« Prop 64: It's been a year, and still no answer | Main | First Aid Services of San Diego, Inc. v. California Employment Development Dept. »

November 08, 2005

Comments

Clark Minton

This appears to be just a bouquet for the union laborer. We all "quaff & Doff" in special manners for our workstations in life and where should it begin? Perhaps with a "nightime beauty sleep" to face the mornings pressures. Take a step back and it makes it more difficult for the USA to be competitive in the World Trade environment. This is simply a salary raise and it should be only that and nothing more; Lest our vision becomes clouded by applying analysis to"quaffing & doffing".

kent

1. The Tum Appellate Court opinion had a simple definition: "To doff an item of clothing or equipment for these purposes means to take it off and place it in a bin or locker." see Tum v. Barber Foods (1st Cir. 2003) no. 02-1679 (or did'ja just wanna make fun of Stevens??).

2. What the heck is Clark talking about "quaffing"? Is he upset that employers have to pay employees for worktime? Should employees voluntarily serve for free so corporate owners remain competitive with other business that do no pay for work, e.g., slave and prison labor? cheesh....

The comments to this entry are closed.