Legalized Wage Theft

This article discusses a recent Supreme Court ruling that Amazon does not have to pay hourly employees for time spent in mandatory security checks.  The case involved several workers at Amazon warehouses, where post-shift security checks are mandatory to prevent theft, and the time spent waiting in line routinely takes more than 30 minutes.  The justification was an ill advised law from the middle of last century stating that work that is not essential and integral to the job position does not have to be paid.  The Supreme Court concluded that since the security checks could be eliminated without harming the work of the employees, Amazon (or rather, the company they pay to manage the warehouses) does not have to pay employees for this time.

This is an absurd case of legalized wage theft.  In this case, the verdict should be simple: The security checks are mandatory.  This makes them an integral part of the job.  Even by that old law, the employees should be paid.  Any mandatory activity that is part of a job should be part of the job description.  If it is not, then it should not be mandatory.  And, if it is part of the job description, then it is an integral and essential part of the job and thus should be compensated.

This ruling leads to other problems though.  It sets a legal precedent for allowing businesses to squander employee time without compensating them for it.  Some easy examples that have been given include sharpening knives in meat packing.  This is an important task, because it affects efficiency and safety, but, unless a knife will no longer cut, it is not essential or integral to the task.  The Supreme Court has said that their ruling does not apply to things done for safety or efficiency, but as a legal precedent, it does apply, because the law in question does not say otherwise.  Given this, another major concern is time spent putting on and taking off safety equipment.  Legally, employers no longer have to pay employees for these things, because the Supreme Court has ruled that something which can be eliminated without removing the ability to do the job does not need to be compensated.

The real problem here is that employers have been given a level power over employees that is entirely abusive.  What if Amazon's security checks get longer?  What if employees are now stuck in line for 2 hours?  It is still not essential to the job, and the Supreme Court has declared that it is permissible to detain employees on pain of firing without paying them for that time.  What if that time goes to 4 hours?  Now, most employees are staying at work for long enough to get significant overtime, but according to the Supreme Court, it is still totally legal to detain them without paying them for that time.

Frankly, I don't care about that old law.  It was a bad idea, but the problem is far deeper:  The Supreme Court has more or less signed over the right to hold employees against their will indefinitely, without any accountability.  At least requiring employees to be paid for the time is an effective deterrent.  If that security check is not part of the job description, employees should be able to easily bypass it without any adverse consequences.  If the employer tries to detain the employee, then the employer should be charged with and convicted of holding the employee against her will.  If it is part of the job description, then by definition, it is an integral and essential part of the job and should be paid as such.  Really, there should be criminal charges going on in this case, not just a question of getting paid for that time.