If a uniform is required in the workplace, who should pay for it? In most cases there is shared cost for both the employer and employee, but Walmart has changed their worker dress code and the workers are stuck with the cost, which is not going over well with the low-wage employees. Walmart's website says customer service workers must adapt the new look that gives them a couple of different options for pants and shirts. The problem is the workers have to pay for these new items out of their own pocket.

When the workers expressed their concern about the cost of the new dress code, Walmart simply reminded employees that they can apply their 10-percent associate discount toward the purchase of the necessary items, which in some cases are not exactly cheap, especially if you are a lower wage worker.

While the policy on pants has not changed, other than a new color option beyond the currently required khaki, it is the shirts that is causing the stink and the workers feel like Walmart should provide two shirts for each associate, with additional shirts to be purchased, which is fair.

More often than not in low-wage workplaces like retail and fast food, the employers will provide some or most of the uniform, but some items usually have to be purchased by the worker unless they receive some type of clothing allowance.

The workers are saying it is hard enough to support their families on their wages and having to add dress code expense is a hardship for some, but where do we draw the line?

While I do think in some situations, the employer should provide a couple of shirts and maybe a single pair of pants, the worker usually has some financial responsibility in this. The question is whether or not that is fair and to what extent should the expense be shared. Walmart certainly has the right to change their employee dress code, but should they heap the entire expense on the employee? You tell us.

 

[AOL]

 

More From WGBFAM