Delta, Alaska, and American Airlines Have All Been Sued Over Their Uniforms. (vox.com) 99
Rashes, blisters, and hair loss have all been reported. So has vomiting, migraines, and shortness of breath. All of these -- and more -- are symptoms reported by flight attendants after their airlines got new uniforms. But no one knows why. From a report: Delta is the latest airline to have flight attendants report health issues possibly related to their uniforms, and employees at the airline filed a lawsuit in May against the manufacturer, Lands' End. But flight attendants have been battling health issues that have appeared after an airline instituted new uniforms for years. And for years, airlines have said their uniforms are safe. Meanwhile, flight attendants and others are working to discover the cause of their symptoms and the identity and total number of chemicals present in their uniforms, all of which can be difficult to ascertain. Until the cause can be identified -- or until airlines start listening to employees and moving quickly after their complaints -- it's likely employees will continue to face symptoms. And it's likely that flight attendants will keep heading to court, where they've historically needed to go to get policy changed by their employers.
The problem was first reported after employees at Alaska Airlines got new uniforms toward the end of 2010 and beginning of 2011. Flight attendants began to report rashes and eye irritation, and documented hives, blisters, and scaly patches, according to a 2012 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) report looking into the issue. In 2013, flight attendants at Alaska Airlines filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the uniforms, Twin Hill, and the airline recalled the uniforms in 2014. In October 2016, Twin Hill won the lawsuit, with the court claiming there was no reliable evidence the injuries were caused by the uniforms.
The problem was first reported after employees at Alaska Airlines got new uniforms toward the end of 2010 and beginning of 2011. Flight attendants began to report rashes and eye irritation, and documented hives, blisters, and scaly patches, according to a 2012 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) report looking into the issue. In 2013, flight attendants at Alaska Airlines filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the uniforms, Twin Hill, and the airline recalled the uniforms in 2014. In October 2016, Twin Hill won the lawsuit, with the court claiming there was no reliable evidence the injuries were caused by the uniforms.
Re: (Score:2)
Chinese clothing manufacturers can use chemicals on clothing imported to the USA that USA manufacturers Cannot Use By USA Law!
I like "no-iron" business-type shirts but you can't buy them that are made in the USA. The EPA has outlawed the chemical for the "no-iron" feature BUT the EPA will allow China and other countries to ship them to the USA. Makes no sense! (Adds to the conspiracy theories that liberal want to destroy the USA from within, though.)
Re:Toxic plastic China factory offgassing "fabric" (Score:4, Interesting)
I assume that the chemical you're talking about is formaldehyde and this is what I found from EPA:
https://www.epa.gov/formaldehyde/laws-and-regulations-concerning-formaldehyde [epa.gov]
which deals primarily with manufacture of composite wood products and with dumping of formaldehyde waste into the air and water.
Re: (Score:2)
"the chemical" clearly refers to a single chemical; which one would you say is the one that EPA "outlawed"?
(Serious question)
Re: (Score:2)
If only the current head of the executive branch wasn't one of those country destroying liberals so he could change that!
But in general, import goods should be held to the same safety standards as American Made.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the problem. The same standards apply but they aren't HELD to them.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL (Score:2, Insightful)
Vox is still around?
I'll save you the trouble - it's bogus.
In 2013, flight attendants at Alaska Airlines filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the uniforms, Twin Hill, and the airline recalled the uniforms in 2014. In October 2016, Twin Hill won the lawsuit, with the court claiming there was no reliable evidence the injuries were caused by the uniforms.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here at Slashdot, every commenter gets their own personal anonymous profane troll to follow them around and spew bullshit that nobody takes seriously. It's just one of the perks of this fine website.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Then in 2016, shortly after flight attendants at American Airlines got new uniforms, also manufactured by Twin Hill, they began to show symptoms as well. Flight attendants reported rashes, blisters, open sores, and swelling. According to a 2018 NIOSH report appendix, there were no skin disorder complaints in the company’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration logs in 2015 — before the new uniforms. In 2016, there were 87 skin disorder entries, and 83 of those were reported to be related
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is whether this is a real effect or a a nocebo effect. Once one person reports the new uniform makes people sick, then anything happening to anyone might be attributed to the new uniform and it can even cause new real and physical symptoms to appear.
Nocebo mass delusion [theness.com] is an mindblowing phenomenon. Not saying this is what's happening here, just that is has to be part of the options until further investigation is done.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Up with mini skirts!
Down with panties!!!
Re: (Score:3)
I expect it may be in part of making sure the uniforms are modest yet fashionable.
I think they would be better off wearing scrubs. Having fitted clothing that is in contact with the skin yet not so tight that it will move and shift while walking.
Stewardesses are on their feed all the time yet they are wearing white collar office clothing. Scrubs may be easier to work with.
Re:I WILL SUE (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know about fashionable, Delta uniforms look pretty old fashioned to me. Basically the same as they were wearing in the 50s, with hints of 1900s bell-hop for the male uniforms.
In all the promo photos I found online the women seem to be wearing heels too, which must be a nightmare when they have to be on their feet for hours. The men's shoes don't look particularly comfortable either.
Airlines are the worst but it's high time we just ditched a lot of this "professional dress" BS like ties and shiny shoes. Work clothes should be practical.
Re: (Score:2)
the women seem to be wearing heels too,
This would seem to be at significant odds with their emergency roles.
Re: (Score:2)
Dry-Cleaning chemicals? (Score:3)
I wonder if most of these issues could be traced back to chemicals used in cleaning the uniforms, wouldn't all of them be dry-cleaned?
It seems like if you wear normal store clothing you'd be exposed to pretty much the same materials that go into uniforms...
Re:Dry-Cleaning chemicals? (Score:4, Informative)
No, many unique things be used to make or process clothing that can cause contact dermatitis, and there are a few the are NOTORIOUS for doing so:
formaldehyde can be used in finishing
various types of rubbers and reagents used vulcanize them including "mercapto mix" (itself made of a few things that can cause reactions) and other sulphur compounds
any of various pigments including cobalt, potassium dichromate, and in particular Disperse Blue 106 and 124
Re: (Score:2)
various types of rubbers and reagents used vulcanize them including "mercapto mix"
I'm not saying there are not things in clothing finishing that cannot cause some irritation, but I am thinking most people would be exposed to many of those things also just through the process of buying normal clothing yet that is not causing irritation...
So I am wondering what it is about the uniforms that differs, to me it seems like the element that would be more significant is that uniforms are dry-cleaned very regularly
Re: (Score:2)
There are dozens of compounds used with rubber alone, and perhaps the cheapest supplier/bidder (not necessarily a Chinese one, but they've been known in the past to commit the sin) may have used something not normally used (or even legally allowed)
Re: (Score:3)
Normal clothing have consumer protections if they use harmful chemicals.
Uniforms sold to businesses do not.
This is exactly the sort of thing you need to worry about when buying any sort of business tool. You can't just assume that it has the same safety conditions as retail items.
There are lots of really noxious chemicals that make clothes wrinkle-free or prevents stains. This is exactly the sort of symptoms that you should look for with this clear risk.
Re:Dry-Cleaning chemicals? (Score:4, Insightful)
Except these aren't every-day clothes, they're work clothes that need to be durable and long-lasting, easy to clean and not get creases etc. Furthermore I would not be surprised if there were safety regulations around airline employee uniform fabric as well, in terms of standing up to fires at least.
Those factors could easily result in chemicals or manufacturing processes that differ from regular commercial clothing.
Re: (Score:2)
These are uniforms that are worn for hours on end, far longer than the average person wears an article of clothing.
Hours on end?!?!?!? I can't imagine wearing clothes for that lo... hold on I need to go change my clothes, it's been nearly two hours! OK, I'm back. Where was I? Oh, yes: wearing clothes for hours on end...
Re: (Score:1)
I mean, it could have just been one shipment with a little extra pesticide spilled on it accidentally.
Re:Dry-Cleaning chemicals? (Score:5, Interesting)
We had exactly this issue with brand new ambulance paramedic and police uniforms in South Australia. The problems started at first use, even before any cleaning.
It occoured regardless of being dry cleaned or not. All the uniforms were pulled and replaced. Chemical residues in the clothing were the cause.
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au... [adelaidenow.com.au]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Uniforms are typically made to be not dry-clean only. Because it's a daily wear item, and dry cleaning is fairly expensive all in for daily wear items. Plus, if you need to wash them on the go, you'd have to find a dry cleaners.
So you'd have everyone washing their uniforms in their own laundry with their own detergents that they probably tolerate just fine.
Though, it could be
At least they have an union and FAA mandates (Score:3)
At least they have an union and FAA mandates so they have the power to shut things down if needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Viscose caused rashes (Score:1)
I've had rashes when wearing Viscose fabric clothing for three different clothing articles. Viscose is made by chemically breaking down bamboo into fibers which are then woven together to make thread.
Stopped wearing viscose and the rashes went away.
Flame resistance chemical? (Score:2)
Are the uniforms required to be flame resistant? Those chemicals might do it.
Maybe (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm scratching my head over the possible cause of this as well. It's not as if the American service industry in general has had this problem. Why would service industry types on a plane be outfitted differently?
Re: (Score:2)
They might have been trying something new.
For example, I imagine wrinkle and stain resistance would be beneficial for people that have to start half of their workdays out of a random hotel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There isn't a claim that it affects ALL flight attendants. Some people are more sensitive to some chemical than are others.
OTOH, someone above commented about "viscose" as a material. It could be an abrasive material rather than a chemical. And you still wouldn't (shouldn't) expect all people to be affected the same way.
Additionally, I'm afraid a court decision doesn't strike me as a good way of determining facts. It's a necessary step the way things are set up, but the standard in court is that the cla
Contact dermatitis (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Not generally. But there are flame resistant materials available - the problem with chemical based flame resistance is it wears out. This is fine if it's something that's not likely to be washed often (e.g., outerwear). In general, things like flame resistant jackets and such that were chemically treated last around 15 washes or so before the chemical is washed away. So you don't want to use it on a daily wear item or you'd be repl
Dominican made? (Score:2)
Maybe they were manufactured in the Dominican, where another unknown cause is making tourists ill, and sometimes terminal.
allergic reactions to uniforms in Australia (Score:2)
We had a couple of incidents of this:
police uniforms in 2012: https://www.adelaidenow.com.au... [adelaidenow.com.au]
and ambulance officer uniforms in 2015: https://www.abc.net.au/news/20... [abc.net.au]
Unfortunately nothing printed as to what actually happened, but I know with the ambulance uniforms just went back to wearing their old uniforms until it was sorted.
Made in China? (Score:1)
Were the uniforms or their fabrics imported from China or another non-Western country with low ethical standards?
The toxicity of the uniforms recalls the toxicity of drywall. A report [npr.org] by NPR states, " Between 2004 and 2007, an estimated 100,000 homes in more than 20 states were built with toxic drywall imported from China. Emissions from the drywall corrode plumbing and electrical systems. Homeowners also blame them for headaches and respiratory ailments."
Possibly a vapor-point issue . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Possibly a vapor-point issue. These people wear synthetic or partly synthetic fabrics that may possibly contain solvents which pose no problem at ground level, but in a pressurized-fuselage environment where the pressure is lower than what it is at, say, 10,000 feet, may be below the vapor point of residual solvents and plasticizers. Something for the lawyers to have a look at.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Insect sprays (Score:1)
I love how nobody actually points out that spraying insect repellant all over the cabin by the crew attendants at the beginning of each flight may also cause that effect. Every single flight. Can you imagine the total exposure to the stuff? But no, something that kills bugs is of course totally harmless to humans, even when used daily or several times per day. Sure, let's blame the clothing.
Isn't this why you're supposed to wash new clothes (Score:2)