Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Dec 9, 2014 11:13:08 GMT -5
The Supreme Court has issues rulings for 2 cases from the Oct. 2014 sessions. Breaking News : The first opinion is in Warger v. Shauers. Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by J. Sotomayor. The second opinion is in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk. Reversed, 9-0, in an opinion by J. Thomas. The first case involves a juror who did not disclose information during jury questioning. In jury selection, she agreed that she could be fair and impartial. Then told the rest of the jury that her daughter had been involved in a fatal car accident and a lawsuit would have ruined her. As I understand it, the Court basically ruled that it wasn't a strong enough case for a mistrial/retrial. 2nd one is the lawsuit about being paid to undergo security screening after one's shift has ended at Amazon warehouses. Source is www.scotusblog.com
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Dec 9, 2014 11:16:11 GMT -5
I skimmed though both opinions.
I don't understand a lot about the 1st case. I guess because in the jury selections I've been part of, a serious personal injury in a traffic accident would get them removed. I don't see how she made it though jury selection, much less ended up being jury foreman.
As for the 2nd one, after reading the opinion, I understand how they reached that decision. I don't like it though. But there's a bunch of laws I wasn't aware of involved in it. So I've learned stuff today!
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Dec 9, 2014 11:17:40 GMT -5
I learned that there is a supreme court blog So I learned something today too!
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Dec 9, 2014 11:23:02 GMT -5
I learned that there is a supreme court blog So I learned something today too! There's actually several. This is NOT an official US Supreme Court blog. But I like it.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 9, 2014 16:16:30 GMT -5
The Supreme Court has issues rulings for 2 cases from the Oct. 2014 sessions. Breaking News : The first opinion is in Warger v. Shauers. Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by J. Sotomayor. The second opinion is in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk. Reversed, 9-0, in an opinion by J. Thomas. The first case involves a juror who did not disclose information during jury questioning. In jury selection, she agreed that she could be fair and impartial. Then told the rest of the jury that her daughter had been involved in a fatal car accident and a lawsuit would have ruined her. As I understand it, the Court basically ruled that it wasn't a strong enough case for a mistrial/retrial. 2nd one is the lawsuit about being paid to undergo security screening after one's shift has ended at Amazon warehouses. Source is www.scotusblog.comIn the second case, it is really bewildering to me-- they are required, but pay is not because, "The workers say the process, meant to prevent theft, can take as long as 25 minutes. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, said the screenings were not “integral and indispensable” to the workers’ jobs.Seems to me that if an employee would lose their job for refusing the inspections, then that's about as integral and indispensable as it gets. It's not like workers are asking to be paid to take a shower and get dressed for work, or for commute time or mileage. We're basically talking bout being detained at work- which could amount to an extra work day in hours each month. Seems a little dishonest on the part of Amazon. Surprised it got dragged all the way up to SCOTUS, but I'll have to take the time to read the decision to really understand their reasoning.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,902
|
Post by happyhoix on Dec 9, 2014 18:08:57 GMT -5
We have an Amazon warehouse near here. They are not known for their employee friendly work policies.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,484
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 9, 2014 18:19:37 GMT -5
... It's not like workers are asking to be paid to take a shower and get dressed for work, ... ... employees changed their clothes and took showers in a battery plant where the manufacturing process involved the extensive use of caustic and toxic materials. (Steinerv.Mitchell,350 U.S. 247 (1956).) ... the Supreme Court held that these activities are an integral and indispensable part of the employees’ principal activities. www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/WH1312.pdf Thought it was funny that Paul used this exact example. Was reading stuff and discovered there is the possibility that they could be paid to take a shower.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Dec 9, 2014 21:05:48 GMT -5
Would have to read into this as well- but just on the facts and not the reasoning- it seems to me that you are still under the control of the employer- and you are providing a benefit to the employer- so how is that not compensatory if not under this particular legal path then why not another?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 9, 2014 21:36:21 GMT -5
... It's not like workers are asking to be paid to take a shower and get dressed for work, ... ... employees changed their clothes and took showers in a battery plant where the manufacturing process involved the extensive use of caustic and toxic materials. (Steinerv.Mitchell,350 U.S. 247 (1956).) ... the Supreme Court held that these activities are an integral and indispensable part of the employees’ principal activities. www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/WH1312.pdf Thought it was funny that Paul used this exact example. Was reading stuff and discovered there is the possibility that they could be paid to take a shower. Well, I've had a chance to read it and it appears the attorney for the workers boxed himself in. Not sure it would have changed the outcome, but it sure wasn't smart. The showers I had in mind were at home. Until today, I've not been familiar with the concept that hourly pay was limited to activities deemed an "integral and indespensable" part of the employees principal activities. I've always viewed hourly pay as due so long as an employee is compelled to be on the premises. I'm wrong from a legal standpoint- I realize that now- but from the point of view of the principle of honest accounting the question of hourly pay to me comes down to this: if the employee has to be there, and cannot leave before meeting some requirement of employment, which if not met would mean certain termination-- then hourly pay is due. I don't know how they clock in and out these days-- I know a lot of firms have it on smart phone apps now. If I was in the situation, if possible, I'd make certain to punch out after that point, as close to that point as possible, or somehow bill those hours somewhere. You're talking about 12 days a year unpaid when you add it all up.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Dec 9, 2014 21:50:17 GMT -5
Whew- short opinion.
So the reason for the 9-0 is because it is an interpretation of the FLSA that was amended by the Portal to Portal act.
Not a call on whether right or wrong, just that there is no valid claim to be made under that law.
So- whereas the battery outfit is intrinsic to the job, the security screen is not. I wonder if pilots get paid for the security screening- I bet they don't.
Lesson learned- Amazon sucks ass because they stuck the time clock on the other side of the security checkpoint and wasn't real concerned with how long it takes. Just another penny pinching corporation that makes plenty of money and has no reason to act this way other than greed. Form a union or live with it I guess. SCOTUS said so much.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 9, 2014 22:00:02 GMT -5
Whew- short opinion.
So the reason for the 9-0 is because it is an interpretation of the FLSA that was amended by the Portal to Portal act.
Not a call on whether right or wrong, just that there is no valid claim to be made under that law.
So- whereas the battery outfit is intrinsic to the job, the security screen is not. I wonder if pilots get paid for the security screening- I bet they don't.
Lesson learned- Amazon sucks ass because they stuck the time clock on the other side of the security checkpoint and wasn't real concerned with how long it takes. Just another penny pinching corporation that makes plenty of money and has no reason to act this way other than greed. Form a union or live with it I guess. SCOTUS said so much.
The clock starts when the chocks are pulled and push back begins. The clock stops upon landing and the a/c is chalked at the gate.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Dec 9, 2014 22:02:06 GMT -5
Well, I've had a chance to read it and it appears the attorney for the workers boxed himself in. Not sure it would have changed the outcome, but it sure wasn't smart. Until today, I've not been familiar with the concept that hourly pay was limited to activities deemed an "integral and indespensable" part of the employees principal activities. I've always viewed hourly pay as due so long as an employee is compelled to be on the premises. I'm wrong from a legal standpoint- I realize that now- but from the point of view of the principle of honest accounting the question of hourly pay to me comes down to this: if the employee has to be there, and cannot leave before meeting some requirement of employment, which if not met would mean certain termination-- then hourly pay is due. I agree with you- the common sense test would show it is compensable time.
I didn't research the original claim but if you sue under a statute only and fail to include alternate legal foundations you are boxed in, and SCOTUS is very boxed in as they have to evaluate from inside the same box.
I am sure I could come up with a way to attack this practice if someone wants to pay me $500/hr to do so.
It really boils down to a form of theft- when an employee is basically extorted through threat of being fired to remain on the premises against their will for the benefit of the employer.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Dec 9, 2014 22:09:45 GMT -5
Whew- short opinion.
So the reason for the 9-0 is because it is an interpretation of the FLSA that was amended by the Portal to Portal act.
Not a call on whether right or wrong, just that there is no valid claim to be made under that law.
So- whereas the battery outfit is intrinsic to the job, the security screen is not. I wonder if pilots get paid for the security screening- I bet they don't.
Lesson learned- Amazon sucks ass because they stuck the time clock on the other side of the security checkpoint and wasn't real concerned with how long it takes. Just another penny pinching corporation that makes plenty of money and has no reason to act this way other than greed. Form a union or live with it I guess. SCOTUS said so much.
The clock starts when the chocks are pulled and push back begins. The clock stops upon landing and the a/c is chalked at the gate. I am sure the preflight is intrinsic to the job- God I hope so. But then again they have union contracts unlike the lowly Amazon employees. Just like truckers paid by the mile even though inspecting the vehicle is part of it- or even helping load or unload. Then again they have unions too- I think I see a trend here:
My favorite quote from the opinion:
"These arguments are properly presented to the employer at the bargaining table, see 29 U. S. C. §254(b)(1), not to a court in an FLSA claim."
Says it all right there. SCOTUS is going to let corporations walk all over you if you let them- and that is the current trend in America. My advice- take a vote instead of calling a lawyer.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 9, 2014 22:12:57 GMT -5
Because the employee's work station may be quite some distance to the security exit where in your plan that would be the end of their paid work period, there is always the possibility the employee may take their sweet time to get there and then accrue even more time on the clock.
Many employees want to kill time and run up the clock. I have dealt with these employee issues.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 9, 2014 22:16:40 GMT -5
By the way-the employees are made aware when and where the clock starts and when and where it ends. No one is forcing them to work at Amazon.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Dec 9, 2014 22:39:11 GMT -5
I maintain in principle that they should be paid for that time. So take it up with the company not the courts- you wanted right to work- well you got it folks.
And nothing to worry about- they work for a staffing company anyway- so that 20 minutes is nothing compared to what the other company is doing to them. Call it a corporate double penetration
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,413
|
Post by thyme4change on Dec 10, 2014 8:32:01 GMT -5
Whew- short opinion.
So the reason for the 9-0 is because it is an interpretation of the FLSA that was amended by the Portal to Portal act.
Not a call on whether right or wrong, just that there is no valid claim to be made under that law.
An important distinction that 95% of Americans will never understand. The court is there to decide what the law says - not the moral implications of the question being asked. Granted, their moral code always clouds their interpretation of the law, but a unanimous decision by the court makes me believe the law was pretty clear. Time to talk to your senator.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 10, 2014 9:45:33 GMT -5
At the heart of this is not evil corporations, or capitalism, but character. There's plenty of evil to go around. Another distinction very few people will understand is the difference between free-market capitalism and consumerism. We have a consumerist culture, with consumers as differentiated from citizens. And the average consumer would sell their own kids for 10% off and free shipping online, and you can't expect a person like that to take a stand for decency and honesty and demand a company deal fairly and honestly with their employees. You also cannot expect them to make the intellectual leap from how a company treats its employees to how they ultimately feel about you, as a customer. Because you're not a customer- you're just a consumer. And there are a lot of you, so no one has to care bout just you.
Business also has pressure from another greedy group of morons- the government. The government views a business as an infinite pile of money to be extracted at will. A boogeyman to be demonized- even when they aren't in the wrong, just because they're "big" or "rich". How many of you are aware that the compliance costs for an employee is over $15,000 - up from just over $10,000 in 2008? How many of you know that if the regulatory burden where shared equally among every American (and it is- who do you think pays for the regulatory costs? Here, I'll let John "The Jerk" Gruber spell it out for you: " have been making this speech for twelve years and people would come up to me and say, but wait a second, you're going to tax my heath insurance? And I'd say, no, no, no! We're going to give tax subsidies on your health insurance. And they'd go you're going to tax my heath insurance? And you just can't get through; it's politically impossible. So despite the fact we thought we might get this as part of the law, it was going to be dead.
Until a second Massachusetts hero arose, John Kerry. John Kerry said no, no we're not going to tax your heath insurance, we're going to tax those evil insurance companies. We're going to impose a tax that if they sell health insurance that's too expensive, we're going to tax them. And conveniently the tax rate will happen to be the marginal tax rate on the income tax code. So basically it's the same thing: we just tax insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get into being the same thing. It's a very clever basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.")
it would be over $15,500 which is 50% more than the average expenditure on healthcare if that were shared.
I'm slowly moving away from political and policy solutions to our problems- because I think it's hopeless. I think the answer lies in each of us individually, and all of us collectively asking ourselves: Who are we? How ought we to treat one another?
Is this a court fight, or is it a question of character? Of decency? Everyone knows Amazon is wrong and the workers are right. It's just common sense. The lawyers for Amazon know that morally, Amazon has no right to treat workers this way. The company knows it's wrong. And of course the workers, and we onlookers know it's wrong. We all know Amazon fails the moral test- the question on this and a great many other issues is this: what ought to be done about it? Is this who we are? (Yes) Is it who we want to be? (Hopefully, no).
I don't know what it will take- from my Judeo-Christian worldview I would say we need a spiritual awakening, and in asking what it will take for that to happen, I can only come up with the idea that we need something to shake us, to test us, to rattle us to the core so that the last thing on our mind is shopping, shopping, shopping- and 10% off with free shipping...
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Dec 10, 2014 10:12:09 GMT -5
Whew- short opinion.
So the reason for the 9-0 is because it is an interpretation of the FLSA that was amended by the Portal to Portal act.
Not a call on whether right or wrong, just that there is no valid claim to be made under that law.
An important distinction that 95% of Americans will never understand. The court is there to decide what the law says - not the moral implications of the question being asked. Granted, their moral code always clouds their interpretation of the law, but a unanimous decision by the court makes me believe the law was pretty clear. Time to talk to your senator. Or the opposing lawyer was pretty inept! I did see something recently on how the majority of cases before the US Supreme Court that are successful are argued by a small number of lawyers - like 65 or so. And they tend to have ties to the Court (worked there as law clerks, etc.) so they know what language is likely going to work with the Court. Not sure if I like that or not though. Source is either the blog listed in first post or Slate.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Dec 10, 2014 10:21:28 GMT -5
At the heart of this is not evil corporations, or capitalism, but character. There's plenty of evil to go around. Another distinction very few people will understand is the difference between free-market capitalism and consumerism. We have a consumerist culture, with consumers as differentiated from citizens. And the average consumer would sell their own kids for 10% off and free shipping online, and you can't expect a person like that to take a stand for decency and honesty and demand a company deal fairly and honestly with their employees. You also cannot expect them to make the intellectual leap from how a company treats its employees to how they ultimately feel about you, as a customer. Because you're not a customer- you're just a consumer. And there are a lot of you, so no one has to care bout just you. Business also has pressure from another greedy group of morons- the government. The government views a business as an infinite pile of money to be extracted at will. A boogeyman to be demonized- even when they aren't in the wrong, just because they're "big" or "rich". How many of you are aware that the compliance costs for an employee is over $15,000 - up from just over $10,000 in 2008? How many of you know that if the regulatory burden where shared equally among every American (and it is- who do you think pays for the regulatory costs? Here, I'll let John "The Jerk" Gruber spell it out for you: " have been making this speech for twelve years and people would come up to me and say, but wait a second, you're going to tax my heath insurance? And I'd say, no, no, no! We're going to give tax subsidies on your health insurance. And they'd go you're going to tax my heath insurance? And you just can't get through; it's politically impossible. So despite the fact we thought we might get this as part of the law, it was going to be dead.
Until a second Massachusetts hero arose, John Kerry. John Kerry said no, no we're not going to tax your heath insurance, we're going to tax those evil insurance companies. We're going to impose a tax that if they sell health insurance that's too expensive, we're going to tax them. And conveniently the tax rate will happen to be the marginal tax rate on the income tax code. So basically it's the same thing: we just tax insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get into being the same thing. It's a very clever basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.") it would be over $15,500 which is 50% more than the average expenditure on healthcare if that were shared. I'm slowly moving away from political and policy solutions to our problems- because I think it's hopeless. I think the answer lies in each of us individually, and all of us collectively asking ourselves: Who are we? How ought we to treat one another? Is this a court fight, or is it a question of character? Of decency? Everyone knows Amazon is wrong and the workers are right. It's just common sense. The lawyers for Amazon know that morally, Amazon has no right to treat workers this way. The company knows it's wrong. And of course the workers, and we onlookers know it's wrong. We all know Amazon fails the moral test- the question on this and a great many other issues is this: what ought to be done about it? Is this who we are? (Yes) Is it who we want to be? (Hopefully, no).I don't know what it will take- from my Judeo-Christian worldview I would say we need a spiritual awakening, and in asking what it will take for that to happen, I can only come up with the idea that we need something to shake us, to test us, to rattle us to the core so that the last thing on our mind is shopping, shopping, shopping- and 10% off with free shipping... I think some of this is what's driving the whole "local, sustainable" food thing. Sure, some people have just hopped onto the bandwagon because it's the in thing but for others, they're serious about it. And as it gets easier (and more popular) to do that, more companies join in. And so on.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,413
|
Post by thyme4change on Dec 10, 2014 19:33:28 GMT -5
An important distinction that 95% of Americans will never understand. The court is there to decide what the law says - not the moral implications of the question being asked. Granted, their moral code always clouds their interpretation of the law, but a unanimous decision by the court makes me believe the law was pretty clear. Time to talk to your senator. Or the opposing lawyer was pretty inept! I did see something recently on how the majority of cases before the US Supreme Court that are successful are argued by a small number of lawyers - like 65 or so. And they tend to have ties to the Court (worked there as law clerks, etc.) so they know what language is likely going to work with the Court. Not sure if I like that or not though. Source is either the blog listed in first post or Slate. I am under the impression that if your case gets even close to that level you bring in "experienced" lawyers as co-counsel. Arguing in front of the Supreme Court is not like other courts and you don't go it alone.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,484
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 10, 2014 20:12:22 GMT -5
Or the opposing lawyer was pretty inept! I did see something recently on how the majority of cases before the US Supreme Court that are successful are argued by a small number of lawyers - like 65 or so. And they tend to have ties to the Court (worked there as law clerks, etc.) so they know what language is likely going to work with the Court. Not sure if I like that or not though. Source is either the blog listed in first post or Slate. I am under the impression that if your case gets even close to that level you bring in "experienced" lawyers as co-counsel. Arguing in front of the Supreme Court is not like other courts and you don't go it alone. You have to be admitted to the Bar of Supreme Court of the United States to appear before the court.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,413
|
Post by thyme4change on Dec 10, 2014 20:13:32 GMT -5
That would explain why the same people win over and over again...
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Dec 10, 2014 22:58:26 GMT -5
You just have to have a couple sponsors that are members and be in good standing in your state. I would not think it would be a high hurdle if lucky enough to have an appeal heard- surely someone would vouch for you. How else are these lawyers who appeal all the way and get cert able to argue the cases they brought on that journey?
I do not see how the arguments would be any different at all other than you best be well prepared and be able to think on your feet when they throw some of those oddball questions at you.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 1:55:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2014 23:13:35 GMT -5
You feel the same if pick & pack employees paid $15/hour for their work?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 11, 2014 8:04:23 GMT -5
At the heart of this is not evil corporations, or capitalism, but character. There's plenty of evil to go around. Another distinction very few people will understand is the difference between free-market capitalism and consumerism. We have a consumerist culture, with consumers as differentiated from citizens. And the average consumer would sell their own kids for 10% off and free shipping online, and you can't expect a person like that to take a stand for decency and honesty and demand a company deal fairly and honestly with their employees. You also cannot expect them to make the intellectual leap from how a company treats its employees to how they ultimately feel about you, as a customer. Because you're not a customer- you're just a consumer. And there are a lot of you, so no one has to care bout just you. Business also has pressure from another greedy group of morons- the government. The government views a business as an infinite pile of money to be extracted at will. A boogeyman to be demonized- even when they aren't in the wrong, just because they're "big" or "rich". How many of you are aware that the compliance costs for an employee is over $15,000 - up from just over $10,000 in 2008? How many of you know that if the regulatory burden where shared equally among every American (and it is- who do you think pays for the regulatory costs? Here, I'll let John "The Jerk" Gruber spell it out for you: " have been making this speech for twelve years and people would come up to me and say, but wait a second, you're going to tax my heath insurance? And I'd say, no, no, no! We're going to give tax subsidies on your health insurance. And they'd go you're going to tax my heath insurance? And you just can't get through; it's politically impossible. So despite the fact we thought we might get this as part of the law, it was going to be dead.
Until a second Massachusetts hero arose, John Kerry. John Kerry said no, no we're not going to tax your heath insurance, we're going to tax those evil insurance companies. We're going to impose a tax that if they sell health insurance that's too expensive, we're going to tax them. And conveniently the tax rate will happen to be the marginal tax rate on the income tax code. So basically it's the same thing: we just tax insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get into being the same thing. It's a very clever basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.") it would be over $15,500 which is 50% more than the average expenditure on healthcare if that were shared. I'm slowly moving away from political and policy solutions to our problems- because I think it's hopeless. I think the answer lies in each of us individually, and all of us collectively asking ourselves: Who are we? How ought we to treat one another? Is this a court fight, or is it a question of character? Of decency? Everyone knows Amazon is wrong and the workers are right. It's just common sense. The lawyers for Amazon know that morally, Amazon has no right to treat workers this way. The company knows it's wrong. And of course the workers, and we onlookers know it's wrong. We all know Amazon fails the moral test- the question on this and a great many other issues is this: what ought to be done about it? Is this who we are? (Yes) Is it who we want to be? (Hopefully, no).I don't know what it will take- from my Judeo-Christian worldview I would say we need a spiritual awakening, and in asking what it will take for that to happen, I can only come up with the idea that we need something to shake us, to test us, to rattle us to the core so that the last thing on our mind is shopping, shopping, shopping- and 10% off with free shipping... I think some of this is what's driving the whole "local, sustainable" food thing. Sure, some people have just hopped onto the bandwagon because it's the in thing but for others, they're serious about it. And as it gets easier (and more popular) to do that, more companies join in. And so on. I agree there have been different market responses, but we still haven't clearly defined the problem. The evidence for this is that we're still seeking political solutions to moral character problems. The chief consequence of abandoning a fixed moral standard is that a society drifts into a moral wilderness where pragmatism, political power, and ultimately raw force and compulsion determine who is right. We need to become a people who are not afraid to say something is right, and something is wrong. How basic is telling the truth? How simple is it to acknowledge hourly workers should be paid for hours? If Amazon wants to pay them ONLY for what they do- consider making an offer to pay based on piece-work, or make them salaried. Otherwise, you pay hourly workers for hours- not necessarily work.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Dec 11, 2014 8:10:08 GMT -5
I am under the impression that if your case gets even close to that level you bring in "experienced" lawyers as co-counsel. Arguing in front of the Supreme Court is not like other courts and you don't go it alone. You have to be admitted to the Bar of Supreme Court of the United States to appear before the court. THAT I don't recall mentioned in the article.
|
|
NoNamePerson
Distinguished Associate
Is There Anybody OUT There?
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 17:03:17 GMT -5
Posts: 25,722
Location: WITNESS PROTECTION
|
Post by NoNamePerson on Dec 11, 2014 8:15:54 GMT -5
law.freeadvice.com/litigation/appeals/supreme_court_case.htmAny U.S. lawyer who has been an active member of a state bar for three years and is currently in good standing with that state’s bar is eligible to apply for admission to the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States. Lawyers must fill out the application form and attach a certificate of good standing from a clerk or officer of the highest court in the state where the lawyer is admitted to the bar. This certificate verifies the lawyer’s membership with that state’s bar for the required three-year minimum period, as well as the applicant’s good standing. The application is considered current as long as the clerk’s certificate is no more than a year old. After that point, the application will be returned as being expired. For members of multiple state bars, only one state certificate of good standing is necessary. In addition, the applicant must obtain the sponsorship of two current members of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States. The sponsors must personally know the applicant but not be related to them by blood or marriage. These sponsors will vouch for the applicant’s qualifications and moral and professional character. Once the lawyer successfully completes these steps for admission, the Clerk of the Supreme Court will review the application and issue a certificate of admission to the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, which carries with it the right to argue cases before the Supreme Court. Still No Substitute for Experience While admission to the bar of the Supreme Court is an accomplishment, actually having argued a case before the highest court in the land is a true distinction. On average, the current Supreme Court hears oral arguments in only 100 of the more than 7,000 cases each year for which it receives a petition for writ of certiorari (i.e. request to accept a case on appeal). As a result, the list of lawyers that actually argue a case before the Supreme Court is a short one, with experience and inside knowledge of the oral argument process being extremely important. Almost a third of all arguments made before the Supreme Court come from former United States Solicitor Generals or their staff – the office charged with representing the government in front of the Supreme Court. Even seasoned trial lawyers might find themselves out of place arguing in front of the Supreme Court. The whole process can be quite intimidating, even for those lawyers who have been there before. A small group of Supreme Court specialists has even emerged – lawyers with major Supreme Court oral argument experience. These experienced lawyers will many times offer to argue cases before the Supreme Court that they previously had nothing to do with, simply because of the prestige factor and the honor of arguing an important case. With the stakes being so high at the Supreme Court level, many appellants want the very best representation they can get – whether that is determined by what they can afford or what is offered to them. While any lawyer in good standing and with at least three years as a member of a state bar can be admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court, odds are that a specialist with years of experience working with the Supreme Court will argue most cases there. As in other aspects of legal practice, experience often carries the day.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Dec 15, 2014 10:07:51 GMT -5
New rulings coming out today. Not sure which ones yet.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 15, 2014 11:49:26 GMT -5
In the world of tomorrow, an individual will the enter the workplace first by passing through a biometrics scanner, then a metal detector, then a hard plastics detector (for weapons machined out of hard plastics), then a full-body scanner (in case the previous two scanners missed anything), then a quick company loyalty and "productive, happy thoughts" fMRI, then a brief intermission, then microbiological hazard screening (for Ebola, H2N5, etc.), then alcohol and drug screening, then a 32-point uniform inspection, then a quiz on company policies and slogans, then a short seminar on workplace safety, and finally a mandatory 15-minute video on the dangers of climate change, before finally getting to work in the morning (or afternoon, if the process lags). And the employee wants to be on the clock for all of this? Oh please. The SCOTUS absolutely made the right decision. They're looking toward tomorrow.
|
|