Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Justice Scalia spends 19 pages analyzing the origin and meaning of the words "changing" and "clothes" all so he can justify screwing steelworkers out of being paid for the time it takes them to don mandatory safety gear before work   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 116
    More: Asinine, Justice Antonin Scalia, safety gear, clothing  
•       •       •

2486 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Jan 2014 at 2:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



116 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-28 11:13:43 AM  
If the founding fathers had wanted steel workers to wear safety equipment then they would have stated so explicitly in The Constitution.
 
2014-01-28 11:16:06 AM  
Scalia never met a corporation he didn't like.
 
2014-01-28 11:21:41 AM  
Blessed are the makers.

Shun the mooch, the taker, the safet gear doner, let him not steal time from you, for time be'eth money.
-Rand  Paul, Book of Rand.
 
2014-01-28 11:29:13 AM  
Jesus Christ, it was a unanimous opinion of the court interpreting the meaning of statute.  Scalia and the court did nothing nefarious here.
 
2014-01-28 11:40:58 AM  

sprgrss: Jesus Christ, it was a unanimous opinion of the court interpreting the meaning of statute.  Scalia and the court did nothing nefarious here.


well sure the court's opinion seems to reflect the obvious intent of the law but I don't like Scalia so this is more fun.
 
2014-01-28 11:56:46 AM  
What kind of company docks workers for time putting on protective gear? Whatever Scalia thinks of it, that is a shiatty company.
 
2014-01-28 12:11:03 PM  
THIS is why the 1% need a redistribution of good sense.
 
2014-01-28 12:21:48 PM  
And I want to get paid for the time it takes me to put on a shirt and tie.
 
2014-01-28 12:24:06 PM  
I bet the steel companies were happy not providing any safety gear at all. Then, the unions probably forced them to do it and now they also want to get paid for the time it takes to put on safety shiat the company didn't even want to provide in the first place. What a bunch of jerks.
 
2014-01-28 12:30:20 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: And I want to get paid for the time it takes me to put on a shirt and tie.


If your shirt is made of Asbestos and your tie has a built-in thermometer  to tell you when you office has reached temperatures unsafe for human life, and you need both to do your job, then yes, yes you should get paid for that.   Any Farkers here work in or have ever visited a clean room?  How long does it take to go through the decon and gear up procedures?   If you had to do that every day, you'd probably want to get paid for it.
 
2014-01-28 12:55:08 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: And I want to get paid for the time it takes me to put on a shirt and tie.


Fashion is hardly life saving equipment.
Except Chicago and LA.
 
2014-01-28 12:55:53 PM  
Textualism is so farking stupid.
 
2014-01-28 12:58:23 PM  

DamnYankees: Textualism is so farking stupid.


especially since it's pretty much always interpreted as: this is what I think it should mean, regardless of what the text actually says or the intent of the founding fathers.
 
2014-01-28 01:01:38 PM  

Voiceofreason01: DamnYankees: Textualism is so farking stupid.

especially since it's pretty much always interpreted as: this is what I think it should mean, regardless of what the text actually says or the intent of the founding fathers.


No kidding. Under textualism, we should be allowed to ban firing weapons. I mean, the amendment only says 'keep' and 'bear' - not use or fire. So you can own them, and you can hold them, but where's the right to fire them?
 
2014-01-28 01:02:26 PM  

Voiceofreason01: DamnYankees: Textualism is so farking stupid.

especially since it's pretty much always interpreted as: this is what I think it should mean, regardless of what the text actually says or the intent of the founding fathers.


This is the end result of a society raised to change the rules because, "it's too hard."
 
2014-01-28 01:03:35 PM  
As has been pointed out, this was a  unanimous decision. Pretending that this is somehow Scalia being evil is silly.

The court essentially said that when you go on break, you don't get paid for the time required to change out of your safety gear, because the law says that changing clothing isn't counted as time working. The workers were trying to argue that their safety gear wasn't clothing at all, and the Court pretty unanimously said "Sorry, the law's the law, that stuff is still clothing"
 
2014-01-28 01:06:11 PM  

Rincewind53: As has been pointed out, this was a  unanimous decision. Pretending that this is somehow Scalia being evil is silly.

The court essentially said that when you go on break, you don't get paid for the time required to change out of your safety gear, because the law says that changing clothing isn't counted as time working. The workers were trying to argue that their safety gear wasn't clothing at all, and the Court pretty unanimously said "Sorry, the law's the law, that stuff is still clothing"


This is correct and fair. We're making fun of textualism, not this specific case. I think its pretty clear the workers' argument was pretty bad.
 
2014-01-28 01:06:58 PM  

Rincewind53: As has been pointed out, this was a  unanimous decision. Pretending that this is somehow Scalia being evil is silly.

The court essentially said that when you go on break, you don't get paid for the time required to change out of your safety gear, because the law says that changing clothing isn't counted as time working. The workers were trying to argue that their safety gear wasn't clothing at all, and the Court pretty unanimously said "Sorry, the law's the law, that stuff is still clothing"


Same court that thinks a coat of paint is "clothing"?
Was that some other emperor?
 
2014-01-28 01:07:47 PM  
So he's the George R. R. Martin of the SCOTUS?
 
2014-01-28 01:08:05 PM  

snocone: Rincewind53: As has been pointed out, this was a  unanimous decision. Pretending that this is somehow Scalia being evil is silly.

The court essentially said that when you go on break, you don't get paid for the time required to change out of your safety gear, because the law says that changing clothing isn't counted as time working. The workers were trying to argue that their safety gear wasn't clothing at all, and the Court pretty unanimously said "Sorry, the law's the law, that stuff is still clothing"

Same court that thinks a coat of paint is "clothing"?
Was that some other emperor?


Hmm? You'll have to link me to the case, I don't know what you're referring to.
 
2014-01-28 01:12:24 PM  

snocone: Voiceofreason01: DamnYankees: Textualism is so farking stupid.

especially since it's pretty much always interpreted as: this is what I think it should mean, regardless of what the text actually says or the intent of the founding fathers.

This is the end result of a society raised to change the rules because, "it's too hard."


What? That doesn't make sense. Antonin king-of-textualists Scalia is in his late 70's and was born during the Great Depression.
 
2014-01-28 01:13:29 PM  

Voiceofreason01: snocone: Voiceofreason01: DamnYankees: Textualism is so farking stupid.

especially since it's pretty much always interpreted as: this is what I think it should mean, regardless of what the text actually says or the intent of the founding fathers.

This is the end result of a society raised to change the rules because, "it's too hard."

What? That doesn't make sense. Antonin king-of-textualists Scalia is in his late 70's and was born during the Great Depression.


Yea, but society did not hang him 20 years ago, as god intended.
 
2014-01-28 01:41:44 PM  

sprgrss: Jesus Christ, it was a unanimous opinion of the court interpreting the meaning of statute.  Scalia and the court did nothing nefarious here.

Rincewind53: As has been pointed out, this was a  unanimous decision.


Seems likely to still need repeating a few more times.

Magorn: If you had to do that every day, you'd probably want to get paid for it.


As a political question, it would seem the law probably should be changed to address that.

As a judicial question, the current statutes say that employers are not yet by law required to pay for that time changing "clothing", save when they have contracted with workers for such payment.
 
2014-01-28 02:06:57 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: And I want to get paid for the time it takes me to put on a shirt and tie.


Is that an OSHA requirement?
 
2014-01-28 02:30:05 PM  
The question here is, are the steel workers asking to be paid to put these things on before they've started their shift, or are they being docked pay for having to put these things on later on during the workday one or more times?
Because if it's the former, I agree with the court.  If it's the latter, fark that shiat.
 
2014-01-28 02:35:20 PM  
Here's the deal:
1. Is it required?
2. Is it impractical(Or impossible) to put on at home and wear in the car/bus/train?

If they are both "Yes", then that means that they have to spend time doing something dedicated ONLY for work, and they should be paid. That didn't take 19 farking pages, you overpaid P.O.S.
 
2014-01-28 02:35:26 PM  
I bet Scalia doesn't get paid for putting his robes on and taking them off.

/unless the customer pays extra for it. that little corporate whore
 
2014-01-28 02:37:37 PM  

ReverendJasen: The question here is, are the steel workers asking to be paid to put these things on before they've started their shift, or are they being docked pay for having to put these things on later on during the workday one or more times?
Because if it's the former, I agree with the court.  If it's the latter, fark that shiat.


Not sure what the distinction is. Seems like both would be perfectly valid, assuming you agree they shouldn't be changing on company time.
 
2014-01-28 02:38:27 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: And I want to get paid for the time it takes me to put on a shirt and tie.


You only get paid if you do it right... judging by your comment, you've tied the tie so tight that bloodflow to the brain is impeded. Don't worry, you'll get the hang of it eventually, just like David Carradine did.
 
2014-01-28 02:38:55 PM  
He should have just written NO, NOW GBTFW instead of writting a complete analysis of the reasoning behind the decission.
 
2014-01-28 02:39:30 PM  
I think they need to delineate between "clothing" and "equipment."  They could make a reasonable case saying that "clothing" is defined as articles worn to maintain modesty and adhere to a specific dress code but, other than that, perform no function as it relates to their occupation.  However, if the items are required to ensure safety during dangerous prodcedures on the job, then they could be classified as "equipment," safety or otherwise, and their donning or removal could be covered by company time.

Just my opinion, of course.
 
2014-01-28 02:39:35 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: I bet Scalia doesn't get paid for putting his robes on and taking them off.

/unless the customer pays extra for it. that little corporate whore


You have to pay to get the wizard hat
 
2014-01-28 02:40:50 PM  
Christ, what an asshole.
 
2014-01-28 02:42:57 PM  
Must be nice to have a job for life. Then again it's only for life.
 
2014-01-28 02:43:27 PM  
I hate these razor-thin margin votes of 9-0 by the SCOTUS.
It's not fair.
 
2014-01-28 02:46:30 PM  
Well, the person playing Chewbacca next is going to be pissed.
 
2014-01-28 02:48:19 PM  
I haven't read TFD, but I suspect that it's because they were union workers the court assumed that if they'd wanted to get paid for prep time, they'd have written it into the union contract.
 
2014-01-28 02:49:54 PM  
Scalia's salary should be docked to reflect the time he spends putting on his judge's dress in the morning.
 
2014-01-28 02:50:32 PM  
There was a federal case a few years back along similar lines, involving IBP not paying people for time they spent standing in line waiting to be issued their safety gear and putting it on and taking it off. The Supreme Court decided unanimously in the workers favor in that case. How is this one different? I'm somewhat confused.

Ah, here's the 2005 case wiki:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBP,_Inc._v._Alvarez
 
2014-01-28 02:50:59 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Scalia never met a corporation he didn't like.


So how do you explain the fact that Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan agreed with him? Likewise catspaws of the corporations?
 
2014-01-28 02:53:04 PM  
25.media.tumblr.com
We work hard. We play hard.
 
2014-01-28 02:53:23 PM  

Rincewind53: As has been pointed out, this was a  unanimous decision. Pretending that this is somehow Scalia being evil is silly.

The court essentially said that when you go on break, you don't get paid for the time required to change out of your safety gear, because the law says that changing clothing isn't counted as time working. The workers were trying to argue that their safety gear wasn't clothing at all, and the Court pretty unanimously said "Sorry, the law's the law, that stuff is still clothing"


Have worked in a variety of heavy industries / hazmat work / etc.  Thing is, this type of stuff is a bit more than clothing and is worn over your clothing.  I'm also willing to bet all the company's safety standards and training refer to the gear as PPE *and* provides it to the workers.  This isn't a case of workers buying their own Carthart/Dickies.

Kinda surprised this was unanimous, though I must stress that I understand the decision overall.
 
2014-01-28 02:53:50 PM  
Scalia: Even when he's right, he's still an asshole.
 
2014-01-28 02:54:22 PM  

buzzcut73: There was a federal case a few years back along similar lines, involving IBP not paying people for time they spent standing in line waiting to be issued their safety gear and putting it on and taking it off. The Supreme Court decided unanimously in the workers favor in that case. How is this one different? I'm somewhat confused.

Ah, here's the 2005 case wiki:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBP,_Inc._v._Alvarez


Having read that, I can't tell the difference either. Looks like both cases involve contracts silent on the matter.
 
2014-01-28 02:54:26 PM  

Dr Dreidel: I haven't read TFD, but I suspect that it's because they were union workers the court assumed that if they'd wanted to get paid for prep time, they'd have written it into the union contract.


Give yourself a prize and a pat on the back.

. . . the Court said labor laws excluded unionized employees from being paid during time "donning and doffing" safety gear before and after shifts, unless a labor agreement was in place for such compensation.
 
2014-01-28 02:55:09 PM  

DamnYankees: Not sure what the distinction is. Seems like both would be perfectly valid, assuming you agree they shouldn't be changing on company time.


No.
Changing before work to be dressed for the workday is the same as showing up to work in uniform or whatever dress standard is required.  This is normal, and we all have to do it.

Being required to change clothes throughout the day in order to perform certain jobs or enter certain areas is beyond wearing your uniform to work.  It's additional time you must spend on work time to prepare for a specific job function.  You don't show up for work in the morning wearing a hazmat suit, and you may not need it every day, but if a situation requires it, it's part of your job function to don it.  Hence you get paid for it.


I work in an industrial setting.  Some areas of the plant require me putting on additional gear.  I do not clock out to do this.
 
2014-01-28 02:55:24 PM  

Saiga410: He should have just written NO, NOW GBTFW instead of writting a complete analysis of the reasoning behind the decission.


Treating this as though it's a serious statement, the details in opinions explain the court's thinking and guide lower courts in applying those decisions in other cases that come up. The USSC doesn't want to have to keep revisiting things every time some variant comes along in a similar case.
 
2014-01-28 02:59:18 PM  

ReverendJasen: DamnYankees: Not sure what the distinction is. Seems like both would be perfectly valid, assuming you agree they shouldn't be changing on company time.

No.
Changing before work to be dressed for the workday is the same as showing up to work in uniform or whatever dress standard is required.  This is normal, and we all have to do it.

Being required to change clothes throughout the day in order to perform certain jobs or enter certain areas is beyond wearing your uniform to work.  It's additional time you must spend on work time to prepare for a specific job function.  You don't show up for work in the morning wearing a hazmat suit, and you may not need it every day, but if a situation requires it, it's part of your job function to don it.  Hence you get paid for it.


I work in an industrial setting.  Some areas of the plant require me putting on additional gear.  I do not clock out to do this.


This makes sense to me, but the link in the Alvarez case doesn't mention that these changes were happening during work and as part of the workday. Do you know that to be the case?
 
2014-01-28 02:59:20 PM  

DamnYankees: Textualism is so farking stupid.


You know this is a statutory interpretation case right?  That interpreting the text of stattutes is the first and often last part of such a case?

Oh,  wait.  Forgot.

This is a Scalia eating Crackers thread.
 
2014-01-28 02:59:51 PM  
So with most of the Supreme Court decisions, I generally find them to be "correct*, if not always right."

So what's up with this one, why was it 9-0, and why would it be correct?

*IE: Either the letter of the law says this, OR there's some overriding principle** that requires that they rule the way they do.
**No, you can't ban speech around elections by declaring it to be political speech, because that's a really bad precedent to set.  Beautiful example.  Correct, but wrong.
 
Displayed 50 of 116 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report