Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2018
Notes To Financial Statements [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company is involved in various legal proceedings relating to environmental issues, employment, product liability, workers’ compensation claims and other matters. The Company periodically reviews the status of these proceedings with both inside and outside counsel, as well as an actuary for risk insurance. Management believes that the ultimate disposition of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on operations or financial condition taken as a whole. In the normal course of business, the Company is a party to administrative proceedings and litigation, before federal and state regulatory agencies, relating to environmental remediation with respect to claims involving the discharge of hazardous substances into the environment, generally at current and former manufacturing facilities. In addition, some of these claims assert that the Company is responsible for damages and liability, for remedial investigation and clean-up costs, with respect to sites that have never been owned or operated by the Company but the Company has been identified as a potentially responsible party ("PRP"). In connection with the 2010 merger with Black & Decker, the Company assumed certain commitments and contingent liabilities. Black & Decker is a party to litigation and administrative proceedings with respect to claims involving the discharge of hazardous substances into the environment at current and former manufacturing facilities and has also been named as a PRP in certain administrative proceedings. The Company, along with many other companies, has been named as a PRP in a number of administrative proceedings for the remediation of various waste sites, including 26 active Superfund sites. Current laws potentially impose joint and several liabilities upon each PRP. In assessing its potential liability at these sites, the Company has considered the following: whether responsibility is being disputed, the terms of existing agreements, experience at similar sites, and the Company’s volumetric contribution at these sites. The Company’s policy is to accrue environmental investigatory and remediation costs for identified sites when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. In the event that no amount in the range of probable loss is considered most likely, the minimum loss in the range is accrued. The amount of liability recorded is based on an evaluation of currently available facts with respect to each individual site and includes such factors as existing technology, presently enacted laws and regulations, and prior experience in remediation of contaminated sites. The liabilities recorded do not take into account any claims for recoveries from insurance or third parties. As assessments and remediation progress at individual sites, the amounts recorded are reviewed periodically and adjusted to reflect additional technical and legal information that becomes available. As of June 30, 2018 and December 30, 2017, the Company had reserves of $250.7 million and $176.1 million, respectively, for remediation activities associated with Company-owned properties, as well as for Superfund sites, for losses that are probable and estimable. Of the 2018 amount, $28.7 million is classified as current and $222.0 million as long-term which is expected to be paid over the estimated remediation period. The range of environmental remediation costs that is reasonably possible is $218.1 million to $351.6 million which is subject to change in the near term. The Company may be liable for environmental remediation of sites it no longer owns. Liabilities have been recorded on those sites in accordance with policy. As of June 30, 2018, the Company has recorded $12.2 million in other assets related to funding received by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and placed in a trust in accordance with the final settlement with the EPA, embodied in a Consent Decree approved by the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 3, 2013. Per the Consent Decree, Emhart Industries, Inc. (a dissolved, former indirectly wholly-owned subsidiary of The Black & Decker Corporation) (“Emhart”) has agreed to be responsible for an interim remedy at a site located in Rialto, California and formerly operated by West Coast Loading Corporation (“WCLC”), a defunct company for which Emhart was alleged to be liable as a successor. The remedy will be funded by (i) the amounts received from the EPA as gathered from multiple parties, and, to the extent necessary, (ii) Emhart's affiliate. The interim remedy requires the construction of a water treatment facility and the filtering of ground water at or around the site for a period of approximately 30 years or more. As of June 30, 2018, the Company's net cash obligation associated with remediation activities including WCLC assets is $238.5 million. The EPA has also asserted claims in federal court in Rhode Island against certain current and former affiliates of Black & Decker related to environmental contamination found at the Centredale Manor Restoration Project Superfund ("Centredale") site, located in North Providence, Rhode Island. The EPA has discovered a variety of contaminants at the site, including but not limited to, dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls, and pesticides. The EPA alleges that Black & Decker and certain of its current and former affiliates are liable for site clean-up costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA") as successors to the liability of Metro-Atlantic, Inc., a former operator at the site, and demanded reimbursement of the EPA’s costs related to this site. Black & Decker and certain of its current and former affiliates contest the EPA's allegation that they are responsible for the contamination, and have asserted contribution claims, counterclaims and cross-claims against a number of other PRPs, including the federal government as well as insurance carriers. The EPA released its Record of Decision ("ROD") in September 2012, which identified and described the EPA's selected remedial alternative for the site. Black & Decker and certain of its current and former affiliates contested the EPA's selection of the remedial alternative set forth in the ROD, on the grounds that the EPA's actions were arbitrary and capricious and otherwise not in accordance with law, and have proposed other equally-protective, more cost-effective alternatives. On June 10, 2014, the EPA issued an Administrative Order under Sec. 106 of CERCLA, instructing Emhart Industries, Inc. and Black & Decker to perform the remediation of Centredale pursuant to the ROD. Black & Decker and Emhart Industries, Inc. disputed the factual, legal and scientific bases cited by the EPA for such an administrative order and have provided the EPA with numerous good-faith bases for Black & Decker’s and Emhart Industries, Inc.’s declination to comply with the administrative order at this time. Black & Decker and Emhart Industries, Inc. continue to vigorously litigate the issue of their liability for environmental conditions at the Centredale site, including the completion of the Phase 1 trial in late July, 2015 and the completion of the Phase 2 trial in April, 2017. The Court in Phase 1 of the trial found that dioxin contamination at the Centredale site was not "divisible," and that Emhart was jointly and severally liable for dioxin contamination at the site. In its Phase 2 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, entered on August 17, 2017, the Court found that certain components of the EPA's selected remedy were arbitrary and capricious, and remanded the matter to the EPA while retaining jurisdiction over the ongoing remedy selection and implementation process. The Court also held in Phase 2 that Black and Decker had sufficient cause for its declination to comply with the EPA's June 10, 2014 administrative order and that no associated civil penalties or fines were warranted. The United States filed a Motion for Reconsideration concerning the Court's Phase 2 rulings and appealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Emhart's Motion to Dismiss the Appeal was denied without prejudice for consideration with the merits. On July 9, 2018, a Consent Decree was lodged with the United States District Court documenting the terms of a settlement between the Company and the United States for reimbursement of EPA's past costs and remediation of environmental contamination found at the Centredale site. The terms of the Consent Decree are subject to public comment and Court approval. Once approved and entered, the settlement will resolve outstanding issues relating to Phase 1 and 2 of the litigation with the United States. The 3rd Phase of the litigation and trial, which is in its relatively early stages, will address the potential allocation of liability to other PRPs who may have contributed to contamination of the Centredale site with dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls and other contaminants of concern. Based on the Company's estimated remediation and response cost obligations arising out of the Settlement reached with the United States (including the EPA’s past costs as well as costs of additional investigation, remediation, and related costs such as EPA’s oversight costs), the Company has increased its reserve for this site by $77.7 million to $145.8 million. Accordingly, in June 2018, the $77.7 million increase was recorded in Other, net in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income. The Company and approximately 47 other companies comprise the Lower Passaic Cooperating Parties Group (the “CPG”). The CPG members and other companies are parties to a May 2007 Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“AOC”) with the EPA to perform a remedial investigation/feasibility study (“RI/FS”) of the lower seventeen miles of the Lower Passaic River in New Jersey (the “River”). The Company’s potential liability stems from former operations in Newark, New Jersey. As an interim step related to the 2007 AOC, on June 18, 2012, the CPG members voluntarily entered into an AOC with the EPA for remediation actions focused solely at mile 10.9 of the River. The Company’s estimated costs related to the RI/FS and focused remediation action at mile 10.9, based on an interim allocation, are included in its environmental reserves. On April 11, 2014, the EPA issued a Focused Feasibility Study (“FFS”) and proposed plan which addressed various early action remediation alternatives for the lower 8.3 miles of the River. The EPA received public comment on the FFS and proposed plan (including comments from the CPG and other entities asserting that the FFS and proposed plan do not comply with CERCLA) which public comment period ended on August 20, 2014. The CPG submitted to the EPA a draft RI report in February 2015 and draft FS report in April 2015 for the entire lower seventeen miles of the River. On March 4, 2016, the EPA issued a Record of Decision selecting the remedy for the lower 8.3 miles of the River. The cleanup plan adopted by the EPA is now considered a final action for the lower 8.3 miles of the River and will include the removal of 3.5 million cubic yards of sediment, placement of a cap over the entire lower 8.3 miles of the River, and, according to the EPA, will cost approximately $1.4 billion and take 6 years to implement after the remedial design is completed. (The EPA estimates that the remedial design will take four years to complete.) The Company and 105 other parties received a letter dated March 31, 2016 from the EPA notifying such parties of potential liability for the costs of the cleanup of the lower 8.3 miles of the River and a letter dated March 30, 2017 stating that the EPA had offered 20 of the parties (not including the Company) an early cash out settlement. In a letter dated May 17, 2017, the EPA stated that these 20 parties did not discharge any of the eight hazardous substances identified as the contaminants of concern in the lower 8.3 mile ROD. In the March 30, 2017 letter, the EPA stated that other parties who did not discharge dioxins, furans or polychlorinated biphenyls (which are considered the contaminants of concern posing the greatest risk to human health or the environment) may also be eligible for cash out settlement, but expects those parties' allocation to be determined through a complex settlement analysis using a third-party allocator. The Company asserts that it did not discharge dioxins, furans or polychlorinated biphenyls and should be eligible for a cash out settlement. On September 30, 2016, Occidental Chemical Corporation ("OCC") entered into an agreement with the EPA to perform the remedial design for the cleanup plan for the lower 8.3 miles of the River. On June 30, 2018, OCC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against over 100 companies, including the Company, seeking CERCLA cost recovery or contribution for past costs relating to various investigations and cleanups OCC has conducted or is conducting in connection with the River. According to the complaint, OCC has incurred or is incurring costs which includes the estimated cost to complete the remedial design for the cleanup plan for the lower 8.3 miles of the River. OCC also seeks a declaratory judgment to hold the defendants liable for their proper shares of future response costs, including the remedial action for the lower 8.3 miles of the River. There has been no determination as to how the RI/FS will be modified in light of the EPA's decision to implement a final action for the lower 8.3 miles of the River. At this time, the Company cannot reasonably estimate its liability related to the remediation efforts, excluding the RI/FS and remediation actions at mile 10.9, as the RI/FS is ongoing, the ultimate remedial approach and associated cost for the upper portion of the River has not yet been determined, and the parties that will participate in funding the remediation and their respective allocations are not yet known. Per the terms of a Final Order and Judgment approved by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on January 22, 1991, Emhart is responsible for a percentage of remedial costs arising out of the Kerr McGee Chemical Corporation Superfund Site located in Jacksonville, Florida. On March 15, 2017, the Company received formal notification from the EPA that the EPA had issued a ROD selecting the preferred alternative identified in the Proposed Cleanup Plan. The cleanup adopted by the EPA is estimated to cost approximately $68.7 million. Accordingly, in the first quarter of 2017, the Company increased its reserve by $17.1 million which was recorded in Other, net in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income. The amount recorded for identified contingent liabilities is based on estimates. Amounts recorded are reviewed periodically and adjusted to reflect additional technical and legal information that becomes available. Actual costs to be incurred in future periods may vary from the estimates, given the inherent uncertainties in evaluating certain exposures. Subject to the imprecision in estimating future contingent liability costs, the Company does not expect that any sum it may have to pay in connection with these matters in excess of the amounts recorded will have a materially adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company is involved in various legal proceedings relating to environmental issues, employment, product liability, workers’ compensation claims and other matters. The Company periodically reviews the status of these proceedings with both inside and outside counsel, as well as an actuary for risk insurance. Management believes that the ultimate disposition of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on operations or financial condition taken as a whole.

In the normal course of business, the Company is a party to administrative proceedings and litigation, before federal and state regulatory agencies, relating to environmental remediation with respect to claims involving the discharge of hazardous substances into the environment, generally at current and former manufacturing facilities. In addition, some of these claims assert that the Company is responsible for damages and liability, for remedial investigation and clean-up costs, with respect to sites that have never been owned or operated by the Company but the Company has been identified as a potentially responsible party ("PRP").

In connection with the 2010 merger with Black & Decker, the Company assumed certain commitments and contingent liabilities. Black & Decker is a party to litigation and administrative proceedings with respect to claims involving the discharge of hazardous substances into the environment at current and former manufacturing facilities and has also been named as a PRP in certain administrative proceedings.

The Company, along with many other companies, has been named as a PRP in a number of administrative proceedings for the remediation of various waste sites, including 26 active Superfund sites. Current laws potentially impose joint and several liabilities upon each PRP. In assessing its potential liability at these sites, the Company has considered the following: whether responsibility is being disputed, the terms of existing agreements, experience at similar sites, and the Company’s volumetric contribution at these sites.

The Company’s policy is to accrue environmental investigatory and remediation costs for identified sites when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. In the event that no amount in the range of probable loss is considered most likely, the minimum loss in the range is accrued. The amount of liability recorded is based on an evaluation of currently available facts with respect to each individual site and includes such factors as existing technology, presently enacted laws and regulations, and prior experience in remediation of contaminated sites. The liabilities recorded do not take into account any claims for recoveries from insurance or third parties. As assessments and remediation progress at individual sites, the amounts recorded are reviewed periodically and adjusted to reflect additional technical and legal information that becomes available. As of June 30, 2018 and December 30, 2017, the Company had reserves of $250.7 million and $176.1 million, respectively, for remediation activities associated with Company-owned properties, as well as for Superfund sites, for losses that are probable and estimable. Of the 2018 amount, $28.7 million is classified as current and $222.0 million as long-term which is expected to be paid over the estimated remediation period. The range of environmental remediation costs that is reasonably possible is $218.1 million to $351.6 million which is subject to change in the near term. The Company may be liable for environmental remediation of sites it no longer owns. Liabilities have been recorded on those sites in accordance with policy.

As of June 30, 2018, the Company has recorded $12.2 million in other assets related to funding received by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and placed in a trust in accordance with the final settlement with the EPA, embodied in a Consent Decree approved by the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 3, 2013. Per the Consent Decree, Emhart Industries, Inc. (a dissolved, former indirectly wholly-owned subsidiary of The Black & Decker Corporation) (“Emhart”) has agreed to be responsible for an interim remedy at a site located in Rialto, California and formerly operated by West Coast Loading Corporation (“WCLC”), a defunct company for which Emhart was alleged to be liable as a successor. The remedy will be funded by (i) the amounts received from the EPA as gathered from multiple parties, and, to the extent necessary, (ii) Emhart's affiliate. The interim remedy requires the construction of a water treatment facility and the filtering of ground water at or around the site for a period of approximately 30 years or more. As of June 30, 2018, the Company's net cash obligation associated with remediation activities including WCLC assets is $238.5 million.

The EPA has also asserted claims in federal court in Rhode Island against certain current and former affiliates of Black & Decker related to environmental contamination found at the Centredale Manor Restoration Project Superfund ("Centredale") site, located in North Providence, Rhode Island. The EPA has discovered a variety of contaminants at the site, including but not limited to, dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls, and pesticides. The EPA alleges that Black & Decker and certain of its current and former affiliates are liable for site clean-up costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA") as successors to the liability of Metro-Atlantic, Inc., a former operator at the site, and demanded reimbursement of the EPA’s costs related to this site. Black & Decker and certain of its current and former affiliates contest the EPA's allegation that they are responsible for the contamination, and have asserted contribution claims, counterclaims and cross-claims against a number of other PRPs, including the federal government as well as insurance carriers. The EPA released its Record of Decision ("ROD") in September 2012, which identified and described the EPA's selected remedial alternative for the site. Black & Decker and certain of its current and former affiliates contested the EPA's selection of the remedial alternative set forth in the ROD, on the grounds that the EPA's actions were arbitrary and capricious and otherwise not in accordance with law, and have proposed other equally-protective, more cost-effective alternatives. On June 10, 2014, the EPA issued an Administrative Order under Sec. 106 of CERCLA, instructing Emhart Industries, Inc. and Black & Decker to perform the remediation of Centredale pursuant to the ROD. Black & Decker and Emhart Industries, Inc. disputed the factual, legal and scientific bases cited by the EPA for such an administrative order and have provided the EPA with numerous good-faith bases for Black & Decker’s and Emhart Industries, Inc.’s declination to comply with the administrative order at this time. Black & Decker and Emhart Industries, Inc. continue to vigorously litigate the issue of their liability for environmental conditions at the Centredale site, including the completion of the Phase 1 trial in late July, 2015 and the completion of the Phase 2 trial in April, 2017. The Court in Phase 1 of the trial found that dioxin contamination at the Centredale site was not "divisible," and that Emhart was jointly and severally liable for dioxin contamination at the site. In its Phase 2 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, entered on August 17, 2017, the Court found that certain components of the EPA's selected remedy were arbitrary and capricious, and remanded the matter to the EPA while retaining jurisdiction over the ongoing remedy selection and implementation process. The Court also held in Phase 2 that Black and Decker had sufficient cause for its declination to comply with the EPA's June 10, 2014 administrative order and that no associated civil penalties or fines were warranted. The United States filed a Motion for Reconsideration concerning the Court's Phase 2 rulings and appealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Emhart's Motion to Dismiss the Appeal was denied without prejudice for consideration with the merits. On July 9, 2018, a Consent Decree was lodged with the United States District Court documenting the terms of a settlement between the Company and the United States for reimbursement of EPA's past costs and remediation of environmental contamination found at the Centredale site. The terms of the Consent Decree are subject to public comment and Court approval. Once approved and entered, the settlement will resolve outstanding issues relating to Phase 1 and 2 of the litigation with the United States. The 3rd Phase of the litigation and trial, which is in its relatively early stages, will address the potential allocation of liability to other PRPs who may have contributed to contamination of the Centredale site with dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls and other contaminants of concern. Based on the Company's estimated remediation and response cost obligations arising out of the Settlement reached with the United States (including the EPA’s past costs as well as costs of additional investigation, remediation, and related costs such as EPA’s oversight costs), the Company has increased its reserve for this site by $77.7 million to $145.8 million. Accordingly, in June 2018, the $77.7 million increase was recorded in Other, net in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income.

The Company and approximately 47 other companies comprise the Lower Passaic Cooperating Parties Group (the “CPG”). The CPG members and other companies are parties to a May 2007 Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“AOC”) with the EPA to perform a remedial investigation/feasibility study (“RI/FS”) of the lower seventeen miles of the Lower Passaic River in New Jersey (the “River”). The Company’s potential liability stems from former operations in Newark, New Jersey. As an interim step related to the 2007 AOC, on June 18, 2012, the CPG members voluntarily entered into an AOC with the EPA for remediation actions focused solely at mile 10.9 of the River. The Company’s estimated costs related to the RI/FS and focused remediation action at mile 10.9, based on an interim allocation, are included in its environmental reserves. On April 11, 2014, the EPA issued a Focused Feasibility Study (“FFS”) and proposed plan which addressed various early action remediation alternatives for the lower 8.3 miles of the River. The EPA received public comment on the FFS and proposed plan (including comments from the CPG and other entities asserting that the FFS and proposed plan do not comply with CERCLA) which public comment period ended on August 20, 2014. The CPG submitted to the EPA a draft RI report in February 2015 and draft FS report in April 2015 for the entire lower seventeen miles of the River. On March 4, 2016, the EPA issued a Record of Decision selecting the remedy for the lower 8.3 miles of the River. The cleanup plan adopted by the EPA is now considered a final action for the lower 8.3 miles of the River and will include the removal of 3.5 million cubic yards of sediment, placement of a cap over the entire lower 8.3 miles of the River, and, according to the EPA, will cost approximately $1.4 billion and take 6 years to implement after the remedial design is completed. (The EPA estimates that the remedial design will take four years to complete.) The Company and 105 other parties received a letter dated March 31, 2016 from the EPA notifying such parties of potential liability for the costs of the cleanup of the lower 8.3 miles of the River and a letter dated March 30, 2017 stating that the EPA had offered 20 of the parties (not including the Company) an early cash out settlement. In a letter dated May 17, 2017, the EPA stated that these 20 parties did not discharge any of the eight hazardous substances identified as the contaminants of concern in the lower 8.3 mile ROD. In the March 30, 2017 letter, the EPA stated that other parties who did not discharge dioxins, furans or polychlorinated biphenyls (which are considered the contaminants of concern posing the greatest risk to human health or the environment) may also be eligible for cash out settlement, but expects those parties' allocation to be determined through a complex settlement analysis using a third-party allocator. The Company asserts that it did not discharge dioxins, furans or polychlorinated biphenyls and should be eligible for a cash out settlement. On September 30, 2016, Occidental Chemical Corporation ("OCC") entered into an agreement with the EPA to perform the remedial design for the cleanup plan for the lower 8.3 miles of the River. On June 30, 2018, OCC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against over 100 companies, including the Company, seeking CERCLA cost recovery or contribution for past costs relating to various investigations and cleanups OCC has conducted or is conducting in connection with the River. According to the complaint, OCC has incurred or is incurring costs which includes the estimated cost to complete the remedial design for the cleanup plan for the lower 8.3 miles of the River. OCC also seeks a declaratory judgment to hold the defendants liable for their proper shares of future response costs, including the remedial action for the lower 8.3 miles of the River. There has been no determination as to how the RI/FS will be modified in light of the EPA's decision to implement a final action for the lower 8.3 miles of the River. At this time, the Company cannot reasonably estimate its liability related to the remediation efforts, excluding the RI/FS and remediation actions at mile 10.9, as the RI/FS is ongoing, the ultimate remedial approach and associated cost for the upper portion of the River has not yet been determined, and the parties that will participate in funding the remediation and their respective allocations are not yet known.

Per the terms of a Final Order and Judgment approved by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on January 22, 1991, Emhart is responsible for a percentage of remedial costs arising out of the Kerr McGee Chemical Corporation Superfund Site located in Jacksonville, Florida. On March 15, 2017, the Company received formal notification from the EPA that the EPA had issued a ROD selecting the preferred alternative identified in the Proposed Cleanup Plan. The cleanup adopted by the EPA is estimated to cost approximately $68.7 million. Accordingly, in the first quarter of 2017, the Company increased its reserve by $17.1 million which was recorded in Other, net in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income.

The amount recorded for identified contingent liabilities is based on estimates. Amounts recorded are reviewed periodically and adjusted to reflect additional technical and legal information that becomes available. Actual costs to be incurred in future periods may vary from the estimates, given the inherent uncertainties in evaluating certain exposures. Subject to the imprecision in estimating future contingent liability costs, the Company does not expect that any sum it may have to pay in connection with these matters in excess of the amounts recorded will have a materially adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity.