Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Inside the asylum

Arguing before the Supreme Court about the language in a statute that uses the word "clothes".  The council tries to argue that the definition of clothes does not include "items worn for protection".

The Justices reasonably point out that most clothes are worn for protection, from heat, from cold, from sun.

He then tries to distinguish items worn to protect from workplace hazards don't count as clothes.

The Justices ask why clothing that an employer requires due to hazards and clothing that they require just because should be treated any differently under law.

What have we come to?  This is a perfect example of the overreach of a government and why we need a return to limited government.  Why is there a law regarding the putting on of clothes/gear/equipment at all?  Why is this not something that is entirely subject to voluntary agreements between employers and employees?  Maybe the problem is just that the government is too big and too powerful.

It is an entertaining to read, but in the back of my mind, throughout the arguments, all I could think of was "why?".

Note: Whatever happened to the concept that you show up at work wearing your work clothes at the designated time, ready to work?  I didn't get paid extra for changing into my work clothes at the Harley shop and I don't get paid extra for tying my tie in the morning now that I teach school.

No comments: