Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
When the company and uniform provider require you to release them from any liability in order to be part of the group, there is a problem. There have been cases where people have needed to seek medical attention for reactions to materials and chemicals used on prototype uniforms. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that the company cover the treatment and lost time in those cases.jcw said:Only a test of a new uniform could someone find something to complian about - it's so sad a positive thing is quickly turned into a negative - my god some people need to find new outlets
Or, something similar has actually happened before and some people are simply being proactive.jimntx said:Please. If someone has reached adulthood (let's assume that the child labor laws applied at PMUS and PMAA like they do at other companies), I find it hard to believe that they would not already know that they are or are not allergic to virgin polyester. This sounds like a useless union trying to appear useful to its members.
No, they are simply objecting to the language in the release that says "if anything bad happens it's not our fault and the employee is still on the hook for any lost time or medical costs". Remove that language and there wouldn't be a problem. I have no idea what previous issues you had or have, but you're making a big stink over nothing on this. The first time I read the release I knew there would be problems, it reaches way too far.jimntx said:So, "the some people" are assuming that neither the uniform company nor AA can read and don't already know about the Alaska Airlines problem. And, we must block them from adding the same chemical to our uniforms. Even though the article does not establish the chemical--the flame retardant, most likely--as the source of the problem. One other thing, the reason that uniform materials must contain flame retardant chemicals is because the flight attendant unions demanded it years ago.
Precisely! An IOD is an IOD is an IOD. The courts have set that precedent a long time ago.in reality at fault is at fault and no disclaimer will provide immunity to the company for any injuries due to uniform choices.