Latest Breaking News

Veilex

(1,555 posts)

9. this is disgracfull...

Mon Jan 27, 2014, 12:19 PM

Jan 2014

In dictionaries from the era of §203(o)’s enactment, “clothes” denotes items that are both designed and used to cover the body and are commonly regarded as articles of dress. Nothing in §203(o)’s text or context suggests anything other than this ordinary meaning. There is no basis for petitioners’ proposition
that the unmodified term “clothes” somehow omits protective clothing.

The logic here is bass-ackwards, and a classic fallacy: In this case, the notion that, the lack of wording regarding protective equipment somehow lumps it together in with "clothes".

Clearly, the justices didn't bother to look at terms such as "commonly regarded as articles of dress". No one regards safety equipment as "articles of dress". The very fact that there is a dangerous environment nearby which requires such equipment in order to be safe, makes it an uncommon, unusual or exceptional situation... after all, at what point is it deemed "ordinary" to go out in public dressed in protective gear?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

44 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

U.S. Steel wins Supreme Court labor fight [View all] Freddie Stubbs Jan 2014 OP

I Would Bet Them Nine Justices bkanderson76 Jan 2014 #1

The Chief Justice is paid $255,500 per year, Freddie Stubbs Jan 2014 #3

Some spouses of SCOTUS Judges are paid much, much more.... Fred Sanders Jan 2014 #7

ding ding ding we have a winner. Amimnoch Jan 2014 #18

Ok, fine, easy fix, sked14 Jan 2014 #2

Since when do CLOTHES equal SAFETY GEAR ???? groundloop Jan 2014 #4

You don't work in your "street clothes" when you work in a steel mill. former9thward Jan 2014 #5

Agree it might seem petty but there is an argument to be made..... Swede Atlanta Jan 2014 #8

At first I thought that the union was right. Shemp Howard Jan 2014 #11

I believe Police Officers are paid by salary so it is irrelevant Bandit Jan 2014 #27

Non management police officers are paid hourly wages, sked14 Jan 2014 #34

Putting on clothing that doesn't require any additional time than one would spend getting dressed okaawhatever Jan 2014 #42

Then they need to get it added into their contract the next time. SCOTUS did say cstanleytech Jan 2014 #41

I'd bet it was US Steel that took it to court Demeter Jan 2014 #33

It was union members. former9thward Jan 2014 #36

i can`t believe they wasted a ton of money and time either. madrchsod Jan 2014 #35

The clothes include the following (From the Court's Opinion): happyslug Jan 2014 #17

Here is the actual opinion happyslug Jan 2014 #6

this is disgracfull... Veilex Jan 2014 #9

The court expressly does NOT overturn Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U. S. 247 (1956) happyslug Jan 2014 #20

boy this ruling stinks Botany Jan 2014 #10

Had an Uncle who worked in a Steel Mill packman Jan 2014 #12

That's an important, and telling, story. Shemp Howard Jan 2014 #19

Amen packman Jan 2014 #24

My wife dealt with this at the first unionize hospital she worked at*. Atman Jan 2014 #22

Rec 1,000x! Peace Patriot Jan 2014 #28

What is a "dead-to-the-core Democrat?" Atman Jan 2014 #25

This may sound like an anti-union position from a very pro-union guy, but... Atman Jan 2014 #13

Even at ad agencies, creatives don't wear suits & ties. Demit Jan 2014 #30

I used to work in a corporate art/marketing department. Atman Jan 2014 #38

IF they allow clothing to be paid time bucolic_frolic Jan 2014 #14

Theres clothing, and then theres other. quakerboy Jan 2014 #44

Looks like a good day for republicans, they get to screw some workers. Kingofalldems Jan 2014 #15

there`s no screwing the workers... madrchsod Jan 2014 #40

#1 on this blog sure said it all very well and... TRoN33 Jan 2014 #16

I worked in a rolling mill and a coke plant. former9thward Jan 2014 #21

+10 Atman Jan 2014 #23

Actually the court ruled, it violates the Portal to Portal Act of 1947 happyslug Jan 2014 #26

Have this group of RepubliCON Dancing Supremes ever ruled in favor of Unions? fasttense Jan 2014 #29

this is the way we worked it out at the steel plant where i worked madrchsod Jan 2014 #31

Can't believe all the anti union crap in here. ForgoTheConsequence Jan 2014 #32

When I worked for GM michreject Jan 2014 #37

the workers deserve to get paid for that, but the union didn't negotiate for it. geek tragedy Jan 2014 #39

No, the Portal to Portal Act is contract dependent happyslug Jan 2014 #43