Amazon currently has another legal problem with a lawsuit filed against the company coming from their own warehouse workers who claims that the company's workplace policies doesn't give them enough time in order to complete eating their lunch.
The lawsuit filed in South Carolina involves seven Amazon warehouse workers accusing their company for requiring them to proceed and complete their assigned tasks even during their half an hour lunch time breaks, and was not being paid during those times. The lawsuit also depicts that after completing their morning tasks, the warehouse workers needs to line up to go through a security screening which lessens their time for their lunch break, once they have passed that, they would still need to walk for six minutes across the huge warehouse in order to go outside and eat.
Based on the lawsuit filed against Amazon, the warehouse workers was left with less than 18 minutes to complete their meals at lunch break before going back to work, packing and picking up items for Amazon customers. The complaint also points out the issues by saying that "Workers were unable to pursue their mealtime adequately and comfortably."
Some information were also added to the lawsuit claiming that the company's managers also does their reprehension for failure to meet the quota on the floor by the workers during the their lunch breaks, declaring on the complaint that "Workers and Supervisors sometimes approach Warehouse Workers during Defendant's designated break period to give them written warnings and assign disciplinary points to them for failing to maintain the Defendant's productivity goals during the shift."
The Amazon warehouse worker complainants claims that adding those company activities during their break periods is a clear violation of the federal wage and hour laws.
Amazon has not yet given any response towards the lawsuit claims, although the company was known for using temporary workers on its warehouse operations and that the complaint filed against them in South Carolina contains names of two temporary firms, SMX and Staff Management. The complainants were believed to have been temporary workers during the peak season of the company from 2012 to 2014.
