this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2024
380 points (99.2% liked)

politics

18960 readers
4543 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 6 months ago (3 children)

"Supporters of the bill say it will establish uniform regulations instead of having inconsistent rules across the state, NBC News first reported."

I agree with this. There's shouldn't be a dozen different water break policies across a state. Especially when it effects a lot of people in lawn care and construction and road work that go all over the place for jobs. There should only be one good set of regulations for breaks and temp and humidity and what have you that blanket covers the state. There isn't any good reason that every city or county should each have their own. The state needs to make a good one.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 11 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Sure, but there aren't any other rules, so what you get is employers putting people in danger:

Florida employers would be required to follow general rules set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which has not yet issued standards for dangerously high temperatures, NBC News noted.

Which is the whole point of this.

Or as the first manager of my last job said "I don't have to give you SHIT except 20 minutes for lunch, and ONLY if your ass is here for 8 hours or more"

If they can get away with giving you nothing, then nothing is what you will get.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Hence when I said the state should make a set of good ones. It shouldn't be a county to county and city to city issue.

Then, if you did vote to to make it one, what of all the cities that don't make a policy? Or make a shitty one?

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 months ago

One easy option would be: we have a minimum standard, and people can choose something stricter if local conditions warrant.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The state and the federal government don't have one. This is actually to prevent any protections from being put in place at all.

[–] Spazz@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Stop it.

Stop pretending this is anything other than an attack on workers, there's no excuse

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What do you think happens when a city opts to make a really shitty heat policy because "fuck em", then a company works someone to death in the heat and their family has issues even suing or getting much from the company because instead of "our company policy on weather was garbage and not good enough" it's a case of "we were following the cities safety protocols".

The state needs to make a good policy for it. Not let dozens of different ones, or choosing to not have one at all, happen.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

The state needs to make a good policy for it

Great! But are they?

In true ex-Reddit fashion I didn’t read the article, but what I see here is only preventing locales from creating their own worker safety rules. If this is a two-parter establishing consistent rules across the state, people would be all for it. However it’s not. It’s only negative. It’s only consolidation of power without implementing that good policy. It’s only preventing other layers of government from improving worker safety