The U.S. Supreme Court began arguments on Oct. 8 over whether Amazon’s warehouse workers should be paid for time spent undergoing mandatory security searches. The decision could affect not only Amazon workers but hundreds of thousands of other workers throughout the country.
One part of the proceedings has shocked many and baffled others: The Obama administration, which has sought to burnish its “friend of labor” image by calling for an (extremely modest) increase in the minimum wage, has come out in support of Amazon and Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc., an agency contracted by Amazon to provide warehouse workers.
“The administration’s position in this case runs exactly counter to its avowed goal of raising workers’ wages,” Robert Reich, former President Clinton’s secretary of labor and now a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, told International Business Times. “I’m frankly surprised the Obama administration is siding with the employers here,” he said.
The case started four years ago when Jesse Busk and Laurie Castro, former Amazon warehouse workers in Nevada, filed a complaint against Integrity Staffing Solutions, arguing that employees should be compensated for the time they had to spend undergoing checks to ensure they had not stolen merchandise from the workplace. The screenings can take up to 25 minutes, time for which they were not paid.
Mark Thierman, the Reno, Nev., lawyer representing Busk and Castro, says the lawsuit has since been joined by another 500 workers from other warehouses. If the suit is successful, the settlement could include back pay for thousands of workers (both permanent and temporary) from Amazon’s more than 50 U.S. “fulfillment centers.”
Under U.S. labor law, workers must receive pay for the time they spend in the workplace preparing for tasks required of them by the boss. This can include putting on specialized clothing and protective gear and can also include the time workers spend showering after a shift to clean off hazardous manufacturing materials. Both are essential functions of particular jobs. But Integrity and Amazon argue that waiting in line to undergo company-mandated screening isn’t essential to a warehouse worker’s duties and therefore should not be compensated.
It should be pointed out that a significant part of the working day of a warehouse worker is already unpaid, based on the new value created by the workers in the distribution process that far exceeds their wage, especially the miserly wage of non-union warehouse workers. Amazon and its contracted agency, by refusing to compensate the workers for the extra time they are required to spend being searched at the end of their shifts, are simply adding more unpaid time to the workday—adding insult to injury.
The Nevada District Court initially dismissed Busk and Castro’s case, but they appealed and won in the Ninth Circuit. Integrity appealed the decision, and now it falls to the U.S. Supreme Court to make a final ruling.
Obama administration files amicus brief
In June, the Obama administration filed a lengthy brief, arguing that the judgment of the Ninth Circuit appeals court should be reversed. The brief strongly backs Integrity and Amazon’s argument that the mandatory screening of workers at the end of their shifts is not “integral and indispensable” to their jobs and therefore should not be compensated.
The pro-business Retail Litigation Center, Society for Human Resources Management, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers also (jointly) filed an amicus brief in the case in favor of denying additional wage payments to the workers.
While amicus curiae briefs are not legally binding, recent research shows, according to a 2013 paper issued by the Social Science Research Network, that they are increasingly having more impact on Supreme Court decisions. So the fact that the Obama administration, along with major pro-employer organizations, have weighed in on the case in this fashion definitely increases the odds of a Supreme Court ruling adverse not only to the workers who brought the case but hundreds of thousands of others, including thousands of government workers.
As the Obama administration’s amicus brief points out: “The United States also employs many employees who are covered by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 203(e)(2)(A) [the relevant section of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act—JB], and requires physical-security checks in many settings. The United States accordingly has a substantial interest in the resolution of the question presented.”
Most Amazon warehouse workers earn minimum wage or slightly more, which means between $8 and $14 per hour, according to Forbes magazine. The workers are asking for back payments to compensate for time spent waiting to be searched. While 25 minutes in line doesn’t seem like a great deal, when multiplied by thousands of workers and the years the practice has been in place, the cost could be substantial and cut into company profits.
In attempting to explain the Democratic Obama administration’s motivation in backing Amazon against the workers, Paul Secunda, director of the labor and employment law program at Marquette University Law School, stated: “There are billions of dollars at stake. It may seem cynical, but I can see this as something that large corporate donors to the Democratic Party care deeply about.” (International Business Times)
However, this argument is not all that persuasive since Amazon donates to both of the main capitalist parties in roughly equal amounts. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, of the total for 2014 so far, 53 percent of Amazon’s political action committee’s donations of $300,778 went to Republicans, and 47 percent went to Democrats. In 2012, 52 percent went to Democrats.
A more likely reason
Perhaps a stronger case can be made that Obama and the Democrats, looking forward to the mid-term election in November and then the general election of 2016, are attempting to curry favor with the multi-billionaire founder and CEO of Amazon, Jeff Bezos. On Oct. 1 last year, Bezos became the proud owner of the highly influential Washington Post, at a purchase price of $250 million. Needless to say, that purchase buys Bezos far more influence over U.S. government policy, whichever party occupies the White House or controls the Congress, than even his substantial “campaign contributions” have bought.
The Obama administration’s submission of the amicus brief supporting the online retailing giant against its workers, and hundreds of thousands of other U.S. workers, underlines the point.
