No OT pay for Amazon workers
I want to know more about this. On the one hand, people should be paid for productive work. On the other, if you are requiring your employees to participate in non-productive work which essentially prevents them from engaging in productive work, are you not employing an opportunity cost on those same workers for which they should be compensated?
I suspect that much of this has to do with the union agreements, as I can't see this ruling standing in a right-to-work environment.
I suspect that much of this has to do with the union agreements, as I can't see this ruling standing in a right-to-work environment.
If Amazon is having to do that it is more of a comment on the workforce than the company. Since theft is a choice the made themselves.
Oh, I completely agree with that.
The rest just reminds me of an old "Duck Tales" episode that takes place in the future. Huey, Dewey, and Louie are now the managers of myriad enterprises and they charge their workers a fee for being able to work for them. While it sounded absolutely absurd in the cartoon, isn't it pretty much the same thing here?
I understand the policy and process and need for it (unfortunate as that need is). My question is this: if the employer were paying for this, wouldn't they then be incentivized to make the process as economical as possible? Without both sides incurring a cost, there is no "market" to agree upon a reasonable solution equitable to both parties.