[subego]

I’m not arguing the ordinance’s inadequacy is a reason to remove it, I’m arguing the ordinance’s inadequacy has direct bearing on the consequences of removing it.

That’s my beef with the Texas Tribune. They imply the consequences of its removal is a matter of life and death when it is in fact quite literally inconsequential.

[andi*pandi]

Why would a governor want to override a city ordinance.
a) because the state already has laws that cover it just as well
b) because the governor has heard from businesses who don't like it and wants to support business buddies
c) because the governor wants to punish cities that aren't the same party as him
d) because companies are always nice to their employees and never need laws to encourage them to do the right thing
e) profit

[reader50]

I disagree. Whether the rule removal is a matter of life and death is dependent on how kind the employers are on hot days. A single bad employer can turn it into life and death during a hot spell. So the Tribune's position is conditionally true (or false) rather than simply false. It will be true in the future, by an uncertain percentage.

Employees can quit a bad employer for their health - unless they have mouths to feed at home. Mortgages and car payments, etc. There has been a lot of job turnover recently, due to a tight labor market. But that won't always be the case, and mostly hasn't been during recent decades. I'd rather have an inadequate safety requirement than have none.

An employer is a little like a king. The King will not always be competent. Every once in awhile, you get a Joffrey.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

That’s my beef with the Texas Tribune. They imply the consequences of its removal is a matter of life and death when it is in fact quite literally inconsequential.

We're back to this?

Originally Posted by Laminar 

It seems that "the media is being misleading" has you really fired up, but "human beings are losing their lives due to insufficient worker protections" doesn't bother you.

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Why would a governor want to override a city ordinance.

The official line is to consolidate and simplify regulations. For the businesses it affects, the regulations they follow will now be the same statewide.

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

I disagree. Whether the rule removal is a matter of life and death is dependent on how kind the employers are on hot days. A single bad employer can turn it into life and death during a hot spell. So the Tribune's position is conditionally true (or false) rather than simply false. It will be true in the future, by an uncertain percentage.

The Tribune’s position is true if and only if the ordinance would have prevented the death.

I see this scenario as effectively impossible because in extreme heat, the protections provided by the ordinance are already way past the threshold of fatality

[subego]

Well, in Texas, implementing any necessary regulations is now in the hands of the state legislature.

I’ll start a list of ways we can best win them over.

1) Write an article implying they’re guilty of human rights violations.

[andi*pandi]

But but but the state interfering with city government, I'm pretty sure they'd be pissed if a Dem governor told a Red city what to do... wait

It's not about the workers. It might be about corporations having more rights than people.

It's def about saying FU to dem cities.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, in Texas, implementing any necessary regulations is now in the hands of the state legislature.

I’ll start a list of ways we can best win them over.

1) Write an article implying they’re guilty of human rights violations.

What do you think the path from journalist to law change looks like?

[subego]

Whatever it is, the truth appears only minimally involved.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Whatever it is, the truth appears only minimally involved.

No - map it out for me. What are the steps?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

No - map it out for me. What are the steps?

My apologies if I have misconstrued, but considering the tenor of our discussion thus far, I’m skeptical this is a genuine display of interest in what I have to say on the matter.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

My apologies if I have misconstrued, but considering the tenor of our discussion thus far, I’m skeptical this is a genuine display of interest in what I have to say on the matter.

I'm genuinely curious to know how you think legislative change comes about.

[subego]

I mean, even I’m not curious about my own opinion on that, and the question is pretty hopelessly broad.

Are you sure there isn’t some underlying point you wish to make which can just be stated directly?

A much simpler question, which only requires a yes or no answer, is whether it is okay for journalists to misrepresent the truth if it supports the legislative change I desire.

Generally, my answer is “no”. You?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

A much simpler question, which only requires a yes or no answer, is whether it is okay for journalists to misrepresent the truth if it supports the legislative change I desire.

Generally, my answer is “no”. You?

I don't know how to measure that. I see too many people overly confident in what their reactions would be in hypothetical scenarios to try and make the same mistake. I could see myself going both ways.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

I mean, even I’m not curious about my own opinion on that, and the question is pretty hopelessly broad.

Are you sure there isn’t some underlying point you wish to make which can just be stated directly?

A much simpler question, which only requires a yes or no answer, is whether it is okay for journalists to misrepresent the truth if it supports the legislative change I desire.

Generally, my answer is “no”. You?

I think the underlying question is: Since, except for the rare cases where investigative journalists uncover hitherto secret information, the journalists get their info FROM the legislators, why do you apparently believe that journalists influence legislation?

I can follow that legislators will occasionally use their positions on committees to float idiotic laws just to appease the morons who believe random bullshit pushed by dishonest "journalists" and who voted for them.

Is that what you mean?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

considering the tenor of our discussion thus far

Apologies if I've been curt or rude less than gracious. I know at times you like to pull a thread to see where it goes, not necessarily because you believe the thread but because you enjoy the journey. I took you saying, "Because I feel like getting myself in trouble…" as an indication that this wasn't necessarily your viewpoint, but you're playing devil's advocate for the sake of the discussion, so I didn't bother to show a lot of respect for a viewpoint that you don't necessarily hold. It is not my intent to disregard you or where you're coming from.

[subego]

You don’t have to apologize for anything.

I’m not playing devil’s advocate, but that shouldn’t dissuade you from coming at me hard.

As usual, as soon as stuff gets interesting, a ton of obligations have fallen into my lap so a full reply will take a bit.

[subego]

So, I haven’t addressed this in full yet, for reasons both good and bad, but the time has come…

Originally Posted by Laminar 

It seems that "the media is being misleading" has you really fired up, but "human beings are losing their lives due to insufficient worker protections" doesn't bother you.

I don’t think the dig you’re getting in here is wholly inaccurate, but does that alter the substance of my argument?

As to that substance, is “misleading” a fair assessment? Like I said, when it comes to mitigating the dangers of extreme heat, this bill has no consequence on the current state of affairs. The Tribune frames it as if the bill is restricting mandated access to water. I’m inclined to use harsher terms than “misleading”, and this without exploring whether the chasm placed between us and the truth was deliberately opened.

Is this a greater ill than people being worked to death? Taken on its own, obviously not. Of course, it wasn’t intended to be taken on its own but as a singular example of a widespread phenomenon. We are awash in untruth, and I say without a shred of hyperbole it rots our minds.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is this a greater ill than people being worked to death? Taken on its own, obviously not. Of course, it wasn’t intended to be taken on its own but as a singular example of a widespread phenomenon. We are awash in untruth, and I say without a shred of hyperbole it rots our minds.

Workers dying because their bosses are trying to make an extra buck off of their lives is also a widespread phenomenon.

And of all of the possible case studies of "media bad" you could have chosen, why did you pick one where:
1. The line between true or not is so contentious (water break and rest break are so near synonymous that only the nitpickiest internet expert would take issue with the difference)
2. The "bad guy" is the one arguing for more worker protections?

[subego]

1) I don’t see the difference between limited rest and limited water to be pedantic. As I said previously, I see the difference as so extreme I pick one over the other every single time. If I’m denied rest, I can do things do mitigate the danger. I can slow walk it. I can soak a towel and wrap it around my neck. What do I do when there’s no water?

2) Journalism is a game of the ends justify the means?

I picked this case study because it came across my feed, and without any further reading, struck me as too outlandish a claim to be true. I read into it, and surprise, surprise.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

What do I do when there’s no water?

Is that the claim the article makes?

[subego]

It’s what it implies.

If a water break is being nullified, it strongly implies access to water is being restricted.

It a water break is being nullified and access to water remains essentially unchanged, on what basis is it being termed a water break?

Don’t forget the part where the words water or heat aren’t used in the ordinance the article cites, and said ordinance is, and I quote, “hilariously inadequate” for extreme heat. Almost as if the ordinance had nothing to do with protection from heat.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

It’s what it implies.

I guess this is our disconnect.

[ghporter]

Growing up in Southeastern Michigan, I often visited Northern Ohio and Ontario. And being a kid, I usually wanted to eat something where I was visiting. So let's talk about hot dogs. Really, this is on-topic.

One place we went was Boblo Island, which is on the Ontario side of the Detroit River. And they had hot dog vendors all over the place. When I got one of those hot dogs, I noticed that it tasted "different" from the ones at home.

In Toledo, I had the chance to have a hot dog in a restaurant (NOT Tony Paco's; that place is awesome!), and it too tasted "different", though not the same "different" as the Ontario hot dog.

It turns out that Michigan's Department of Agriculture mandated tougher regulations for what goes into a hot dog than the US Federal Department of Agriculture, which were also, while not at odds, different from Canadian regulations.

The point is that it has been well established that local governments can institute more restrictive rules than higher levels of government, but cannot reduce the restrictions established by higher levels of government. To wit: a state can have more restrictive food content rules than the federal government, but a state cannot reduce the restrictions established by the federal government.

In Texas, the Legislature (bless their hearts) has seen fit to politicize a lot of things by passing laws that prevent cities from doing certain things. Like setting up better protections for workers than state law allows. And the suits that inhabit those beautiful granite halls are entirely about their financial supporters' pockets, and not at all about normal Texans.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I guess this is our disconnect.

Are you claiming it doesn’t imply that, or it doesn’t matter that it does?



Edit: assuming the latter, I have given reasoning for why “nullifying water breaks” implies “restricting access to water”. Can you show me the holes in my reasoning? I’m honestly baffled why it’s receiving such resistance. It seems straightforward to me.

The Tribune states this was an ordinance pertaining to water. It’s not.

[Laminar]

I'm saying it's several distinct steps to get from the words in the article to "What do I do when there’s no water," and those are not steps that everyone (or even a majority of people) would take.

Can you think of an example where a person was complaining of media bias, hyperbole, or misrepresentation, but you didn't think it was as big of a deal as they were making it out to be?

[subego]

Yes, and that’s a fair point. I was editing my post while you were writing yours, so allow me a moment to consolidate.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I'm saying it's several distinct steps to get from the words in the article to "What do I do when there’s no water," and those are not steps that everyone (or even a majority of people) would take.

In hindsight, I can see how badly I botched setting this up. I ask you to indulge me a bit and rewind to the beginning.

Here are the words of the article:

“As Texas swelters, local rules requiring water breaks for construction workers will soon be nullified.”

I know this is going to ruin my image of being a heartless bastard, but this inspires terror in me.

You’ve been giving a spirited defense of worker protections. If I was asked why what the Tribune wrote inspires me to terror, I’d cite your defense. Workers protections are written in blood, their removal will be written in more.

So, yes. I’m baffled. Do the words from the Tribune I quote above not provoke some form of extreme reaction from you?

[andi*pandi]

nearly 3 pages I think deserves its own thread.

[subego]

Thank you!

Alternative title: Texas Toast

[andi*pandi]

That's a good one!

Restricting breaks is effectively restricting water, as well as bathroom access, for anyone whose job does not allow easy access. Just ask the amazon warehouse workers.

Have you ever had a job where you had to ask permission from a boss to use the bathroom? or wait for a bell to ring to get water?

[subego]

The Austin ordinance cited by the Texas Tribune mandates a break for construction workers every three-and-a-half hours.

For a construction worker in 100° heat, access to water every three-and-a-half hours is going to kill them.

Since construction workers in Austin aren’t ending up dead, can we not surmise they have better access to water than would be provided for by the ordinance?

[andi*pandi]

https://www.texasobserver.org/texans...-water-breaks/

Only a few of these deaths were worker-related, but still.

However what we may have missed over the circular argument of what a "break" is, is the intent of this law is not just to remove breaks, but to limit the power of cities to enact laws.

In addition to overturning existing local ordinances, House Bill 2127 bans cities and counties from passing new ones at the risk of legal action. These include any bills concerning agriculture, finance, insurance, labor, natural resources, property, business and commerce, and occupations. A spokesperson for Abbott said in a statement that “ensuring the safety of Texans is a top priority as our state experiences high summer heat,” noting that invalidating local ordinances won’t prevent workers from taking breaks under the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) standards.

But come September 1, those water breaks in Dallas and Austin will no longer be mandatory. Some workers fear that bosses seeking to increase production will eliminate existing breaks.

The City of Houston has already filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the Death Star bill, alleging it is unconstitutional under the Home Rule provision of the Texas State Constitution. Although Houston does not have a mandatory water break ordinance, Mayor Sylvester Turner pointed to a city program that provides 30,000 uninsured people with healthcare that will be in danger if the courts do not intervene.

“HB 2127 reverses over 100 years of Texas constitutional law without amending the Constitution,” Turner said in a public statement. “Because Texas has long had the means to preempt local laws that conflict with State law, HB 2127 is unnecessary, dismantling the ability to govern at the level closest to the people and therefore punishing all Texas residents. Houston will fight so its residents retain their constitutional rights and have immediate local recourse to government.”

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

what we may have missed

That’s a strange way to phrase “what the Texas Tribune neglected”.

[subego]

Another worker heat death in Texas a few days ago.

A through-line between this one and the main one from Lam’s article is people seemingly not knowing what heat stroke is, or how to treat it.

[Laminar]

I definitely dropped off of this thread, sorry about that. Our facility had a heat death last year, and we've already had an incident this year that may have been a preexisting heart condition but also could have been heat related. Some leaders are taking the issue seriously, some are complaining about the "whiners" asking for fans for their 12 hour physical labor shifts in barely or completely unairconditioned space. It's a sore topic for me.

[subego]

No need to apologize! I felt I was the one who really dropped it.

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Our facility had a heat death last year

What happened?

I’ll probably have a ton of obnoxious follow-up questions. You won’t have to answer any of them, but I don’t want you to feel ambushed.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by subego 

Another worker heat death in Texas a few days ago.

A through-line between this one and the main one from Lam’s article is people seemingly not knowing what heat stroke is, or how to treat it.

if this is the same case I read about, I also have questions. There's enough blame to go around.

It seems like the friend of the kid who died tried to save him, but the boss was insistent the ambulance drivers do a drug test. He thought the kid was slacking off. Did that delay treatment? Did the friend pouring water on the kid not help at all? Did he actually try having the kid drink any of it? Did they have access to water all along, or only when it was far progressed? Are we going to blame a coworker who might have also been heat-compromised for not thinking straight?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

What happened?

I’ll probably have a ton of obnoxious follow-up questions. You won’t have to answer any of them, but I don’t want you to feel ambushed.

I believe the OSHA investigation is ongoing so I'm not sure how much I can say, and I don't really know that much as I wasn't involved. Basically, a group of contractors were cleaning out a large air filtration system that sits outdoors - they were essentially inside of a large metal box on a hot day in July. He apparently passed out due to heat stroke, they were able to get him to the hospital but they couldn't save him. Because they were contractors working for their own boss, I don't know what their break or water schedule was. Our standard is 10 minutes every 2 hours and 20 minutes for lunch year 'round. Since that incident, there are extra considerations given for non-production jobs in hot conditions, but I still hear people who sit in the air conditioned offices all day talk shit about the people working production all day in unairconditioned spaces in 90-100 degree weather.

[subego]

Thanks! I won’t press.

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

if this is the same case I read about, I also have questions. There's enough blame to go around.

It seems like the friend of the kid who died tried to save him, but the boss was insistent the ambulance drivers do a drug test. He thought the kid was slacking off. Did that delay treatment? Did the friend pouring water on the kid not help at all? Did he actually try having the kid drink any of it? Did they have access to water all along, or only when it was far progressed? Are we going to blame a coworker who might have also been heat-compromised for not thinking straight?

This is the same case, but I had forgotten it was from a year ago. Likewise, I have less details. What I did have is the part about the boss, who really fucked up.

My question is what caused him to go into a death spiral when no one else did. Ideally, the guy who died should have been able to recognize the symptoms of heat stroke long before it was too late and tapped-out once they appeared. Why didn’t this happen? Was it just the dick foreman?

Nobody else died, or even ended up in the hospital. While obviously not conclusive, it does point to the possibility of the cause being something specific to him. Like he was doing a task more difficult than everyone else, or he was more afraid than everyone else he’d get fired, to give two possibilities.

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by subego 

My question is what caused him to go into a death spiral when no one else did. Ideally, the guy who died should have been able to recognize the symptoms of heat stroke long before it was too late and tapped-out once they appeared. Why didn’t this happen? Was it just the dick foreman?

Nobody else died, or even ended up in the hospital. While obviously not conclusive, it does point to the possibility of the cause being something specific to him. Like he was doing a task more difficult than everyone else, or he was more afraid than everyone else he’d get fired, to give two possibilities.

Everyone’s physiology is different. His was simply more prone, at that moment, to heat stroke. As for recognizing it happening before it got bad...I have no earthly clue what heat stroke is like, so I doubt I would be able to recognize symptoms before I was in trouble.

There’s also the very real symptom of working in america where people are loathe to walk away from work just because they don’t feel well, for fear of being fired.

[subego]

With me, I start to get nauseous.

That people are scared to get fired if they tap out is definitely a thing.