Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	CONTINGENCIES Contingencies The Company assesses its exposure related to legal matters, including those pertaining to product liability, safety and health matters and other items that arise in the regular course of its business. If the Company determines that it is probable a loss has been incurred, the amount of the loss, or an amount within the range of loss, that can be reasonably estimated will be recorded. Environmental Remediation The Company accrues for losses associated with environmental remediation obligations when such losses are probable and estimable. Remediation obligations are accrued based on the latest available information and are recorded at undiscounted amounts. The Company regularly monitors the progress of environmental remediation. If studies indicate that the cost of remediation has changed from the previous estimate, an adjustment to the liability would be recorded in the period in which such determination is made. (See Note 21). Legal Proceedings The Company has been sued, together with the 3M Company and approximately 30 other carpet manufacturers, by the Gadsden (Alabama) Water Works in the circuit court of Etowah County Alabama [The Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden v. 3M Company, et al, civil action No. 31-CV-2016-900676.00] and by the Town of Centre (Alabama) Water Works in the circuit court of Cherokee County Alabama [The Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre v. 3M Company, et al, civil action No. 13-CV-2017-900049.00]. Both cases seek monetary damages and injunctive relief related to the use of certain chemical compounds in the manufacture and finishing of carpet products “in and around Dalton Georgia.” On motion of the defendants, the cases were removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Middle Division) Case No. 4:16-CV-01755-SGC and Case No. 4:17-CV-01026-KOB. Subsequently, the Gadsden Water Works filed a motion to have the case remanded back to the state court and such motion has been granted. The lawsuits allege that perflourinated compounds (“PFC”), perflourinated acid (“PFOA”) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (“PFOS”) manufactured by 3M were used in certain finishing and treatment processes by the defendants and, as a consequence of such use, were subsequently either discharged into or leached into the water systems around Dalton, Georgia. The Complaints seeks damages that exceed $10, but are otherwise unspecified in amount in addition to injunctive relief and punitive damages. The Company intends to defend the matters vigorously and is unable to estimate the potential exposure to loss, if any, at this time. The Company has received a class action complaint filed by Carlos Garcia, a current employee, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Fabrica [Carlos Garcia et al. vs. Fabrica International, Inc., et al., in the Superior Court of Orange County, California, Case No. 30-2017-00949461 CU-OE-CXC]. The complaint alleges causes of actions on behalf of classes of Fabrica’s current and former employees during the four-year period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint for failure to pay proper overtime wages, failure to compensate for all meal periods and rest periods, failure to pay all proper overtime and double time, and for the provision and maintaining of inaccurate wage statements. Finally, the complaint asserts a cause of action for unfair competition by means of the above actions and seeks restitution of monies supposedly unlawfully withheld and demands attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company has denied liability, is defending the matters vigorously and is unable to estimate the potential exposure to loss, if any, at this time. The Company is one of multiple parties to two current lawsuits filed in Madison County Illinois, styled Brenda Bridgeman, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Robert Bridgeman, Deceased, vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., f/k/a Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. et al No. 15-L-374 and styled Danny Atkins and Pamela Atkins, Pltfs., vs. Aurora Pump Company, et al. No. 18-L-2. Both lawsuits entail a claim for damages to be determined in excess of $50 filed on behalf of either a former employee or the estate of an individual which alleges that the deceased contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos while employed by the Company. Discovery in each matter is ongoing, and a tentative trial date has been set for one of the cases. The Company has denied liability, is defending the matters vigorously and is unable to estimate its potential exposure to loss, if any, at this time. In March of 2018, a similar lawsuit styled Charles Anderson, Pltf., vs. 3M Company, et al, No. 17-L-525 was dismissed. On April 24th, 2018, following the end of the quarter, a law firm claiming to represent one of the Company's shareholders owning 50 shares, sent a request for information concerning the Company's equity incentive plans, and equity awards granted under those plans to the Company's chairman and chief operating officer, alleging that the law firm is investigating “possible breaches of fiduciary duty” in approving such plans and such awards. All such equity plans were approved by shareholders, and all such awards were made in accordance with the applicable terms of the plans. The Company is responding to the request in accordance with applicable law. No claim or suit has been filed.

CONTINGENCIES

Contingencies

The Company assesses its exposure related to legal matters, including those pertaining to product liability, safety and health matters and other items that arise in the regular course of its business. If the Company determines that it is probable a loss has been incurred, the amount of the loss, or an amount within the range of loss, that can be reasonably estimated will be recorded.

Environmental Remediation

The Company accrues for losses associated with environmental remediation obligations when such losses are probable and estimable. Remediation obligations are accrued based on the latest available information and are recorded at undiscounted amounts. The Company regularly monitors the progress of environmental remediation. If studies indicate that the cost of remediation has changed from the previous estimate, an adjustment to the liability would be recorded in the period in which such determination is made. (See Note 21).

Legal Proceedings

The Company has been sued, together with the 3M Company and approximately 30 other carpet manufacturers, by the Gadsden (Alabama) Water Works in the circuit court of Etowah County Alabama [The Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden v. 3M Company, et al, civil action No. 31-CV-2016-900676.00] and by the Town of Centre (Alabama) Water Works in the circuit court of Cherokee County Alabama [The Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre v. 3M Company, et al, civil action No. 13-CV-2017-900049.00]. Both cases seek monetary damages and injunctive relief related to the use of certain chemical compounds in the manufacture and finishing of carpet products “in and around Dalton Georgia.” On motion of the defendants, the cases were removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Middle Division) Case No. 4:16-CV-01755-SGC and Case No. 4:17-CV-01026-KOB. Subsequently, the Gadsden Water Works filed a motion to have the case remanded back to the state court and such motion has been granted. The lawsuits allege that perflourinated compounds (“PFC”), perflourinated acid (“PFOA”) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (“PFOS”) manufactured by 3M were used in certain finishing and treatment processes by the defendants and, as a consequence of such use, were subsequently either discharged into or leached into the water systems around Dalton, Georgia. The Complaints seeks damages that exceed $10, but are otherwise unspecified in amount in addition to injunctive relief and punitive damages. The Company intends to defend the matters vigorously and is unable to estimate the potential exposure to loss, if any, at this time.

The Company has received a class action complaint filed by Carlos Garcia, a current employee, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Fabrica [Carlos Garcia et al. vs. Fabrica International, Inc., et al., in the Superior Court of Orange County, California, Case No. 30-2017-00949461 CU-OE-CXC]. The complaint alleges causes of actions on behalf of classes of Fabrica’s current and former employees during the four-year period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint for failure to pay proper overtime wages, failure to compensate for all meal periods and rest periods, failure to pay all proper overtime and double time, and for the provision and maintaining of inaccurate wage statements. Finally, the complaint asserts a cause of action for unfair competition by means of the above actions and seeks restitution of monies supposedly unlawfully withheld and demands attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company has denied liability, is defending the matters vigorously and is unable to estimate the potential exposure to loss, if any, at this time.

The Company is one of multiple parties to two current lawsuits filed in Madison County Illinois, styled Brenda Bridgeman, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Robert Bridgeman, Deceased, vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., f/k/a Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. et al No. 15-L-374 and styled Danny Atkins and Pamela Atkins, Pltfs., vs. Aurora Pump Company, et al. No. 18-L-2. Both lawsuits entail a claim for damages to be determined in excess of $50 filed on behalf of either a former employee or the estate of an individual which alleges that the deceased contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos while employed by the Company. Discovery in each matter is ongoing, and a tentative trial date has been set for one of the cases. The Company has denied liability, is defending the matters vigorously and is unable to estimate its potential exposure to loss, if any, at this time. In March of 2018, a similar lawsuit styled Charles Anderson, Pltf., vs. 3M Company, et al, No. 17-L-525 was dismissed.

On April 24th, 2018, following the end of the quarter, a law firm claiming to represent one of the Company's shareholders owning 50 shares, sent a request for information concerning the Company's equity incentive plans, and equity awards granted under those plans to the Company's chairman and chief operating officer, alleging that the law firm is investigating “possible breaches of fiduciary duty” in approving such plans and such awards. All such equity plans were approved by shareholders, and all such awards were made in accordance with the applicable terms of the plans. The Company is responding to the request in accordance with applicable law. No claim or suit has been filed.