Uniform Testers
- Thread starter mstrmoe
- Start date
I know a couple of the work groups have complained about the terms of the test. That needs to get worked out before it moves forward.
I signed up just for the heck of it. Not big into fashion, but would like some input into user friendly clothes that wear well and last. What were the complaints involved? I didn't see any requirements that were extremely outrageous.
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:
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.
Or, something similar has actually happened before and some people are simply being proactive.jimntx said:
http://www.king5.com/news/local/Alaska-Airlines-Flight-Attendants--150127485.html
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.
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:
BTW, I'd imagine any disclaimer like that is only to discourage lawsuits; in reality at fault is at fault and no disclaimer will provide immunity to the company for any injuries due to uniform choices. What's more likely to happen is that the Company will say "It's not our fault you need to talk to the manufacturer", and that is where the lawsuit would go.
I can imagine you need a union rep when you go to the store to buy clothes to get agreement from the store - this is over reaching is what makes things so difficult and why people (like the majority of individuals in the US) can't stand unions - look at Affordable Care Act - they want it for everyone and now the unions what exempted from it - hypocritical
Precisely! An IOD is an IOD is an IOD. The courts have set that precedent a long time ago.
The company can say that an injured flight attendant violated company policy by lifting a passenger's bag to the overhead bin (or getting it down) and they fight Workmen's Comp for the time off, but they also reserve the right to punish you and put something negative in your permanent file if you follow policy and the passenger files a complaint.
