Should workers be paid for the time it takes to" don and doff " safety equipment? (employees, 2013)

[no kudzu]

I would think so. Now changing into and out of a uniform is definitely clothes but haz met suits and other safety gear is different. What do you think?

Supreme Court weighs fight over changing clothes at work - U.S. News

[Rabrrita]

Like other similar cases, the court will probably define what is covered. It will probably be what every one thinks it means using common sense. To avoid a sticking point of the millions that it may cost to look back and compensate any and all employees who could be entitled to back pay, they will likely not make the ruling retroactive. Most states with labor rules requiring pay, (both democrat and republican) have generally followed the pre 2003 and post 2010 definitions. I don't think any state followed the 2002-2010 definitions because most realized it defied rational thinking.

[nybbler]

Looks like a 9-0, given the remarks pro-business Scalia made. Though predicting SCOTUS decisions is always fraught with peril.

[bobtn]

Yes, they should be paid, when such equipment must be worn, and can only practically be put on/taken off at the workplace.

[beera]

That stuff is personal protective equipment and I think they should be paid if it's taking quite a bit of time. I put clothes on at home and when I get to work I start working at my desk, checking emails and so on. I don't have to go in, change clothes, put on protective equipment, etc.

When I go into the lab, I put on my labcoat, goggles, and gloves, and I'm on the clock on those times and paid.

Hard hats, work gloves, flame retardant jackets and pants, that's not clothing, that's PPE. If I have to go to work 10 minutes beforehand to put all this stuff on TO work, I should be paid to put it on. Specially if it's not stuff that I can keep at home. I assume all this stuff is left at work.