fedex_employee
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
Today uniforms tomorrow pallet jacks!!!
FedEx Freight | Paying for uniforms?
- Thread starter Loose Canon
- Start date
Washington State
Well, here in Washington State.....
Uniforms
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
TITLE: EMPLOYEE WEARING APPAREL NUMBER: ES.C.8.1
AND UNIFORMS
CHAPTER: RCW 49.12.450 REPLACES: ES-027
ISSUED: 1/2/2002
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY DISCLAIMER
This policy is designed to provide general information in regard to the current opinions of the Department of Labor & Industries on the subject matter covered. This policy is intended as a guide in the interpretation and application of the relevant statutes, regulations, and policies, and may not be applicable to all situations. This policy does not replace applicable RCW or WAC standards. If additional clarification is required, the Program Manager for Employment Standards should be consulted.
This document is effective as of the date of print and supersedes all previous interpretations and guidelines. Changes may occur after the date of print due to subsequent legislation, administrative rule, or judicial proceedings. The user is encouraged to notify the Program Manager to provide or receive updated information. This document will remain in effect until rescinded, modified, or withdrawn by the Director or his or her designee.
RCW 49.12.450 sets forth the circumstances in which employers are required to provide or pay for clothing that they require employees to wear on the job. RCW 49.12.450, which became effective June 11, 1998, is the most current legislation regarding employee uniforms or wearing apparel. Because the legislature chose to specifically define “uniform” and to define the specific instances when an employer must provide or compensate the employee for required clothing, this legislation replaces all prior department rules or policies governing uniforms or wearing apparel.
The term “employer” for the purpose of RCW 49.12.450 includes the state, any state institution, any state agency, political sub-division of the state, and any municipal or quasi-municipal corporation, as well as all private sector businesses with one or more employees. RCW 49.12.450 is to be applied in all situations, regardless of the impact on any of the provisions of RCW 49.46, the Minimum Wage Act.
If the required clothing is a “uniform,” the employer must absorb the full cost. A “uniform” is defined as:
1. Clothing clearly identifying the person as an employee of a specific employer.
2. Apparel specially marked with the employer’s logo.
3. Unique apparel to identify historical or ethnic background.
4. Formal attire.
Of course they said they misinterperted the lunch law here too which is an outright lie.
Well, here in Washington State.....
Uniforms
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
TITLE: EMPLOYEE WEARING APPAREL NUMBER: ES.C.8.1
AND UNIFORMS
CHAPTER: RCW 49.12.450 REPLACES: ES-027
ISSUED: 1/2/2002
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY DISCLAIMER
This policy is designed to provide general information in regard to the current opinions of the Department of Labor & Industries on the subject matter covered. This policy is intended as a guide in the interpretation and application of the relevant statutes, regulations, and policies, and may not be applicable to all situations. This policy does not replace applicable RCW or WAC standards. If additional clarification is required, the Program Manager for Employment Standards should be consulted.
This document is effective as of the date of print and supersedes all previous interpretations and guidelines. Changes may occur after the date of print due to subsequent legislation, administrative rule, or judicial proceedings. The user is encouraged to notify the Program Manager to provide or receive updated information. This document will remain in effect until rescinded, modified, or withdrawn by the Director or his or her designee.
RCW 49.12.450 sets forth the circumstances in which employers are required to provide or pay for clothing that they require employees to wear on the job. RCW 49.12.450, which became effective June 11, 1998, is the most current legislation regarding employee uniforms or wearing apparel. Because the legislature chose to specifically define “uniform” and to define the specific instances when an employer must provide or compensate the employee for required clothing, this legislation replaces all prior department rules or policies governing uniforms or wearing apparel.
The term “employer” for the purpose of RCW 49.12.450 includes the state, any state institution, any state agency, political sub-division of the state, and any municipal or quasi-municipal corporation, as well as all private sector businesses with one or more employees. RCW 49.12.450 is to be applied in all situations, regardless of the impact on any of the provisions of RCW 49.46, the Minimum Wage Act.
If the required clothing is a “uniform,” the employer must absorb the full cost. A “uniform” is defined as:
1. Clothing clearly identifying the person as an employee of a specific employer.
2. Apparel specially marked with the employer’s logo.
3. Unique apparel to identify historical or ethnic background.
4. Formal attire.
Of course they said they misinterperted the lunch law here too which is an outright lie.
milemarker68
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 36
Hate to burst anyones bubble, but they did put a freeze on all uniform ordering. Someone in our barn needed pants last week and he/she could not order them.
.
So one pair of pants and two shirts are to last me for a year? If they think I'm buying more than that, they are out of their freakin' minds!
Let me wear Levi's and we can talk.
From my a post above, I don't see how they can get away with it in this state.
But the FedEx way of doing business is that it's easier to apologize than get permission.
So one pair of pants and two shirts are to last me for a year? If they think I'm buying more than that, they are out of their freakin' minds!
Let me wear Levi's and we can talk.
From my a post above, I don't see how they can get away with it in this state.
But the FedEx way of doing business is that it's easier to apologize than get permission.
Colopurple
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 26
Here is a website that shows state requirements.
Who Pays for Employee Uniforms? | Employment Law Alliance
Who Pays for Employee Uniforms? | Employment Law Alliance
Cornbinder
Steering wheel holder
- Credits
- 0
Free Uniform's........
Be a Cold day in
He_ _ before I pay for uniform's,if the company want's us to wear uniform's(look pretty for the public to see) then THEY 
Should Provide all that is required free of charge.
Be a Cold day in
He_ _ before I pay for uniform's,if the company want's us to wear uniform's(look pretty for the public to see) then THEY Should Provide all that is required free of charge.I beleive the Ca info is wrong on this link. Employers are required to provide and maintain uniforms per the labor board.
.
The Washington State blurb says something about the "shirts in question". Our shirts certainly do identify us as FedEx Employees. The logo is on the left breast.
Unless they plan to remove the logo, which means the jackets also, in Washington, we are not required to pay for uniforms that the company demands we wear. I have enough trouble paying for the water, detergent and electricty to launder them at home.
Can I send FedEx a bill for all that?
The Washington State blurb says something about the "shirts in question". Our shirts certainly do identify us as FedEx Employees. The logo is on the left breast.
Unless they plan to remove the logo, which means the jackets also, in Washington, we are not required to pay for uniforms that the company demands we wear. I have enough trouble paying for the water, detergent and electricty to launder them at home.
Can I send FedEx a bill for all that?
frt hauler
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 0
well the wya i look at it they want us to wear it they should buy it! fed-ex will profit from clothing sales is it all about the profit before the employee? this is a bunch of hooey
that's crazy. I'm with ground and our shirts are $3, pants are $5 or something.
imported_cactus flower
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
I Will never pay for company uniforms out of my pocket....I hate their one size fits all crap..I feel like Joe S&*% the rag man in these things. Funny, they have tried in the past to sell the uniforms as a "benefit" now, it look as though we will have to pay for our "benefits".
In the states such as Nevada where the employer is reguired to furnish uniforms at no cost to employee, is one pair of pants enough to comply with the law? Guess it will take another law suit to find out. I looked up the statue and it was of little help with this question.
NRS: CHAPTER 608 - COMPENSATION, WAGES AND HOURS
NRS: CHAPTER 608 - COMPENSATION, WAGES AND HOURS
SpeedLimit
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
Like it was mentioned before...Myself and another driver tried to get a jump on the uniforms before the deadline. We both are eligible for our yearly allotment now. When our manager tried to place the order for us....The order website was GONE!!!! He had no access, So much for trying to fly one under the radar.
Hell one of our Red Shirts needed new red shirts. Sounded like he had to Bl*w the Pope to get one freakin' shirt.
I wonder how many Mile Marker CDs/DVDs equal one pair of pants?
All Done venting....nighty night!
Hell one of our Red Shirts needed new red shirts. Sounded like he had to Bl*w the Pope to get one freakin' shirt.
I wonder how many Mile Marker CDs/DVDs equal one pair of pants?
All Done venting....nighty night!
If this is true, you can count it as a wage package reduction.
Apparently they think we are all contract workers like Ground. Though I don't think that is going very well for them at the moment.
We haven't heard a peep officially. That doesn't surprise me considering they didn't let us know about our 401k accounts dropping to zero and the reason behind it.
Pretty lame when you have to rely on a web site to get your information. (No disrespect intended Jeff....)
Apparently they think we are all contract workers like Ground. Though I don't think that is going very well for them at the moment.
We haven't heard a peep officially. That doesn't surprise me considering they didn't let us know about our 401k accounts dropping to zero and the reason behind it.
Pretty lame when you have to rely on a web site to get your information. (No disrespect intended Jeff....)
imported_st21
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
I tried to get new uniforms back in November and they told me that orders were on hold. So this must have been in the works for awhile.