Socks

[pete23]

When canal and river trust employees get given there uniforms the uniforms also come with a years supply of socks.

Discuss. 

[pearley]

How many is a years supply? 5 pairs a each week or 5 pairs to last the year?

Does that mean they get a new lot each year?

[MtB]

Four socks then?

 

Discussted of Tonbridge Wells.

 

[LadyG]

Not necessary in summer:  when I worked on the farm the tractor boy had not washed his feet for the four weeks of the silage season, you could not tell, either way, as they were black.

Occasionally i wear my leather boots without socks, in winter I get by with two or three pairs, outdoor types are best, easy to wash.

I had the impression that work clothes were protective, and generally specific to the trade.

So a barrister can claim for the pin stripe trousers because they would not be suited to a night out or a trip to Tesco 

 

 

 

Edited January 26 by LadyG

[MtB]

48 minutes ago, LadyG said:

So a barrister can claim for the pin stripe trousers because they would not be suited to a night out or a trip to Tesco 

 

 

No they can't. The doctrine "Duality of Purpose" applies here. 

 

 

[LadyG]

12 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

No they can't. The doctrine "Duality of Purpose" applies here. 

 

 

Are you sure, im a devotee of Rumpole of the Bailey, I'll need to listen to them all again. 

Update, test case in 1983 ruled against this, my sources were circa 1963.

Edited January 26 by LadyG

[frahkn]

14 hours ago, LadyG said:

Not necessary in summer:  when I worked on the farm the tractor boy had not washed his feet for the four weeks of the silage season, you could not tell, either way, as they were black.

Occasionally i wear my leather boots without socks, in winter I get by with two or three pairs, outdoor types are best, easy to wash.

I had the impression that work clothes were protective, and generally specific to the trade.

So a barrister can claim for the pin stripe trousers because they would not be suited to a night out or a trip to Tesco 

 

 

 

No she cannot, see Mallalieu v Drummond [1983] 2 A.C. 861.

 

Ann tried hard but lost.

Edited January 27 by frahkn

[IanD]

1 hour ago, frahkn said:

No she cannot, see Mallalieu v Drummond [1983] 2 A.C. 861.

 

Ann tried hard but lost.

IIRC you can only claim for "work clothes" if you can show that they are used 100% for work and 0% (or are simply unsuitable) for private use -- for example protective gear for welding.

 

Does anyone remember those utterly silly outfits worn on stage by bands like Abba in the 70s? One reason was allegedly that they could then claim the cost back against tax, at least in Sweden... 😉 

[Momac]

If you are an employee the employer has to provide relevant PPE free of charge , They don't have to be 100% for work although I wouldn't want to wear a high viability jacket etc other than in a work environment. 

Some PPE can include items to keep people warm eg a fleece jacket.  I think socks for people working in cold weather is reasonable although I can't say I ever received them.

[GUMPY]

I used to work for an American band called The Tubes Every day the promoter had to provide a pair of Tube Socks for every member of the crew.

Got to have been one of the oddest things that was on any bands rider.

 

[David Mack]

40 minutes ago, Momac said:

They don't have to be 100% for work although I wouldn't want to wear a high viability jacket etc other than in a work environment. 

When I worked on a construction site and was a regular WRGie the employer-issued PPE came in very handy.

[blackrose]

43 minutes ago, Momac said:

If you are an employee the employer has to provide relevant PPE free of charge , They don't have to be 100% for work although I wouldn't want to wear a high viability jacket etc other than in a work environment. 

 

 

Obviously that wouldn't be viable. 

[Alan de Enfield]

29 minutes ago, blackrose said:

 

Obviously that wouldn't be viable. 

 

Maybe it is typo for "high vulnerability jacket" ?

[MrsM]

When I worked for the BBC I was able to claim back an amount each year for foul-weather filming gear. As a result I was very well kitted out for our hikes (and warm when filming outdoors).

[Tonka]

When I worked for BA they offered us uniform. All my colleagues accepted apart from me. When you read the terms and conditions of wearing uniform you were only allowed to wear it at work and commutting to and from home. Going shopping on way home or going to a pub on way home was not allowed and if reported you could be reprimanded. That's why I refused

[Blueboat]

 

[rogher]

Navigator's socks

[DHutch]

On 26/01/2026 at 18:46, pete23 said:

When canal and river trust employees get given there uniforms the uniforms also come with a years supply of socks.

 

Pros and cons to all things, what are the specification of the socks? What is the justification for provision? 

 

One of our team here get both their underwear, poly cotton boxers, provided for them and washed on site. But there are specific reasons for that.

 

In the grand scheme of things, its not something I can get excited about.

[Alan de Enfield]

27 minutes ago, DHutch said:

But there are specific reasons for that.

 

 Doubly incontinent ?

[alias]

1 hour ago, rogher said:

Navigator's socks

 

I've got two pairs like that at home.

[Tonka]

4 minutes ago, alias said:

 

I've got two pairs like that at home.

And the wife always pair the reds together and the green together

[Tigerr]

I think the risk here is that staff abuse the work socks, and wear them in non-working situations. I can easily imagine how one might be tempted to slip into the pub on the way home, while wearing the work socks. This would create a tax issue, and could easily result in a prosecution. Not to mention the unreasonable wear to the socks involved - I mean what if there was dancing, or a proper barney in the car park? 

Isn't this why pubs have those signs up saying 'no uniforms or site-specific footwear, or dogs off leads'. 

 

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, Tigerr said:

I think the risk here is that staff abuse the work socks, and wear them in non-working situations. I can easily imagine how one might be tempted to slip into the pub on the way home, while wearing the work socks. This would create a tax issue, and could easily result in a prosecution. Not to mention the unreasonable wear to the socks involved - I mean what if there was dancing, or a proper barney in the car park? 

Isn't this why pubs have those signs up saying 'no uniforms or site-specific footwear, or dogs off leads'. 

 

Is that because the dogs might steal the socks and shred them? That's what my daughter's Sprocker loves to do given the chance... 😉 

Edited January 28 by IanD

[rogher]

2 hours ago, alias said:

 

I've got two pairs like that at home.

That's not odd...

[IanD]

1 minute ago, rogher said:

That's not odd...

Well it's not even either...