U.S. Steel wins Supreme Court labor fight

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Reuters

Jan 27 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that employees at a U.S. Steel Corp plant do not have to be paid for the time they spend "donning and doffing" safety gear before and after their shifts.

The nine justices were unanimous in the ruling. Federal labor law excludes "changing clothes" from the time for which unionized employees must be paid, unless they have negotiated otherwise.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/27/usa-court-labor-idUSL2N0L10R820140127

[bkanderson76]

1. I Would Bet Them Nine Justices

are paid very well to "don" their robes...

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. The Chief Justice is paid $255,500 per year,

Associate Justices are $244,400 per year.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/governmentjobs/a/Annual-Salaries-Of-Top-Us-Government-Officials.htm

[Fred Sanders]

7. Some spouses of SCOTUS Judges are paid much, much more....

[Amimnoch]

18. ding ding ding we have a winner.

Most are unreported (at least that I could find), but Clarance Thomas wife makes at LEAST $700,000/ year, since it made the news that they had failed to report it in their 2010 tax returns.

It's the new Politician scam. In day's gone bye, they could just accept their kick-backs and outrageous gifts. The law may have curtailed it, but now, politicians accept that they can't accept the money and gifts.. while in office.. but can accept it all, if they voted the way their corporate masters desired, as soon as they get out of office.. a couple hundred thou for a speech, half a mil for "consultant fee's", or just go right on over to the ludicrous lobby market and really rake in the bucks once they are no longer a "public servant". The corruption laws have just delayed their gratification.

[sked14]

2. Ok, fine, easy fix,

next contract negotiations, include this in the new contract.

[groundloop]

4. Since when do CLOTHES equal SAFETY GEAR ????

Last edited Mon Jan 27, 2014, 12:20 PM - Edit history (1)

[former9thward]

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

Your shoes are steel toed and often other pieces of clothing protect you against heat. I worked in a steel mill for 14 years in Chicago but I have no idea why the union would take this to the SC. It seems extremely petty to me.

[Swede Atlanta]

8. Agree it might seem petty but there is an argument to be made.....

As working in a steel mill carries significant risks, employees are required to wear protective clothing, headwear and footwear. Changing from street clothes into clothes appropriate for the work environment and back out is required to protect the worker in the potentially dangerous workplace.

So the employer should pay employees for the time necessary to clothe themselves properly to work in the hazardous environment.

I can see the argument but think unions need to stop fighting relatively trivial things like this that are used by conservatives as reasons why unions have outlived their usefulness and focus on the truly important issues.

[Shemp Howard]

11. At first I thought that the union was right.

My initial thought was this. The employees are doing something mandated by the employer. So they should be paid for it.

But then what about police officers? They must be at the station fifteen minutes or so before roll call to put on uniforms, bullet-proof vests, and other equipment. Should they be paid for that time?

Then what about bus drivers? There is no safety issue there. But they have uniforms too.

I suppose the Supreme Court was right after all.

And for what it's worth, I worked for more than five years in a rolling mill. So I have some understanding of the situation.

[Bandit]

27. I believe Police Officers are paid by salary so it is irrelevant

I know in construction when you have to harness up for roof work for instance, you are "on the job" so you receive pay during the few minutes it takes to gear up. I think that is fairly standard.

[sked14]

34. Non management police officers are paid hourly wages,

while management is paid salary.

[okaawhatever]

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

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.

[cstanleytech]

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

that if the contract specifically called for it then it was ok.

[Demeter]

33. I'd bet it was US Steel that took it to court

[former9thward]

36. It was union members.

For some reason the cut/paste is not working on the opinion but this is the link to the court's history of the case.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-417_9okb.pdf

[madrchsod]

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

[happyslug]

17. The clothes include the following (From the Court's Opinion):

Petitioners point specifically to 12 of what they state are the most common kinds of required protective gear: a flame-retardant jacket, pair of pants, and hood; a hardhat; a “snood”; “wristlets”; work gloves; leggings; “metatarsal” boots; safety glasses; earplugs; and a respirator. Footnote 2

Footnote 2. The opinions below include descriptions of some of the items. See 678 F. 3d 590, 592 (CA7 2012); 2009 WL 3430222, *2, *6. And the opinion of the Court of Appeals provides a photograph of a male model wearing the jacket, pants, hardhat, snood, gloves, boots, and glasses.678 F. 3d, at 593.

[happyslug]

6. Here is the actual opinion

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-417_9okb.pdf

[Veilex]

9. this is disgracfull...

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?

[happyslug]

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

Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U. S. 247 (1956)

In Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U. S. 247 (1956), the Court echoed the Labor Department’s 1947 regulations by holding that “changing clothes and showering” can, under some circumstances, be considered “an integral and indispensable part of the principal activities for which covered workmen are employed,” reasoning that §203(o) “clearly implied” as much. Id., at 254–256. And in IBP, we applied Steiner to treat as compensable the donning and doffing of protective gear somewhat similar to that at issue here, 546 U. S., at 30. We said that “any activity that is ‘integral and indispensable’ to a ‘principal activity’ is itself a ‘principal activity’” under §254(a), id., at 37.

As relevant to the question before us, U. S. Steel does not dispute the Seventh Circuit’s conclusion that “had the clothes-changing time in this case not been rendered non-compensable pursuant to §203(o), it would have been a principal activity.” 678 F. 3d, at 596. Petitioners, however, quarrel with the premise, arguing that the donning and doffing of protective gear does not qualify as “changing clothes

[Botany]

10. boy this ruling stinks

If you are inside the plant and getting ready for your shift by putting on heavy
uncomfortable safety gear and clothes then you should be on the clock too.

[packman]

12. Had an Uncle who worked in a Steel Mill

and he was a dead-to-the-core Democrat and union man who transitioned from the floor of the mill where he laid brick in the ovens to a low level manager job when he got injured when a crane fell on him (but , that's another story).

He got a different perspective on union/management when he said an air-conditioner needed to be adjusted in his office because of some minor mechanical issue. First two different plumbers called in - one to do interior work, the other exterior work (a plastic drain pipe) , then an electrician, then a labor rep to hand-adjust it, then the entire thing written off by 3 separate union organizations. He also became aware of how much the company was being taken for by the guys who handed out equipment and safety gear at the beginning of each shift then would do basically nothing for the next 7 hours until the end of the shifts. The mill closed down about 5 years after he got "promoted" to his position.

Makes a difference as to what side of the fence you're on as you watch the guy on the other side.

[Shemp Howard]

19. That's an important, and telling, story.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I worked for more than five years in a rolling mill. Like your uncle's mill, my mill is now closed. About 300 jobs were lost.

And I will attest to your uncle's story. I was, and am, solidly pro-union. Without unions, there can be no middle class. And as the unions decline, so will the middle class decline.

But I have often thought about the decline of the steel mills in my region. Based on personal experience, I'd assign 1/3 of the blame to the unions.

As you mentioned, the work rules were ridiculous. Only an electrician could change a light bulb. So if a bulb went out, that area of production had to stop until an electrician was found.

People would come to work drunk and then simply go to sleep. It was next to impossible to fire any of them. It's hard for a company to survive under conditions such as that.

As for the rest of the blame for the mill closing, I'd assign 1/3 of the blame to management. None of them cared as long as the bonuses came in. And for what it's worth, the managers were the biggest thieves in the mill!

A worker might take a wrench and walk out with it. That was bad enough. But managers would openly steal whole stacks of bricks, lumber, etc.

The last 1/3 of the blame goes to the government for allowing cheap foreign imports.

[packman]

24. Amen

Couldn't agree more. The mill closed when it changed hands and the management bled it dry selling one part of it and then another. And it all began to go downhill when Reagan was in office in the 80's. The saddest part was when they blew up the mill and leveled it only to find that the ground was so contaminated that nothing could be built on it. I believe they finally had to blacktop the entire mill area because it was fouled up with heavy metals. Up until the time it was destroyed the old men were still hoping that the mills would come back.

[Atman]

22. My wife dealt with this at the first unionize hospital she worked at*.

*At which she worked. My apologies to the teachers union!

One of the first work stories she told me upon returning home from her new job (a couple of decades ago) was about a spill in a patient's room. The patient (now they call them "clients&quot knocked a liquid off his bedstand. It hit the trash can, spilling the contents on the floor. They sent in a worker who cleaned up the solid trash, but left the liquid on the floor. He said union rules forbade him from touching liquid spills. That was not his job.

NOW WAIT -- BEFORE YOU FLAME --

I know some lurkers are already lunging for the keyboard, and even some DUers want to be outraged. But consider this...what are "liquids" in a hospital? My wife had a bag of blood explode in a patient's room, showering her Carrie-style. She had to go through HIV testing for a very long time until she was considered okay. What is a grunt-level worker supposed to do when confronted with bodily fluids and nasty stuff on the floor of a sick patient's room? Believe me, if it were up to the bean counters, if it were up to the management, that grunt would just mop up the effluvia, toss it in a red trash bag, and hope he lived to get his Fifth Anniversary pin.

It's complicated to the average Joe struggling to pay his own rent. He/she sees the unionized worker as getting all these special privileges that he/she doesn't get. But the GOP has been BRILLIANT at framing the argument. Those damned union workers are taking money from you! They're killing the job market for you! But I seldom hear from Democrats (except for me and the people I work with, tilting at GOP windmills) screaming from the mountaintop, showing workers the history; they don't need LESS unions, as the bosses say, they need MORE unions. They need to fight back. Stop cowering behind the Walmart cash register because you're scared of missing the rent.

Democrats are sorely lacking on educating our voting base. The GOP on the other hand, doesn't need to worry. They have Fox "News." They have a built-in base of dumbness who will fear ANYONE who doesn't attend their Sunday worship. Anyone who doesn't look like them or talk like them. The lowest common denominator. The GOP party leaders know this. They know it all too well. It is their Trump card (sic).

[Peace Patriot]

28. Rec 1,000x!

[Atman]

25. What is a "dead-to-the-core Democrat?"

You mean like Ed Rendell?

[Atman]

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

Last edited Mon Jan 27, 2014, 01:00 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm sorry, getting ready for work is not the same as working. My own career actually working for unions is a good case in point. My job creating mailers, brochures, GOTV, independent expenditures, etc, for all of the major unions was quite casual. I was fortunate enough to work in a very, very casual Democrat-run firm. I worked in shorts and t-shirts and flip-flops in the summer, then had to put on socks, jeans and wear a hoodie in the winter.

If I worked in a more formal agency, where the dress code was a suit and tie, would you assume I should be compensated for the extra time each morning -- lots of extra time -- it would take me to don full business regalia? What about the time spent to dry clean and press all these starched collars and shirts? Running the lint roller over my suit coat? Should that be compensated separately? Granted, "suit" jobs are usually salaried, unlike the hourly wage jobs addressed in the op. But still...I'm not sure I can totally disagree with the SCOTUS on this one. Somewhat disagree, maybe. But I guess the Great And Powerful Oz has spoken.

[Demit]

30. Even at ad agencies, creatives don't wear suits & ties.

I mean, I get your broader point, but creatives don't have to dress up unless they are accompanying the account exec to a client meeting.

[Atman]

38. I used to work in a corporate art/marketing department.

Not necessarily suits, but a nice shirt and tie was expected. To be fair, it was a women's fashion chain...they might have had a different perspective. We never, ever saw clients, but still had to dress up every day.

[bucolic_frolic]

14. IF they allow clothing to be paid time

everyone could say they had to change from their street or casual wear
to their uniform.

Car salesman? Pay me to put on my suit and tie

Secretary? Half an hour for hosiery, heels, blouse, and ... makeup

Carpenter? Outta my weekend garb

This is a very practical ruling that says "Let's not go there."

I think union workers should be paid for their work outfitting time

since it's required. But does the union own the gear or do the employees?

Steel toe shoes? Employees must own them. Helmets? Not so clear

[quakerboy]

44. Theres clothing, and then theres other.

Should I be compensated for time putting on the giant hot dog mascot costume before I go out on the street and point a sign at the restaurant? I would tend to think so.

It seems pretty simple to me. Clothing that you would/could be expected to wear on your own for general existing in society purposes, do it on your own time. Anything that you couldn't reasonably be expected to put on at home and wear to work, you should be paid for. A respirator is not normal going on the subway to work gear. nor is a welding helmet. Boots that you could reasonably wear to work are. overalls are. Hotdog mascot costume.. not. etc.

[Kingofalldems]

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

This Christie thing has to be taking it's toll.

[madrchsod]

40. there`s no screwing the workers...

[TRoN33]

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

Supreme Court, really? After automakers and computer makers, U.S. Steel workers are one of heart and soul of economy in this country and they're not getting paid for donning the safety gears as part of companies' requirement? Perhaps its best not to let Hillary become Democrat's nomination for next President because she is more likeliest to do much more favors for corporations.

Bernie Sanders should be our next President along with Alan Grayson as his running mate. No Republicans can beat this duo in 2016, period.

[former9thward]

21. I worked in a rolling mill and a coke plant.

Both departments in a steel mill. It took me an average of 5 minutes to get my safety gear on or off. That is about average. I'm sure that if people were getting paid for that time it would suddenly take 15 or 20 minutes to get it on and off. The court was right. Federal labor law prohibits this and always has.

[Atman]

23. +10

Bingo.

[happyslug]

26. Actually the court ruled, it violates the Portal to Portal Act of 1947

The "Portal to Portal Act" was passed, technically to overturn a 1944 US Supreme Court Decision that under the Labor Standards Act of 1938, if an employee had to ride in a underground "car" to get to his work station he had to be paid for that travel time. Notice this did not mean from home, but when in entered the mine entrance and took the underground "Car" to where he was suppose to work.

Now, the Portal to Portal Act eliminated that requirement but also eliminated time taken in changing clothes at work. Thus under the Portal to Portal Act, it is NOT compensatory time while an employee changes clothes. On the other hand in Steiner, the Court had ruled that putting on clothes NEEDED to do the job (including safety equipment) was compensatory time. Scalia makes a point that this decision had NO effect on the ruling made in Steiner.

Scalia also made the comment that putting on actual safety equipment would be compensatory time but the time involved in putting on safety equipment is factual decision and all facts have to be decided at the trial level not on appeal. Scalia then points out the following:

We doubt that the de minimis doctrine can properly be applied to the present case. To be sure, Anderson included “putting on aprons and overalls” and “removing shirts” as activities to which “it is appropriate to apply a de minimis doctrine.” Id., at 692–693. It said that, however, in the context of determining what preliminary activities had tobe counted as part of the gross workweek under §207(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.8 A de minimis doctrine does not fit comfortably within the statute at issue here, which, it can fairly be said, is all about trifles—the relatively insignificant periods of time in which employees wash up and put on various items of clothing needed for their jobs. Or to put it in the context of the present case, there is no more reason to disregard the minute or so necessary to put on glasses, earplugs, and respirators, than there is to regard the minute or so necessary to put on a snood. If the statute in question requires courts to select among trifles, de minimis non curat lex is not Latin for close enough for government work

In simple terms, WHAT is clothing and WHAT is Safety equipment is up to a Judge to decide at trial, and what the Judge decides as a matter of FACT is not be reversed on appeal. Findings of facts are NOT to be appealed, only issues of law. In this case the only issue of law is NOT if the clothing is safety equipment, but once a finder of fact has decided it is clothing or safety equipment, compensation is only required it it is agreed to in a contract OR if it involved safety equipment.

[fasttense]

29. Have this group of RepubliCON Dancing Supremes ever ruled in favor of Unions?

I even question that the court before this one ever made laws (oh, I mean make decisions ) that favored unions.

It's just the continued flaming of every thing a working man does so the Dancing Supremes can continue to collect bribes from corporations.

They are kings of America for life and there is nothing you can do about it. Oh wait, they can and should be impeached.

[madrchsod]

31. this is the way we worked it out at the steel plant where i worked

i came in 30 minutes or so before shift started to get dressed and be on the floor so i could relieve the guy i was replacing. he could shower , change into street clothes, and get to the time clock. we were not paid for coming in early.we also did the same at a union drop forge shop where i worked. if we did`t...payback is a bitch.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

32. Can't believe all the anti union crap in here.

It's always disguised as "I support unions........but...............(insert right wing talking point here)"



Neo-liberal Underground strikes again.

[michreject]

37. When I worked for GM

We had to be ready to work at the start of the shift.

GM security staff (before securitas took over) got paid a clothing change time of 15 minutes before shift and 15 minutes after shift to don street cloths. They negotiated it in their contract.

[geek tragedy]

39. the workers deserve to get paid for that, but the union didn't negotiate for it.

much stronger case if there wasn't a union, imo

[happyslug]

43. No, the Portal to Portal Act is contract dependent

Thus if you do NOT have a Union, your contract is what your employer tells you to do UNLESS you have a written contract. Most people with written Contracts have them in the form of a Union Contract, but sometimes you do see people with individual contracts. Thus the Portal to Portal Act says such time is NOT covered time UNLESS it is agreed to in a contract.