Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

First Roberts Court rulings unanimous (Tyson Loses Against Worker Pay)
CNN ^

Posted on 11/08/2005 10:17:02 AM PST by indianrightwinger

First Roberts Court rulings unanimous Justices hand business two defeats

Tuesday, November 8, 2005; Posted: 12:58 p.m. EST (17:58 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Tuesday that companies must pay plant workers for the time it takes to change into protective clothing and walk to their work stations.

The issue was one of two that justices settled in a pair of unanimous decisions, the first rulings under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts in the new fall term. Roberts did not write either one.

In a defeat for business, the court said that while employers aren't required to pay workers for time spent changing clothes, they must pay for the donning of "integral" gear and the time it takes workers to then walk to the production area.

The court, in a ruling by Justice John Paul Stevens, upheld a decision of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of workers at a meat processing plant in Pasco, Washington.

"The relevant walking in this case occurs after the workday begins and before it ends," Stevens wrote.

The decision involves a plant owned by Tyson Fresh Meats Inc., a subsidiary of Tyson Foods Inc., and a separate Barber Foods chicken processing plant in Portland, Maine.

In a second ruling, the justices said the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should reconsider whether federal officials can be sued for negligence over an accident in an Arizona copper mine.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: roberts; robertscourt; ruling; scotus; tyson; unions; workerspay
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last

1 posted on 11/08/2005 10:17:04 AM PST by indianrightwinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger
The decision involves a plant owned by Tyson Fresh Meats Inc., a subsidiary of Tyson Foods Inc.,

Tyson... friend of Clinton, as I recall...?

2 posted on 11/08/2005 10:19:40 AM PST by sionnsar (†trad-anglican.faithweb.com† || (To Libs:) You are failing to celebrate MY diversity! || Iran Azad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger

Just one question, Why is this a constitutional issue?


3 posted on 11/08/2005 10:21:32 AM PST by cheme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar
Tyson... friend of Clinton, as I recall...?

Yes, big friend of Clintoon!

4 posted on 11/08/2005 10:23:37 AM PST by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cheme

It's probably an interpretation of a Federal law.


5 posted on 11/08/2005 10:24:08 AM PST by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cheme
HA! i figured someone would post that question.

For what it's worth, since Tyson is nation wide it probably got kicked to the feds under the ol interstate clause.
6 posted on 11/08/2005 10:24:45 AM PST by tfecw (It's for the children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cheme

It's not, it's a federal question.


7 posted on 11/08/2005 10:25:07 AM PST by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tfecw

No, it is federal overtime rules, nothing to do with the commerce clause of the us constitution.


8 posted on 11/08/2005 10:25:56 AM PST by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cheme

Yes why indeed. If an employer has a rule and the employee does not like it then how is this a federal issue? Where in the Constitution does this get covered?


9 posted on 11/08/2005 10:26:22 AM PST by Khepera (Do not remove by penalty of law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user

correct.


10 posted on 11/08/2005 10:26:24 AM PST by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Khepera

It's not in the constitution, it is a federal law.


11 posted on 11/08/2005 10:26:51 AM PST by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tulane

but i thought that covered everything ;)

Thanks for the extra info though!


12 posted on 11/08/2005 10:27:18 AM PST by tfecw (It's for the children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tfecw

LOL...yes, I bet Ted Kennedy (the best driver in the senate) would say it is covered by the commerce clause.


13 posted on 11/08/2005 10:28:31 AM PST by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tulane

OK so why is it a federal law?


14 posted on 11/08/2005 10:34:17 AM PST by Khepera (Do not remove by penalty of law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger
Shame on Tyson! This is the kind of stuff that give corporations a bad name, and deservedly so!!! I am sure they don't pay an employee enough to actually support a small family on....but Tyson is ready to go to the USSC to avoid paying workers that are changing into protective gear!

Like I said, shame on Tyson! Good for the USSC!!!!

15 posted on 11/08/2005 10:37:07 AM PST by yellowdoghunter (Liberals should be seen and not heard.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
Where in the Constitution does this get covered?

Beginning with Article I. Congress has the power to pass federal statutes. Tyson is a "public" company, that is a company that is owned by stock holders who buy the stock throughout the USA. It is not just a family of chicken pluckers in their garage on the outskirts of Little Rock.

16 posted on 11/08/2005 10:38:13 AM PST by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
OK so why is it a federal law?

Protective clothing = OSHA = Federal Government.

My question is, why the heck did Tyson even fight this?
17 posted on 11/08/2005 10:38:22 AM PST by A Balrog of Morgoth (With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the RINOs in terror before me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: elbucko

Federal labor standards based in the interstate commerce clause.


18 posted on 11/08/2005 10:40:05 AM PST by jude24 ("Stupid" isn't illegal - but it should be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: cheme

>>>Just one question, Why is this a constitutional issue?<<<

It is not. Therefore, it must be based on a previously usurped power by the federal government.


19 posted on 11/08/2005 10:40:36 AM PST by PhilipFreneau ("The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: yellowdoghunter
This is the kind of stuff that give corporations a bad name,..

I agree

I am sure they don't pay an employee enough to actually support a small family on..

No doubt.

....but Tyson is ready to go to the USSC to avoid paying workers that are changing into protective gear!

Exactly. Tyson ran to the feds for protection of unfair labor practices and was refuted. Tyson was big enough to buy a state, but not the nation.

20 posted on 11/08/2005 10:45:49 AM PST by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson