Latest Breaking News

okaawhatever

(9,565 posts)

42. Putting on clothing that doesn't require any additional time than one would spend getting dressed

Mon Jan 27, 2014, 06:16 PM

Jan 2014

for work does not require any extra time for the worker. If a bus driver puts on their work uniform instead of normal clothes to go to work, how are they inconvenienced? Ditto police officers if they put their uniforms on at home. I think the issue is safety equipment on must arrive early/state late for that's in question.
I don't know which side i'm with on this. I think the unions should just consider that time when they negotiate over wages.

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