Bloomberg: U.S. Supreme Court justices questioned whether federal law guarantees that unionized factory workers receive compensation for time spent putting on and taking off safety equipment.
Hearing arguments today in Washington, the justices contemplated how to classify suits of armor and scuba tanks as they scrutinized a statute that lets employers avoid paying some workers for time spent changing clothes. Under federal law, that time need not be compensated if the union agrees to the exclusion through a collective-bargaining agreement.
6 comments:
I like the interview. This is interesting video. It is s tutorial of safety.
Regards,
Hydraulic Installation Kits
The workers in this article claim that putting on this safety gear requires up to an hour of time (both before and after each shift). I know it normally takes me less than 5 minutes to change clothes- this protective gear certainly seems to be different from "normal" clothing. If the workers are required to wear this protective gear, and the protective gear is provided by the company, it should be considered different from simply "clothing." There is a big difference between putting on layers flame-retardant clothes and steel-toed boots and simply putting on a parka if it is cold outside (as argued in the article). It seems a little extreme to require workers to add up to two hours to their workday, without any compensation at all. I know it would be risky to guarantee pay for any amount of time spent changing, since it could lead to people wasting time on purpose, but perhaps if there was a built in 45 minutes before and after each shift which was allowed time for changing, with at least some compensation, then it would be a fair deal. If workers wanted to spend more time than that, it would be on their own time, but it would at least prevent the company from requiring workers to be there for an extra 2 hours without being paid at all.
There's clearly a spectrum of situations involved here. After all, the equipment of specialized labor is often going to take much longer than the everyday labor of your average worker. Since it is often a matter of safety as well as convenience, it should be required. But as for whether the time spent should be paid for, I believe that it really depends on whether or not they are required for safety or just company policy. For situations where the law requires the company to issue safety equipment, the employer should have to pay for this. If an employee wants to wear five times the required safety equipment however, I don't think the company should have to pay for it.
Unfortunately, I expect that this particular case will end with a compromise for both sides, ultimately concluding with a seemingly-ridiculous letter to the law-type decision.
After reading this article I think its only fair these workers are compensated for the extra time they put in for suiting up. If the safety gear is necessary for completing the work and takes a substantial amount of time to put on then in my eyes that is part of the job. We pay firefighters to put on all of their protective clothing, so why should any other field be any different.
It seems that these employees may have a valid point, but are probably also trying to squeeze more money out of their employers. I understand that these worker need to wear a lot of specialized PPE in order to adequately perform their duties, and that perhaps they should be compensated for the time it takes them to do this. That being said, the article mentions that their union contract (and thus, likely their work contract) indicates that the do not get compensated for time spent applying PPE. They knew this was the case before they accepted the position.
On the other hand, in theatre, actors are typically compensated for their time spent putting on costumes and makeup. Costume and makeup is as essential to an actor as PPE is to a factory worker.
Tough question here. The article doesn't mention it, but it seems to further complicate the situation that a lot of the protective equipment the case revolves around is probably government mandated. On could say, "Another case of the government telling us what we have to do to protect ourselves and then charging us for the inconvenience." Not that I'm against safety equipment, to which previous rants in these very pages will attest, but I think people should seek it out of their own accord because they're not idiots, not because they're told to. Trying to force people not to act like morons does one thing: makes morons of them. And while the Libertarian in me barely gets these words out of his mouth, the Social Democrat, who is unluckily committed to the same wiry squirrel cage of my mind, is quietly insisting we should all get fair compensation for every aspect of our employment. We work hard enough and are paid little enough for it, at least compared to the corporate overlords who continue to carve out bigger and bigger slices of pie for themselves, while asking us to be sated by the same 12 oz. can of pumpkin-flavored filling we've been living off since 1978. I will never swallow the argument that a few extra minutes of pay allotted to a worker so he or she can be properly prepared for a job is going to make or break a major corporation like US Steel or Kraft Foods. Bob Kraft can sell the Patriots if he's worried about making payments on the Keebler Plant, and I doubt anyone would shed a tear, not even the chief elf himself. Worker safety is a serious concern that, if we lived in an honorable and respectful society, would rank high above the bottom line on a balance sheet, right next to wage equality and environmental stewardship. Until that day I will have to continue struggling with my inner political demons, and shake my collective head at the sad clown circus act that is our government.
Post a Comment