Sandifer v. United States Steel Corporation



Sandifer v. United States Steel Corporation

The labor working at United Steel Corporation files a suit against the standards of fair labor Act. They are of the view that the company should fetch them the for the time schedule they have spent in changing their clothes for work. They have further added that, the time they spend in changing their clothes would be commentated because it is the requirement of the work, while on the other hand it is an obligation to maintain the quality. The time slot includes the time they went from locker room to changing room (OYEZ, 2013). On the other hand, the labor act states that, the employer didn't need to compensate for the time.” In this respect the company moved to court for final judgment. For the purpose of judgment, the court granted the motion as it relates to compensation for changing clothes but not in relation to compensation for transit time.

This case has twofold implications for labor/employment laws: To offer a coherent explanation of protestors' role in employment and wage dynamics, and to measure the impact of protestors on these variables using time-series data. I find that protestors do not appear to affect an industry's employment dynamics; for a given demand shock, protesting firms do not have a differential impact on employment. Instead, they react to changes in demand with larger changes in average weekly hours and real wages than other firms. I argue that such behavior is rooted in the large fraction of compensation that other workers receive in the form of fringe benefits (Millward, 1988).

The Issue given in the case is a very common yet very simple issue. The issue is about the United States Steel Corporation management and their fear that their employees soon will join the others. The main theme of this case revolves around this issue. When you read this case you can easily infer that management of the discussed United States Steel Corporation feels that if their employees join others then they will lose control over their employees. The loss of control over their employees will allow employees to do whatever they want to do. In this case, management is of the perception that the others will be opponent of the management. So, as given in the case as well that the management makes an aggressive and active attempt to kill the protesting movement and pro-protest sentiments inside the organization (Blanchflower, 1991).

The case explains a very classical example of the possible and traditional management reaction when they are faced with the challenge of employees. Protests such as these are known to protect the employee's rights and safeguard their interest and If the management of any organization is opposing the role that doesn't mean that the management does not want to safeguard the interest of their employees, it is just that management think that the protest would be detrimental for them more than they safeguard the interest of employees. It is also a common perception ...