need be said. You can just close the comments, Will.Report
Simple logic says that if I am an hourly employee and my boss tells me to spend time doing something as a condition of employment, than I ought to be paid. It seems pretty cut-and-dry to me.Report
Simple logic says that if they haven’t quit, it’s because all things considered they find this job preferable to all other alternatives available to them. It’s not like they’re being defrauded.Report
I can’t agreee, Brandon. The overall pay and conditions could be better than their next best alternative, even if they lose thus lawsuit, but that diesn’t make the lawsuit withiut merit. Setting aside any relevant workplace laws, they could have an agreement, a contract whether explicit or implicit, about these things that has been violated. We may not know yet whether that’s the case or not, but it’s not by any means outside the boundaries of the possible.Report
I would agree that a lawsuit would be justified if, say, a worker did this for a month and didn’t find out that the search time would be uncompensated until they got the paychecks. Or if they had a contract explicitly guaranteeing that they’d be paid for the search time.
I can’t see this being justified by any implicit agreement, because they’ve implicitly agreed to the status quo by coming back for more.Report
So because they didn’t immediately quit their job not knowing how they would feed their families in the short term, they deserve to be abused and have their time stolen? And I’ll remind you that if you quit your job rather than being fired you don’t even qualify for unemployment benefits.Report
Report
If all the major employers in a city have the same abusive practices, that doesn’t make the practice non-abusive.
If all the major employers in a city have different abusive practices, and this just happens to be the least abusive of the available abuses, that doesn’t make the practice non-abusive.Report
No, what makes it non-abusive is that it’s not abusive. Nobody’s being forced to work there. Anybody who doesn’t think the total compensation package is worth what they have to do to get it can look for a better deal elsewhere, or just quit. If Amazon’s getting such a screaming deal, why isn’t anyone else giving them a better offer?Report
And the police have been shooting puppies for years, so Balko should just shut the hell up about it.Report
Brandon,
In general I’m in agreement with you. But, hey, if your employer is violating a law and their compliance with that law would make your job even more remunerative, I can’t really see anything wrong with trying to make them comply with the law.
That’s not the same as arguing the employees are being “abused,” just that their action is–assuming they have a plausible case–wholly legitimate.Report
It’s okay, Mike. Analogies are hard.Report
I don’t know the state of the law on this, but that sounds like company time to me. After all, it’s company business, so surely it’s company time, right?
I’d read about the steelworkers case previously, and I’m inclined to their side, too…probably. I suppose if this is equipment they provide themselves, one could argue that they should just dress at home instead of changing at work, but while that might make sense for the boots (at least I’ve known lots of blue collar guys who work their boots to work, back home, out to the bar, at the football game…) the flame retardant jackets, protective leggings, and such…it’s not exactly like me putting on a tie (which in fact I don’t even need to do).Report
Definitely shady on Amazon’s part. If the job requires searches on their premises, the employees ought to be getting paid. Generally, hourly workers ought to be getting paid from the moment they clock in until the moment they clock out, with some clearly prescribed lunch period carved out.
Also, it’s nice to the class-action suit being used on a reasonable class of people, as opposed to a class that includes, say, everyone who rented a Netflix movie between 2006 and 2008. regardless of whether you have any gripe or not.Report
I clicked on that link too… are we getting any Netflix money soon?Report
No, but you can stream Leonard Part 6, as many times as you want, for free!Report
Bill Cosby is a genius!Report
Those types of class-action lawsuits don’t generally give any real benefits to the class that’s been supposedly harmed. Some law firm finds one person with a complaint against Netflix to start the ball rolling. They automatically opt-in all of Netflix’ customers and bring the suit. Then Netflix “settles” by offering everyone in the class something trivial like a voucher for a free month and pays the law firm’s multi-million dollar fee. Quite the scam.Report
@j-r
Not true and especially not true for wage and hour classes. I’ve received checks from being part of class action law suits involving illgal credit card fees. Wage and Hour class actions do indeed involve class members receiving their unpaid wages if victorious.Report
@newdealer
Wrong about what? I don’t see where we are actually disagreeing on this, unless you believe that there is no abuse at all of the class-action law suit.Report
The fact that Amazon chooses a security method that might end up costing them a half-hour’s labor per employee is an overhead Amazon chose to accept. If it’s too expensive, they should reevaluate the cost/benefit analysis, not try to con employees into working for free.
Labor law probably varies depending on whether they’re hourly or salaried, and the precise instructions regarding time-keeping. If it’s a punch-in/punch-out system on the other side of a security check, I can see where the lawsuit originates. (Can’t punch in until you pass security, but security is costing you 20 minutes each way…)Report
Seriously. 20 minutes is nearly 5% of a workday. That’s an enormous operating cost that they’re pushing onto their employees.
I worked for a place that made frickin’ nuclear weapons and never had to take out more than 10-15 minutes for a random search that included my car. And that was a government operation. What’s Amazon doing that we weren’t?Report
Par for the course these days.
Walmart, for instance, is notorious for trying to squeeze out unpaid hours out of employees. (“You’re off the clock, but if you want to have a job in the morning you’ll finish this before you leave”). Amazon’s had plenty of bad press too.
Labor’s gone from an investment to a cost, something to be squeezed as hard as possible. Companies seem to begrudge every penny paid to a worker.Report
Labor wishes it rated as highly as being a cost. Liability is probably a better description, though less accurate as an accounting term.Report
That’s this first thing I thought of too. It doesn’t take that long to get into the *Pentagon* as a (cleared) visitor, much less an employee. (and I’m pretty sure the White House is the same, through 2nd hand accounts)Report
I’m with you. Wage and Hour cases are a fairly common form of class action law suit. From what I know, they often tend to go the way of the plaintiff because HR/Executives are often comically evil and inept in trying to get around the rules.
The ones I’ve worked on (very briefly) all involved HR trying to make as many people “assistant managers” or “managers” as possible while they still largely performed non-managerial tasks and not giving them much managerial authority. Just because you call someone a manager, doesn’t mean that they are.
I’ve never worked on a case about getting clocked out for tasks so I can’t say what the level of success but simple logic states that they should get paid for these security checks.Report
It also seems comically inept to do something nice for your workers and then make them clock out.Report
You’re on my home turf here, Mr. Truman. And you’ve got the basic concept down: if the employer is controlling what the employees do, they’re on the clock. Check out the “donning and doffing” cases for an analogy, and this wouldn’t be the first “slow boot-up” case out there, either. As for the commuting time, which is also something that you’ve got pretty much right whether by knowledge or instinct, check out something called the “portal to portal” rule.
The punchline is: I’d love to represent this plaintiff and a class of other people similarly-situated, even in generally pro-employer Pennsylvania. This case looks like a winner to me.Report
Mandatory off-the-clock parties sound like a winner for the plaintiff to me too.Report
“Mandatory” being the operative word there. “Effectively mandatory” would qualify as well — as in “technically optional but bad things happen to you, or good things don’t happen to you, if you don’t go.”
I wonder in my more wildly speculative moments about spouses at “effectively mandatory” work parties. If the spouse “has” to go or there is some sort of penalty paid, then is the spouse’s presence also compensable? Normally, this issue comes up in the form of discrimination on the basis of marital status (and therefore of sex in some jurisdictions and in some circumstances), but perhaps the spouse is entitled to at least the seven-fifty-an-hour-minimum for being at a party so as to enable the company to present the right sort of social image to its clients. But this is still fringe stuff.Report
I think there’s a distinction to be made between “dressing for work” (something employers can expect employees to do before coming to work) and “taking all appropriate safety measures relating to the nature of the work,” which to me would include donning equipment that would have absolutely no use in the home, even if as a matter of property ownership the equipment belongs to the employees. A person should be expected to show up for work ready to work, but IMO any safety procedures, including putting on personal safety gear, relating to the work ought to simply be thought of as being part of the work itself.Report
which to me would include donning equipment that would have absolutely no use in the home
For me that not only includes a tie, but shocks, shirt and pants!Report
I simply have to know how shocks fit into your personal choice of attire. also, goodyear or monroe?Report
Shocks? Are your students that boring?Report
Oh, I was unclear. My employer requires us to undergo daily shock therapy. Well, me anyway.Report
“You volunteered, didn’t you? We’re paying you, aren’t we?”
— P. VenkmanReport
Yeah. My understanding is that the courts are trying to sort out where the line of that distinction is. It’s actually a bit blurry for some things. For safety gear, it seems pretty reasonable to me to err on the side of the employee, though.Report
Anecdata regarding the US Steel case: I used to work in an independent steel mill (“independent” = owned by a small company who only owned that one mill: 500-700 employees depending on how busy things were) . Granted, this was the late 70s, and things may have changed since then.
We were required to provide and clock in/out wearing our own safety equipment that met the current Cal-OSHA standard for the general mill floor: steel toed boots, hard hat, eye and hearing protection. ISTR that the company provided gloves (which tended to wear through pretty quickly on some jobs), but my memory could be false on that. I strongly suspect that the atmosphere we were breathing would often exceed present day standards for particulates, though.
For the specialized jobs that required the asbestos suit and hood and related paraphenalia, the company provided the equipment, and the time to get in and out of it (and the person to help you and check that you were buttoned up correctly) were all on the clock. Seemed reasonable to me (BTW, it didn’t really take that long to get in and out – maybe three minutes on, two minutes off; what took forever off the clock was getting out the cinders that burned into any exposed skin).Report
There’s an interesting wrinkle in the steel worker case: The Union Contract specifies that employees will not be paid for time to don and doff clothing.
Anyone else familiar with steel work or similar? is this arrangement an industry standard? Because I’m less inclined to favor a court getting in the way of a fairly negotiated union contract that supports industry-standard rules that I would be for other circumstances.Report
On the one hand, it seems that most of the case hinges around what is clothing and what is equipment. On the other, it’s an odd thing to put in a union contract about clothing unless you’re talking about the special clothing that steelworkers have to wear (namely, their equipment)… unless we’re just talking about steel-toed boots.Report
I would draw a line between “clothing” and “equipment” based on what could reasonably be worn outside the work place.
If I understand tax law correctly, I couldn’t deduct the cost of my ties, but my wife could have deducted the cost of scrubs.
I’d also be curious to know who paid for the clothing/equipment and who was responsible for it. If it belonged to the company and the employees couldn’t take it home (thereby requiring them to don it at the place of employment), I think that tips towards the employees.Report
Scrubs make awesome pajamas. Better pajamas than pajamas do, in fact. I actually had some scrubs when I was in college.Report
I had to dump them to get any tlc while in school.Report
What I’m having trouble understanding is what Amazon gets out of this. Those workers aren’t being productive for those 20 minutes, and I simply don’t believe a 20 minute security check serves any valid purpose for a book seller.Report
If I had to guess, it’s not books they’re looking for: it’s the electronics gewgaws they sell.Report
Loss prevention. They’re probably less worried about books and more worried about things like small electronics. I’m not sure they’re actually getting checked for twenty minutes. I think that includes queue time. But why hire more security people to conduct more security lines when you’re eating into someone else’s time?Report
If it’s queue time, that’s even worse. You could maybe argue that employees will sandbag putting their gear on if you pay for that time, but waiting in line? The employer is 100% in control of that variable. The employee has no way around it.Report
First, I wholeheartedly agree with the general consensus. Amazon should be paying for this time.
Second, I seriously doubt if there’s any job in America that involves more uncompensated time than over-the-road trucking. To start, it’s all piece-work with the work unit being a “load” for which I’m paid so many cents per mile but which also includes up to two hours on either end for loading and unloading. There’s also DOT mandated pre-trip and post-trip equipment inspections as well as time spent fueling, training, piss-tests, etc. Basically I have to record all time spent “working” including sitting around waiting “in readiness” for someone else to get their rear in gear. And the real hell of it is all that “on-duty, not driving” time counts against my limit of seventy hours combined driving and work time in eight days. Meaning it cuts into the time I have legally available to drive and thus, earn dollars. In case you’re wondering, yes, we do minimize the amount we record that way, up to and including outright falsification (not me!).
In fairness, I should note that I do get paid for wait time over two hours (my company bills the customer), extra stops, detention pay if I sit for more than a day waiting for a load or if my truck’s in the shop. And short loads pay more per mile and sometimes a bonus.Report
I think most people have gotten the right end of this, but I’d like to point out something people missed:
Lunch breaks usually have a length required by law. 30 minutes, or an hour, depending.
By making them do security breaks during lunch, we’ve exited the dispute over whether or not that they should be paid for that time, and now we’re in a universe where Amazon is actually going to have to let them leave _earlier_.
Amazon is not just stealing wages, they are not giving the required time for lunch breaks.
Also, in the case of required 15 minute breaks under the law, I believe you have to be allowed to leave the area, which means they have to go through security for _that_, also. (Which probably means, right now, they aren’t even bothering to try.)Report