Argument analysis: What is work, anyway? : SCOTUSblog

This is an odd case that came up in my SCOTUS feed and I ponder as to how or why it made it all the way to the SCOTUS. What appears to be the question at hand is this. You work at a factory. As part of the factories inventory control or loss prevention, after clocking out for the day one is required to go through a screening process to make sure you haven’t stolen anything from the shelves or the bins. Should the time spent going through this screening process be compensated for?

As the argument unfolded, the Court was being pulled by three lawyers between two opposite legal positions.  The first is that this particular kind of security screening is simply part of the process of going out the door at the end of the shift, like clocking out, and so no extra pay should be due.  Second, that kind of added assignment is required by the employer and for the company’s benefit, so it is part of the job and should earn more pay.
,,,
Thierman’s argument seemed to grow stronger the longer it went, and he made what might be a telling point in noting that, in this case, the workers actually had punched out for the day before the screening began. That meant a break in their work pattern, and they had to stay on in order to empty their pockets and go through a metal detector. “Checkout is completely finished” when that happens, he said. If “one straw is added on top of checkout,” he said colorfully, that’s deserving of added pay.

Argument analysis: What is work, anyway? : SCOTUSblog

Chicago workers accuse employer of holding them to daily 6-minute bathroom limit

So instead of banning cell phones inside company property, (which every job I have had since cell phones become the in thing have done) they are willing to risk violating the general industry sanitation standards 29 CFR 1910.141 (OSHA), possibly the Fair Labor Standards Act, and in some instances the ADA; all to to save about $2500/month. Yea that makes a lot of sense.

Simply put, Under OSHA worker safety regulations, an employer must permit workers to use the toilet “when nature calls.” They cannot limit bathroom usage to meal breaks or rest breaks.
__
Union workers for a Chicago faucet-maker filed a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board accusing their employer of limiting them to 6 minutes a day for personal bathroom use, CNN reported on Tuesday.

The workers, part of Teamsters local 743, said in their complaint that supervisors at WaterSaver Faucet installed a tracking system monitoring employees’ bathroom use late last year. The company’s human resource department disciplined 19 workers last month for “excessive use of the bathroom,” specifically 60 minutes of use during a 10-day period.

The complaint also said that WaterSaver has begun offering employees gift cards valued at up to $20 each month if they do not use the bathroom at all during company time. CEO Steve Kersten told CNN that the company lost 120 hours worth of production in May due to workers using the bathroom outside of scheduled break times



Chicago workers accuse employer of holding them to daily 6-minute bathroom limit

UPDATE::Catholic teacher backs gay son, quits to protest contract

The "first" casualty of the Catholic teachers-as-ministers clause:

Veteran Catholic teacher Molly Shumate stared at the Cincinnati Archdiocese contract for next school year and thought of her son.

She remembered when a nervous Zachery Shumate, a teenager at the time, approached her and revealed his homosexuality.

His revelation prompted the first-grade teacher to give him a hug, telling her boy she would always love and support him.

So when the new teachers' contract – strictly forbidding public support of homosexuality – was handed to her earlier this year, she was torn.

The employment contract – exclusively obtained and reported by The Enquirer in March – continues to divide huge sections of the region's Catholics. The "morality" clauses – though not unique among Catholic schools nationwide – were a first for the 19-county Archdiocese school system.

[,,,]
She is the first Archdiocese teacher to make a public stand but those opposing the contract predict more will step forward once the school year ends later this month.

"For me to sign this (contract), I feel like I would be telling my son I've changed my mind, that I don't support him as I did. And I won't do that," she said.

Archdiocese officials remain steadfast in their support of the new contract.

Moreover, they contend some of the protests, which have attracted ancillary campaigns for private teacher employment rights, school unions and critics of the church's policies are based on misunderstandings. Officials say much of the opposition is based on over reactions to the newly detailed personal morality provisions and how, in some circumstances, they may lead to teacher firings.

Catholic teacher backs gay son, quits to protest contract

Contracts that define teachers as ministers raise labor questions | National Catholic Reporter

Just what does a teacher do at school? And just what can a teacher do at home?

Catholic educators in dioceses across the country are facing those fundamental questions as they decide this spring whether to sign contracts pledging to work for the 2014-15 academic year.

Seeking to define the role of Catholic education as more identifiably Catholic, several dioceses this year are specifying in their teachers' contracts more clearly -- sometimes with lists of dos and don'ts -- how their teachers are to act in their personal lives.

Some are even redefining teachers not as educators but as ministers.

Legal experts and union organizers say it's a mix that could have sharp implications on teachers' ability to bring civil suits when they believe their employers treat them inappropriately -- and could even prevent them from forming unions to bargain for better wages or conditions.

One scholar who specializes in the intersection of law and religion says the changes are effectively an end-run around legislation protecting employees from discrimination in the workplace.

"It's about churches trying to do everything they can to avoid the anti-discrimination laws, because they don't want to be held to gender equality, sexual orientation equality, racial equality or equal pay," said Leslie Griffin, the William S. Boyd Professor of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

[,,,]
The shift in language follows a January 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that established a "ministerial exception" for religious employers from federal anti-discrimination and workplace labor laws. The court ruled those laws do not necessarily apply to people whom religious groups deem ministers.

Contracts that define teachers as ministers raise labor questions | National Catholic Reporter

Fox’s Eric Bolling suggests ditching minimum wage and labor laws because China works hard

What Bolling fails to realize in espousing this view, he has shown the true colors of the Reich. The political model of the Chinese government is an oligarchy which enhances the wealth of the few (the elite, ie the Reich) while enslaving the rest of the people. He is therefore supporting a tyrannical form of government, relying on the oppression of the masses.
__

Fox News host Eric Bolling and most of his colleagues on The Five dismissed seemingly the whole idea of a balance between life and work on Tuesday, with Bolling suggesting that the U.S. look to China, and not Europe, for inspiration.

“Some of the economies that are starting to kick our butt, those people work hard,” Bolling said. “There aren’t labor laws, there aren’t minimum wages, they’re working harder than we are.”

“That’s what we should have — no labor law and no minimum wage,” co-host Bob Beckel countered. “They work for a dollar a week.”


Fox’s Eric Bolling suggests ditching minimum wage and labor laws because China works hard



Note: 

Some may argue we are already there, Bernie Sanders for example, an

,,,upper-crust of extremely wealthy families are hell-bent on destroying the democratic vision of a strong middle-class which has made the United States the envy of the world. In its place they are determined to create an oligarchy in which a small number of families control the economicand political life of our country.

Or, as reported by Common Dreams, a new study not yet published gives this sober analysis,

,,,When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average Americanappear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically
non-significant impact upon public policy,,,The United States is nodemocracy, but actually an oligarchy."

Kelsey Introduces Bill Aimed At Meal Breaks For Workers | Pith in the Wind | Nashville Scene

Meal breaks are under attack in Tennessee. Last week, Sen. Brian Kelsey introduced a measure that would allow hourly employees to surrender their right to a 30-minute unpaid meal break — something now required under state law after an employee works six straight hours.

Employee activists and labor attorneys consider the proposed law, which is sure to pass the Republican supermajority in both chambers, a disappointing setback for workers’ rights and one that will likely stoke additional friction between workforces and employers.

Two years ago, meal-break laws changed in Tennessee for people who work in the restaurant industry in the same way. For servers and others whose hourly wage includes tips, 30-minute unpaid meal breaks can now be waived. Kelsey’s bill attempts to make this the norm for all workers on the clock.

[,,,]
To attorney David Garrison, whose practice focuses on wage and hour lawsuits, viewing breaks as a rare luxury sets a troubling precedent for hourly workers. That mentality, he says, is furthered by Sen. Kelsey’s recent bill.

“Given that Tennessee has practically no state statute that protects workers’ pay, it’s disappointing that the legislature would seek to attack a law that simply provides workers with a decent break during their work day,” Garrison says.

One of the most common violations of the break law, Garrison says, is when employers dock the 30-minute unpaid break from employees’ checks when, in fact, they are not given any rest period. Doing this is a Class B misdemeanor and can trigger fines. But in Tennessee, an employee cannot sue over meal-break violations. It’s up to already inundated state officials to enforce it after complaints come in.

This, Garrison says, is part of a trend in Tennessee of passing labor laws that can only be enforced by the government, not private employees. Investigating the offenses is often expensive and time-consuming and rarely a top priority of understaffed state agencies.

Kelsey Introduces Bill Aimed At Meal Breaks For Workers | Pith in the Wind | Nashville Scene

Massachusetts IHOP owner fined $100K for forcing staff to pay when patrons walked out on the check | The Raw Story

The owner of an IHOP in West Springfield, Mass., will pay $100,000 to settle charges of abusing labor law, including billing waitstaff for breaks they didn’t take and meals they didn’t eat, and forcing them to pay for the meals of diners who skipped out on the check.

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley announced the settlement with Robert Max Evans and RME Enterprises Friday.Robert Max Evans

Coakley noted that wait staff were required to pay from their tips the full meal costs of customers who left without paying their bills, were required to share their tips with non-wait staff, and were required to pay from their wages the full meal costs of any meals for which a mistake was alleged to have been made. Employees were also required to pay from their wages for broken dishware, and were subject to meal deductions from their wages when no meals were eaten.


Massachusetts IHOP owner fined $100K for forcing staff to pay when patrons walked out on the check | The Raw Story

A court just gutted your right to sue your boss - Craig Becker - POLITICO Magazine

Unnoticed except by employment lawyers, the United States Court of Appeals in New Orleans last month issued what might be the most important workers’ rights opinions in decades. The decision permits employers to require workers, as a condition of keeping their jobs, to agree to arbitrate all workplace disputes and to do so as individuals, standing alone against their employer. The ruling could spell the end of employment class actions that were instrumental to breaching the barriers of both race and sex discrimination after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and remain critical to enforcement of minimum wage and other labor standards laws.

The case involved D.R. Horton, a home-builder operating in 27 states with annual revenue over $6 billion. The company required all employees to sign an agreement providing that employment disputes would be resolved by binding arbitration and that the arbitrator “may hear only Employee’s individual claims.” When one employee tried to pursue a claim that D.R. Horton had misclassified an entire category of workers as exempt from the protection of federal overtime law, the company insisted that each worker had to file his or her own claim.


A court just gutted your right to sue your boss - Craig Becker - POLITICO Magazine

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin GOP Senator, Fights For A Seven-Day Workweek

I'm not so sure about this, I have worked for a company which "stated," at the beginning of the interview process, that OT (7 day weeks) MAY be necessary; this was before the 2009 meltdown. After enduring a chapter 11 bankruptcy, were 25% of the work force was completely eliminated, the possible OT became almost mandatory. We were encouraged (strongly) to work at least 1 OT day/pay period. Then after 2008-09, another 25% employee reduction occurred, people were getting tired as the same people always volunteered; our expected workloads increased. My job, OT became "required." Eventually because people were no longer eagerly volunteering for OT, the unwritten rule was mandatory OT. At one point I worked 9 weeks without a day off. So yes abuses will happen.

BUT, here is the plus side. Why many people will voluntarily agree (as long as it is not abused). If and when an individual needs to file for unemployment, ALL your wages are factored into your expected benefits. Because of the OT I worked, I made more money (short term) on unemployment than I did working. So in some ways, it was nice to have that quirk as a fall back after working many weeks in a row. I would sometimes volunteer for lay-off as a "break" so to speak, usually after my vacation time ran out, but in all honesty I preferred to work.

This would not be a long term "benefit," as your benefit is calculated on a yearly basis (and the benefit amount is capped at some point) as your total income decreases from lack of work, so does your unemployment. After 12-15 months of unemployment this would no longer feasible as your benefit is based on the highest quarter of wages.

So there is good and bad with this proposal,,,
__________

Wisconsin state Sen. Glenn Grothman (R) is attempting to roll back one of the state's progressive labor laws, arguing that workers should be allowed to work without a day off if they so choose.

[,,,]
Wisconsin is one of the few states in the nation where businesses "must provide employees with at least one period consisting of 24 consecutive hours of rest in each calendar week." This doesn't mean that workers get to take off once every seven days; an employee could work for up to 12 consecutive days "if the days of rest fall on the first and last days of the 2 week period."

Grothman said he finds this law "a little goofy," and he argued that rolling it back is a matter of "freedom."

He's proposing legislation that "would allow an employee to voluntarily choose to work without one day of rest in seven," according to an email sent by his office to other state lawmakers on Friday. The email, which was sent to The Huffington Post by the progressive group One Wisconsin Now, was asking lawmakers to cosponsor the bill. State Rep. Mark Born (R) is leading the legislation in the state Assembly.

[,,,]
Ross Eisenbrey, vice president of the Economic Policy Institute, applauded Wisconsin for having such a progressive law on the books in the first place. He said Grothman's proposal is problematic because it may lead to employers forcing their staff to work overtime.

"It's a very hard thing to know whether something is truly voluntary or not," he explained. "If the employer puts pressure on people and lets them know they will be unhappy if workers exercise their right to have a day off, that might be enough so that no worker ever does anything but volunteer to work seven days a week."

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin GOP Senator, Fights For A Seven-Day Workweek