Clearly the US need to sort their employment laws out
So people automatically start getting paid as soon as they start work i.e. acting as an employee, to incude any time changing into uniform/PPE
Amazon yesterday settled for $11m with staff at its California warehouses who'd sued it over uncompensated wait times for security checks as they began and ended shifts. As with all settlement deals, Jeff Bezos' firm did not admit liability, the document, filed in a Kentucky federal court yesterday, confirmed. Unfortunately …
I know too many consider it 'socialism' but this is where collective bargaining comes in.
If workers had some general agreement and cohesion as a group they would stand a better chance of negotiating beneficial terms for all of them.
I have always been lucky enough to be skilled enough that I could negotiate my own terms or walk but for those who can't, working vas a group would be their best bet. Just avoid picking union leaders who have political axes to grind that may be beyond the immediate interests of those they represent.
.. maybe it may be worth implementing a clause that limits lawyer payments to a max of 5% of payout as soon as it's class action or exceeds, say, 20 people.
It's beyond bizarre that entities are sued for damages and then have to hand off most of it to the sharks. Not only does that defeat the very purpose, but it also makes settlement harder as the costs go up.
Just an idea.
Surely just make it costs on top of settlement. Therefore the settlement is x and then the lawyers argue the costs on to p which the defendant (if found guilty) has to pay.
It might, just might, make these large companies thinking twice about dragging it on through the courts when they know they are likely to lose and all the time racking up bills. It shouldn't be the case that the defendant drags the case on and the 'victims' have to pay for that extra time out of their claim.
Although I don't know American law so this might be what is happening anyway and this article makes it seem like it was paid out of the claim.
IIRC typically the lawyers' percentage is agreed when they agree to take the case, based on the probability of winning and the payout they expect. If the plaintiffs don't like it, they can shop around for a different shark...the USA seems to have no shortage of lawyers.
Nice to know at least one state has laws on its books to protect (some) employee rights. However, what about "right to work" (i.e., "right to get fired for any reason, or no reason at all") states? It is shameful that many municipalities have fallen all over themselves to attract Amazon't "jobs" when the company clearly has no desire to treat workers with any modicum of respect or decency, and more shameful that these municipalities seem to think that throwing their residents into a meat grinder is the best they can do for their citizens who need jobs. Perhaps if Amazon't customers were billed for the full cost (including decent employee wages, benefits, and being treated like a valued part of the company success instead of like a disposable robot) of having their tat delivered to their doors, there would be more awareness (and, one hopes, concern if not outrage) but as long as customers demand cheap cheap cheap now now now, the true cost has to be paid somewhere, and stockholders prefer that employees pick up the tab.
"However, what about "right to work" (i.e., "right to get fired for any reason, or no reason at all") states?"
I worked at a place that did these bag checks on the way out, any sort of bag that got brought out "on the floor", and in a right to work state. They were pretty stingy in every other respect, but did realize that was on company time and paid for that time.
Honestly I'm surprised Amazon would even try it in California!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021