Despite the 2005 Supreme Court ruling in IBP v. Alvarez, there continues to be a lot of debate, as well as a split in the circuit courts as to whether employers are obligated to compensate employees for putting on (donning) and off (doffing) personal protective equipment (PPE) at the start and end of their shifts. Also being considered is whether walking time to and from the locker room to the worksite should be compensable, as well as whether or not employees should be paid for donning and doffing this equipment during their lunch breaks (courts seem to be leaning towards a "no" to this question).
Further complicating the issue is the fact that the Department of Labor (DOL), which oversees the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), has flip-flopped "Romney Style" on the issue. Politics are clearly at play, with the DOL interpreting the FLSA 203(o) exemption of changing clothes from compensable time differently depending on the administration. Under Presidents Clinton and Obama, the DOL opinion was that "clothing" did not include PPE and thus the time spent donning and doffing could be deemed compensable. However, under President Bush the DOL took a broad view of the term clothing and considered PPE as falling under the definition of clothing and making the time spent non-compensable.
Ignoring the legal battle for a minute, let's look at the practical consequences. If the employees win the battle and the time is considered compensable, what is the probable result? The immediate result is that the employees will receive compensation for this time (which could be as much as another 2-3 hours per week of compensable time). Employees involved in litigation might even receive back wages for the past 2-3 years for their donning and doffing time, a check that could make for a nice summer vacation for the family.
But what's next? After the initial thrill of victory, reality will kick in. That reality will likely include the employer taking steps to make sure it maintains its profit margin. How will the employer do this while having to consider paying employees for an additional 2-3 hours per week? I am glad you asked that question. The employer will likely do one of three things:
1. Cut hourly wages to get back the money spent on employees' changing clothes time
2. Cut hours to recoup the money that way
3. Cut headcount, so current employees will have to work harder to keep up with production
In the end, who actually wins? I would venture to say no one wins. Well, perhaps the attorneys litigating these cases, but no one else. And some of the plaintiff attorneys, like generals firing up their troops for the battle, are surely not fully informing these manufacturing employees of the long-term ramifications of a victory. As a result, they embark on a journey towards winning a battle but losing a war, or to put it another way, failing to see the full forest through the plentiful trees.
Further complicating the issue is the fact that the Department of Labor (DOL), which oversees the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), has flip-flopped "Romney Style" on the issue. Politics are clearly at play, with the DOL interpreting the FLSA 203(o) exemption of changing clothes from compensable time differently depending on the administration. Under Presidents Clinton and Obama, the DOL opinion was that "clothing" did not include PPE and thus the time spent donning and doffing could be deemed compensable. However, under President Bush the DOL took a broad view of the term clothing and considered PPE as falling under the definition of clothing and making the time spent non-compensable.
Ignoring the legal battle for a minute, let's look at the practical consequences. If the employees win the battle and the time is considered compensable, what is the probable result? The immediate result is that the employees will receive compensation for this time (which could be as much as another 2-3 hours per week of compensable time). Employees involved in litigation might even receive back wages for the past 2-3 years for their donning and doffing time, a check that could make for a nice summer vacation for the family.
But what's next? After the initial thrill of victory, reality will kick in. That reality will likely include the employer taking steps to make sure it maintains its profit margin. How will the employer do this while having to consider paying employees for an additional 2-3 hours per week? I am glad you asked that question. The employer will likely do one of three things:
1. Cut hourly wages to get back the money spent on employees' changing clothes time
2. Cut hours to recoup the money that way
3. Cut headcount, so current employees will have to work harder to keep up with production
In the end, who actually wins? I would venture to say no one wins. Well, perhaps the attorneys litigating these cases, but no one else. And some of the plaintiff attorneys, like generals firing up their troops for the battle, are surely not fully informing these manufacturing employees of the long-term ramifications of a victory. As a result, they embark on a journey towards winning a battle but losing a war, or to put it another way, failing to see the full forest through the plentiful trees.
RSS Feed
Copyright 2012 WorkplaceDignity. All rights reserved. This blog represents the opinions of the individual author(s) of the respective posts. Any opinions or information expressed here do not represent the opinions, beliefs or expressions of the employer(s) of any author on this site. WorkplaceDignity does not necessarily endorse the opinion(s) expressed by any guest blogger on this site who is not employed by WorkplaceDignity. All data and information provided on this site is for informational purposes only. WorkplaceDignity and its owners, bloggers and editors makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis