Worker Claims Employer Won’t Let Them Wear A Coat When It's Cold Unless They Buy A Company Jacket
If a uniform is required for work, it should be provided for by the company.
Antonio Guillem | Shutterstock Many companies require workers to wear uniforms during their shifts, and unfortunately, they aren't always provided by the employer.
Case in point Cramer Ekholm, who claimed in a TikTok to work for a corporation whose owner is "the richest person in [his] state with a net worth of $18.9 billion." Despite the owner's wealth, workers are not allowed to wear outerwear aside from the costly company jacket that they must pay for out of pocket.
He claimed that his employer won’t let workers wear coats unless they buy the company jacket that costs more than their hourly wage.
Sitting in his mom's truck, Ekholm trashed the company's owner calling him "greedy," along with some far more explicit insults.
"It would be different if I could wear my own jacket, but that goes against the dress code because the jacket has to have the label of the store on it," he explained. "But I'm not buying a jacket that costs more than I get paid an hour."
Ekholm then showed off a shirt that he bought for his uniform through work. "It was $13," he said. "Do you see how thin this is? This probably cost like five [expletive] dollars to make."
"Maybe I'm being dramatic," he added, "but if you have a net worth of $18.9 billion I think that you can provide jackets for free for your workers."
It doesn't matter if the worker can afford the jacket.
While some commenters were supportive, assuring Ekholm that he was not being dramatic, others insisted that he could afford the jacket and was angry over nothing. However, as he explained in a follow-up video, that line of thinking completely misses the point.
"The fact is, I should not have to afford the jacket, nor should any employee," he said. "The owner of the company who's employing us can afford to give us the [expletive] jackets."
It's truly the principle of the matter. The cost of the jacket for an employee could mean skipping a meal or struggling to afford their bills. Yet it would likely have no impact on the corporation's owner.
As one commenter sarcastically pointed out, if the owner provided the jackets free of cost, "he might then only be worth $18.89 billion instead of $18.90 billion. That would be so tragic for him."
Legally, employers can make employees pay for their uniforms so long as it doesn't put their salary below minimum wage.
The laws vary from state to state, but federally, employers are allowed to charge employees for their uniforms, provided they get paid more than minimum wage.
"Federal law allows employers to deduct the cost of supplying and maintaining a uniform (having it mended or cleaned and pressed) from an employee's paycheck, as long as the employee's wages after the deduction don't fall below the minimum wage," NOLO explained.
Although Ekholm said that the jacket cost more than his hourly wage, it appears to be an optional part of the uniform — as in the other option is simply being cold — so this law likely doesn't apply.
Some states — like California, Massachusetts, and Oregon, to name a few — have their own laws that prevent employers from requiring employees to pay for uniforms at all. Unfortunately, it seems Ekholm doesn't live in one of these states.
Sahlah Syeda is a writer who covers relationships, culture, and human interest topics.