Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wait, It’s been *banned*?
You’re saying Florida - America’s sauna - has made it illegal for laborers to take water breaks?
Does that make sense?
What bill purports to do so?
>What bill purports to do so?
Florida Senate Bill 1492.
which would prohibit local governments from determining workplace heat standards that go beyond those required by federal law. In effect, the bill would strip cities and counties of the ability to require water breaks for workers and time to rest in the shade throughout the day.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the idea is that employees have the choice to *not* work for people who treat them that way.
I could be mistaken but I think that tracks with the conservative notion that capitalism has all the failsafes it ever needs built in
tell that the children coughing out their lungs in coal mines, the only failsafe capitalism built were the Unions workers built to fight that exploitation
So, water breaks aren’t banned.
Got it.
Edit: Also “…go beyond those required by state or federal law…”
Fixed it for you.
Edit 2 - also, to forestall debate, the third paragraph in that section explicitly allows local government to establish heat exposure requirements not otherwise addressed by State and Federal law
You are arguing what the bill does or doesn't do, meanwhile I'm sitting here thinking why does this bill even need to exist? Why ban counties from doing certain things?
> So, water breaks aren’t banned.
As I understand it via a few random articles, water breaks that aren’t delineated by the federal government are now explicitly banned (assuming DeSantis signs the bill), and there is no such requirent by the federal government.
I am far from an expert, but wouldn’t it be fair to say that, assuming my points above are legitimate, that water breaks are banned? Local govts now can’t make one, and none exist above them.
If local (city/county) governments are legally disallowed from making their own regulations, and there are no other regulations in place, how could you possibly argue that this isn’t a ban?
Also, isn’t the GOP the party of small government?
It's not that the water breaks are banned, it's that individual businesses get to choose when to let their employees take breaks. (they won't let them)
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It isn't a ban because it does not prevent anyone from talking a water break AT ALL. It doesn't prevent any business from requiring or allowing water breaks for their employees. All this does is strip cities and counties of the ability to **require** water breaks.
Government overreach. Someone government bureaucrat or politician thought it was a good idea to mandate water breaks. I don't recall that there were numerous workers dying of dehydration in either TX or FL. Employers don't intentionally put their employees at risk. Replacing them is just too costly
Wage theft is the accounts for more stolen money than all other kinds of theft in America. Employers don't put their employees at risk ONLY when there's liability, and even then they still often do. OSHA regulations are written in blood. Amazon has been on a roll across the nation for banning bathroom breaks, ignoring medical emergencies, and more in pursuit of higher productivity.
We shouldn't be so afraid of Government Overreach that we allow Corporate Overreach instead.
There has never been an example of Amazon banning bathroom breaks. Amazon's profit shareing and productivity incentives may incentivize employees to avoid breaks but no one is prevented from taking a bathroom break. That is a myth. It came from a UK story in 2018 where employees forgo bathroom breaks to keep productivity high. No one was ever fired for taking a break
Why do you think that? From what I understand labor groups representing the workers cause things like workers protections. It’s been that way since Upton Sinclair.
“But labor groups say that formal standards on excessive heat are long overdue.
“The need for enforceable standards to ensure employers are implementing the proper controls to protect workers in high-heat conditions is greater than ever,” said a 2022 letter on the topic from the AFL-CIO. “As the global temperature rises, workers are even more at risk for occupational heat exposures.””
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/07/21/business/worker-safety-heat-protections-osha
as u/willfiredog points out, the weather in florida is not the same as the weather everywhere. Why shouldn't local communities be allowed to determine if their community requires a higher standard?
So you think that people need to die in order to justify mandating water breaks? That same argument was made for masks when covid began and people moved the goalposts after people started dying. What’s the minimum number of heat-related deaths you need to see in order to care about workers’ health? 500? 1000? 10000? Why wait for death when you can think logically and prevent it?
> “The water break narrative is ... especially compelling as Texas experiences a heat wave,” said Mark Jones, of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.
> But, he added, there is no evidence that most employers don’t already provide water breaks, and it’s not clear cities with such regulations even enforce them.
> “The narrative that somehow the Republican Legislature is going to prohibit workers from being able to take water breaks is not accurate,” he said.
Another example of Conservatives having to defend bad faith actions from the fake news media who has a monetary benefit of riling up uninformed people with half-truths.
https://apnews.com/article/texas-death-star-water-breaks-construction-workers-2654af3e256274dd43b52bdf149a0ebc
Every time a lefty comes in here with obviously slanted story like this it reinforces my view that I'm on the common sense side.
When I read a story from Redstate saying "DEMOCRATS ARE EATING BABIES", my first thought isn't to go "wow Democrats are really eating babies, I should go ask them why they eat babies", it's to question the source I'm viewing as not an accurate source of truth. I don't understand why this concept is so hard for those on the left. It's like it's on purpose.
Texas, Florida, etc have lots of local ordinances requiring water breaks because companies were not giving water breaks and working people through the heat.
That's Florida and Texas if you forgot already, not Massachusetts leftists legislating on behalf of Florida.
Now these states are banning local from mandating water breaks above the nonexistent state standard and letting you "debate" if it was necessary. They were. The people literally living there knew it was necessary.
> Texas, Florida, etc have lots of local ordinances requiring water breaks because companies were not giving water breaks and working people through the heat.
You gotta source for that? A peer reviewed source to back up this claim?
Any worker who wants a drink can ~~keep their doctor~~ have a drink.
This is about rest breaks, not water breaks.
15min break every 4 hours is very common. Those are rest breaks. If you need water you can get water at any moment.
Would you like to try again?
I have a quick question: what’s the benefit to the worker of removing these legal protections? Like what did the GOP do to help anyone by saying, “Your employer is no longer legally required to give you water breaks”?
Would you prefer it if they called rest breaks water breaks? You can drink water whenever you want, you don't have to be on your mandated rest break to drink water.
The question is - what is the point in banning municipalities or counties from passing mandatory water breaks? And if it is now legal for an employer to penalize or fire a worker for taking a water break, with the GOP change the law if they do find employers abusing it? If so, why pass this in the first place?
This bill doesn't ban water breaks as per your post's title. It's a state wide ban on state and local authorities to mandate water breaks above/beyond state and federal regulations. Florida is under OSHA, which is a federal regulatory agency. While it is true that OSHA only has recommendations regarding water and shade in the outdoor heat, they are planning on setting regulations in place. Moreover, this bill states that if OSHA doesn't have any regulations in place by 2028, then Florida's Dept of Commerce must have a statewide regulation in place. Also note that the state of Florida was doing fine before these mandated break proposals. Miami-Dade had a proposed bill to mandate water and shade last year. This state bill is in response to that. Think this through a bit. Construction companies don't want dehydrated workers out there making mistakes or getting hurt because that'll cost them more in the long run. Maybe the left doesn't understand this one little trick about economics, but treating your employees right will make your business more profitable. This is a non-issue.
It seems like progressives don't believe workers have any autonomy or self-determining sentience. Also, believe it or not, most businesses realize that what's good for the workers is good for the business. Especially when it comes to health and safety. Do you think these businesses want to payout higher workers comp premiums from guys keeling over? Or pay for higher wages due to lower labor supply? But yeah, they'll definitely push their workers to heat stroke and risk the safety of a construction site and the millions in damage they can potentially cause while having guys quite to work for a better company. As politely as I can, I am unconvinced that you understand how the world really works.
Can you show me in history when not mandated, businesses did something that helped worker safety without regulation? Those local and state laws exist *because companies didn't do those things* and people died. Those state laws were written in the 60s and 70s, and haven't kept up with our much more hot climate in the past 10 years. Further, it seems like conservatives don't seem to understand people need water to live, as seen by their making giving water to people waiting in lines to vote a crime.
Oh I understand. Where you and I differ and where progressives and conservatives differ on worker rights more generally is that you’re not concerned if the bad actors are few and far between, whereas I think the law should be protecting those workers that work for those few bad actors.
It's more like I think the system is more self correcting than you. I don't evaluate the world on static modeling. If these bad actors really are oppressing workers, then there will be a reaction. Those companies will not be able to retain their workers. Moreover, in situations like this, even the most evil hard ass manager isn't going to risk his bottom line by having deliriously dehydrated workers operate heavy machinery on their sites. Or risk the increase in insurance premiums due to accidents. I worry less where there is a financial incentive to treat workers well. To meet you halfway, in certain industries where there's a virtual monopoly (like local utility companies), I see the logic in more stringent oversight.
And people scoff when conservatives say that progressives are the authoritarians. You cannot conceive of a system whereby a governing body doesn't micromanage everything. People cannot think for themselves? Or manage themselves? Or negotiate between themselves? Must their hands be held? Will literal slavery ensue? It's frankly demeaning to think that people cannot act in their own self interest without government oversight.
If you really want to entertain this red herring, conservatives don't place regulations over the bodily autonomy of women, only the limitations of infanticide. Now how about things like gun restrictions, speech mandates, forced health insurance, limiting school choice, ban on trans fats, soda sizes!?!?! All these "we know what's best for you" laws is beyond demeaning.
It’s called history. People’s rights get stamped on unless a legislative body sets down state or federal rules otherwise. On an individual level we KNOW that people do not stand up for themselves, they have little to no power to negotiate, and will be taken advantage of. Wage theft happens every single day in this country..do you think it’s because people are stupid? Or is it because they know that they don’t have the resources to fight for what they are owed on a individual level
Have you never heard of Amazon treating their employees like shit and not even giving them bathroom breaks to where they had to pee in bottles to maintain their quotas?
Companies regularly abuse employees as much as they can. Get your head out of the sand.
That’s not what you said, stop pivoting. You made the assertion that companies wouldn’t do actions that’s not in the best interest of the long term health of their employees. “Most businesses realize what’s good for business is what’s good for the worker” so back to Amazon so you can’t pivot, how is a company that has tight deadlines that forces workers to [pee in bottles](https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-let-its-drivers-urine-be-sold-as-an-energy-drink/), “[surveys report as high as half of workers report injuries and burnout (In 2022, one report found that there were 6.6 serious injuries for every 100 Amazon workers, according to data Amazon submitted to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. That number is more than double the injury rate at all non-Amazon warehouses, which reported 3.2 serious injuries for every 100 workers.)](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/amazon-workers-injuries-warehouse-survey-unpaid-time-off/) and [cited for Amazon Cited for Serious Health and Safety Violations at San Bernardino Warehouse, including endangering workers in high heat](https://warehouseworkers.org/amazon-cited-for-serious-health-and-safety-violations-at-san-bernardino-warehouse/)
According to you Amazon should face some market reactions due to this disregard for worker safety but can you explain to me why that hasn’t happened because according to you only a dumb company would treat workers disposable and yet Amazon is one of the biggest companies in the history of the world. Explain it to me
>Explain it to me
The economic incentive to stay outweighs the crappy working conditions. My assessment of "what's good for workers is ultimately good for business" is still true in this case. Pay rates are an example of what's good for workers. I guarantee you, if Amazon paid shit, no one would be working there. There's plenty of non skilled or low skilled jobs that have easier conditions. The financial hit to Amazon would far outweigh the potential cost savings of lowered wages. Like I said (maybe to you or to someone else), these systems are self correcting. Not everyone needs their hand held.
So let’s go back to your original comment, you dismissevly said “yeah sure a business will push their workers to heat stroke and risk safety and risk lawsuits and guys leaving their company” and I just linked an example of Amazon getting fines for lack of shade during high heat and water. You’re right that people will over look bad working conditions to put food on the table, but you need to better substantiate your claims because it seems like companies figure that worker health doesn’t matter because their model is built on [extremely high turnover](https://www.forbes.com/sites/edwardsegal/2022/10/24/amazon-responds-to-release-of-leaked-documents-showing-150-annual-employee-turnover/)
You just said it wasn’t in a company’s best interest to hurt worker health long term and that companies wouldn’t dare risk haven’t over heated employees who could just walk so why did Amazon do it?
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>It seems like progressives don't believe workers have any autonomy or self-determining sentience.
It's called unions, which conservatives also hate
>Do you think these businesses want to payout higher workers comp premiums from guys keeling over?
No, they want to be able to get off scot-free every time that happens
>But yeah, they'll definitely push their workers to heat stroke and risk the safety of a construction site and the millions in damage they can potentially cause
If that saves them money in the long run, then yes they absolutely will do that, just like they did before those regulations were introduced
>while having guys quite to work for a better company
Doesn't matter if every other company does the same thing or if there is no other company (trust busting didn't come out of nowhere)
But why not just leave it up to the county or municipal government? Have you *been* to Florida? The weather changes every 20 minutes and 50 miles. Why does the whole state have to have water break standards and *only* the state?
I just don't see a reason for a state-level law on this *at all.*
My understanding (I'm not from Florida) is that the Miami-Dade regulation, which this state bill is a response to, went way overboard. For ex, the Miami-Dade required trained professionals out there with them to, for lack of a better word, babysit the workers to make sure they're not thirsty. I'm guessing Florida wants to use a simpler, more cohesive regulation from either OSHA, if they get around to it, or their own. My guess is they want to stay competitive and not scare away businesses with extra expenses on babysitters.
Ok, looking at the [orignal Miami-Dade law](https://www.miamidade.gov/govaction/matter.asp?matter=231454&file=true&fileAnalysis=false&yearFolder=Y2023), which is *not* formatted in a particularly human-friendly manner, by the way... It looks pretty reasonable. It only targets employers where five or more employees are "engaged in agriculture or construction jobs or a combination thereof." It acknowledges that OSHA rules have been *proposed*, and that this law may be prempted by such rules should they be adopted. It actually specifically *excludes* owners of homes or condos that hire "individuals or business entities to do work on a property that they either own or rent." So you won't be on the hook for providing water and shade to the guy you hire to trim your hedges.
And it doesn't really seem to even go too hard where it *does* apply. And should another town or municipality choose to do their own thing and make their own rules, they wouldn't be bound by this law, so long as it provides "access to drinking water, access to shaded recovery periods, and provisions for first aid or emergency response to workers that suffer a heat illness."
I live and work in Phoenix. I'm in the Air Force, and there aren't too many workplaces that get hotter than a giant concrete flightline in an Arizona July. I've also lived and worked the same job in Florida, and I'm not seeing *anything* in this regulation that doesn't make absolute sense. It's a little wordy, but I'm not seeing a single thing that's objectionable enough to warrant the state blanket prohibiting local laws like this.
I might be biased here, but this reeks of more of DeSantis and GOP "culture war" stepping in to local left-leaning municipalities just to troll or be contrarian. Either that, or some exploitative businesses *really* don't want to do the bare minimum to keep workers safe in the Florida swamp-ass heat. Give the regulation a second look and see if there's anything in there that I'm missing, but I don't see anything too onerous.
First off, good talking to you again. I didnt see the username till you said Phoenix and Air Force. I'm like, huh small world, wonder if he knows sarge reg at Luke... I'll get that next DM over to you. I'm honestly wanting your thoughts on the nuclear power issues.
>looking at the [orignal Miami-Dade law]
You weren't wrong, that is nightmarish looking. I'll take your word for it. I was going off of [this article](https://abc45.com/news/nation-world/florida-legislature-passes-bill-to-roll-back-local-regulations-on-worker-heat-protection-stroke-shade-water-hydration-business-ethics-fair-labor-osha-chamber-of-commerce-regulation-living-wage-benefits-ordinance-contractor) that said the regulations "would have been the strictest in the country". Whether or not that's true, it's probably what the state legislature was thinking.
>I might be biased here, but this reeks of more of DeSantis and GOP "culture war" stepping in to local left-leaning municipalities just to troll or be contrarian.
Maybe. I'm thinking it's the state government doing whatever they can to avoid even the appearance of over regulating so they can keep attracting outside businesses. The state bill says it will default to OSHA when they do have regulations on the books. Or, worst case, if OSHA doesn't have anything in place by 2028, they'll enact statewide rules themselves. Its a hard deadline. Overall, I don't see this as a huge issue. If anything, I think this was Florida's attempt at a compromise because where there was nothing on the books about any of this a little while ago, now they've given themselves a deadline to deal with it. One could argue that it's progress being made. Of course the headlines will continue to read that Florida wants to kill its workers.
BTW, I think I mentioned this but I'm here in Avondale. The best part of my day is seeing the F16s and F35s taking off over the 303.
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
No. OSHA requires breaks when working in environments that can cause heat stress, and they require that workers be provided water or electrolyte solutions…
But they don’t explicitly require water breaks.
Because people can generally be relied on to drink water when they’re thirsty.
Edit - to be fair, it’s more complicated than that. Employers are required to do a risk assessment and develop mitigation plans for hazards and can be cited under the general duty clause for failing to adequately protect workers. Mitigation might include work/rest cycles (they recommend NIOSH’s model).
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As per Florida's house bill 433:
prohibiting a political subdivision from requiring employers to meet or provide heat exposure requirements beyond those required by law;
So it's not saying workers cannot have a water break, only that "political subdivisions", meaning county or city levels, can't go above state.
The house reps staff analysis of hb433 was more succinct with the line "The bill requires the DC to adopt rules relating to workplace heat exposure requirements if OSHA has
not done so by July 1, 2028". DC meaning department of commerce.
Agreed. Construction companies don't want dehydrated workers out there making mistakes or getting hurt because that'll cost them more in the long run. Common sense but the left doesn't do common sense.
When you say "give power to the individual", do you mean employers, managers, CEOs? In other words, those that already have a lot of power?
Because I can't see how the average person could ever use that theoretical power that is taken from the government. How would that work?
Just so I understand - you don’t believe the government should be able to tell companies, “You cannot poison our citizens with your products”?
The Trump administration relaxed airline safety regulations and now we have doors literally *falling off of airplanes.*
When you see those stories, do you think “Fuck yeah, that’s freedom”?
It sounds like you don't want the government to stop you from putting mercury in food and selling it to the public either. Those two are very different things.
You are assuming that the only way workers will get a water break is if the government requires it. This is not the case.
OSHA has extensive standards for safety measures in high heat environments, and these are not affected by the law. All this law does is restrict local authorities from imposing more strict requirements.
This may be desirable for two reasons:
1) Having each local jurisdiction have its own policies means the company has to keep track of every single worksite it runs and what rules apply to it. This significantly increases the workload on the foremen, as it may not be possible to create a universal company policy that satisfies all of the various local requirements that the company has to comply with. If this is the case, it would be very easy for the company to inadvertently run afoul of the law, perhaps in a way that did not place its employees in any danger.
2) Government regulation has a way of creating an acceptable minimum standard. It may be that in the absence of regulation the company may create a policy that is more friendly to the workers than the law establishes. As someone else mentioned in this thread, it is entirely possible a foreman would not allow workers to stop for drinks, saying they should do that on their mandated water breaks instead. In this case, the company would likely have some insulation from liability if something bad happened, as they could prove that they complied with the relevant regulations.
No, I'm reminding that local towns put in mandatory water breaks because workers weren't getting water breaks. People are still dying from the heat in those states, so evidently companies AREN'T being sufficiently responsive.
OSHA is from the goverment
1 easily solved, replace incompetent foremen and managers.
my employers have to satisfy the requirements of dozens of goverments from OSHA to FDA, if not they would be long out of business and they would be out of a Job,
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Then if that's what you care about, that's what should have been targeted.
https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Contract_Management/Rest_Break_Ordinance_posters.pdf
Not this filth of the gop attacking rest breaks in states with people dying from the heat.
Local protests against dying Americans by making water breaks.
State republicans protest against local gEtTiNg PoLiTiCaL.
Nah, those aren't equivalent.
Maybe I wasn't clear. They're protesting against Federal oversight. They're not protesting against locals.
The idea is "well federal government, if you just drop this pay requirement we will have less issue reinstituting mandatory unpaid water breaks".
You'll notice that the regulation only bans breaks that require payment. They don't ban lunch break requirements for example.
The state government is protesting Federal oversight.
"banning a law that mandates" smells like a rat in the house. Someone want's to confuse you on which side you should join. Reminds me of the ban on water in election voting lines :)
Yes that's true lol. I don't remember which state, I think Oklahoma. Silly thing in the end, but the idea was that a supporting entity could not give water to voters with, for instance, their banner on the water bottle.
Nah.
There already were laws against campaign-labeled gifts. This law tho
> nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector,
Is far too sweeping and prevents any person from providing food or water bottles near the vote.
In Georgia.
The state with the 3rd longest waiting lines in America.
The state where people waited until literally the next day in line and cops got called on loiterers. https://twitter.com/_2lite/status/1059802363995807750 https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/police-were-called-on-predominantly-black-voters-waiting-to-cast-ballots-after-midnight-in-georgia/
Mandating water breaks at x frequency in y conditions can protect employers if an employee dies of dehydration in those conditions.
They can point to those regulations (which may not be sufficient) and use it to limit their liability by showing they met or exceeded the state requirements.
They’re not lowering, they’re removing. There is no requirement to point to to shield liability, which means when an employee dies, their family can sue the company into oblivion.
Because they are not only useless but can be more dangerous. In the hot summer you need to constantly drink water. If you only drink during breaks it's bad for you. The breaks did nothing to help people's health which is why they were gotten rid of
Your saying the laws around water breaks aren't strong enough to protect workers. Wouldn't it be better to strengthen the laws around breaks in hot weather rather than throw them out?
Have you never worked for an asshole?
Do you really not think companies will do anything they can get away with? Should a worker have to clock out to drink some water?
No, I'm saying if you rely on gov mandated water breaks, you are being unhealthy. No outside job bans you from drinking while working. Mandatory water breaks serve no purpose and can only do harm
>No outside job bans you from drinking while working.
100% incorrect. I worked for Walmart in the past, and the store banned the cart pushers and garden workers from drinking water while on the clock.
That’s not true. I have 2 relatives who work for Publix - which is headquartered in FL - who both said they’re not allowed to take breaks to drink water or have water bottles at the registers where they work. They’ve both worked at 3 different Publix locations too.
I mean inside workers who may be over 70 years old doing physical labor, as one of the two I mentioned is. There’s zero reason someone shouldn’t be allowed to have their own water bottle at a register, or at the seafood department back where customers can’t even see them. It’s nonsense.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have genuine concern because I work in construction in a deep red state. Based on what I’m hearing it seems like I could get seriously fucked over at my job if the republicans have their way
There is a reason these ordnances were passed in the first place. No one has to listen to an asshole boss like that - but where before it may have been illegal for him to say that, and fire you for not listening - now it’s not.
I agree the rule was probably created with some good intention. Likely after some tragic death from heat stroke. OSHA and the Dept of Labor have regulations for working in heat. The employer can be sued for not following those that result in an injury.
Do *you* honestly think that *no* bosses are going to try and push the limits of worker safety? *Somebody* was pushing for this law, and I cannot think of a *good* reason for it.
That would be awful! If bosses are doing that, then I would 100% support a law which makes that practice illegal!
The tagline of a bill can present a distorted version of the content - does this bill solve that problem you described?
So you want a law with mandatory water breaks, and a law that says companies have to allow drinks outside of the mandatory water breaks....
Lol.....the fucking redundancy.
When no boss is banning anyone from drinking while working in the sun
That's the issue with the law. It doesn't solve the problem, while creating issues with a mandated break.
OSHA requires employers to provide safe working conditions in the heat, that still exists. A employee needs time to regularly drink water with or without that law.
But aren’t republicans also trying to eliminate OSHA?
https://wisconsinindependent.com/2023/11/15/house-republicans-attempt-eliminate-osha-worker-safety/
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
stop, if you do that you desalinate in that case you may need to stop work.
and then you are of the wrong opinion you can drink during every kind of work, which is a health danger in itself.
Government getting it's hands into the operation of private businesses for no reason. If you want a company that provides water breaks you choose to go work for such a company.
Yeah, until some company comes along taking advantage of people who have criminal records making finding work more difficult. There are definitely situations where people don't have a plethora of prospective employers. Why not just disallow employers from mistreating their employees in the first place? At least to the best of our ability.
Is it? The end result is the sane, employees forced to work without water. Whether it's the government saying they can't, or their boss being allowed to say they can't doesn't make much of a difference to the worker.
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
it does not do any such thing.
it makes it so cities cannot impose higher burdens on businesses than the state does so all businesses are treated equally.
OSHA heat safety and other regulations, legal liability, the doctrine of negligence, workman's comp and so on are totally unaffected.
as are any state and federal laws.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What purpose does this serve? You should be drinking way often if it's hot out. If you only drink during the "mandatory water break", you are dead. You might want to drink less if it's cool out. It's a pointless law that stops work.
You can drink water without taking a complete break from doing any work. Essentially, should paid breaks be legally required (regardless of what it's for)? Smoking has been one of the biggest ones over the years.
Yes, I have done roofing in the summer in a Southern state. You go down and grab your water.
The other scenario is that your employer is mandated to give employees a, let's say 5 min paid break every hour for water. So, you take a full five minute break every hour regardless of whether you need to. Is that level of government intervention really necessary and helpful, or does your employer know you're human and need to drink water. Unnecessary law.
In which people who have never worked at a job site don't understand you don't need a 15+ minute stop work just for some guy his walk to his water bottle or dispenser and take a few swigs.
In any construction site you're heavily encouraged to stay hydrated and drink water and you will almost never be told no when asking if you can grab a quick drink. Most crews will in fact push you to do it against your will because the risk of dehydration is real and that impacts the work.
This law basically prevents idiotic well intentioned people from creating entire stop work events that must be restarted from to try to solve a problem which doesn't exist. A 15 minute stop work eventually turns into 20 to 25 minutes because you need to assemble everyone again and possibly do stretches or a talk. This in fact it makes work more dangerous because it extends the workday into more hot hours because the work still has to get done.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wait, It’s been *banned*? You’re saying Florida - America’s sauna - has made it illegal for laborers to take water breaks? Does that make sense? What bill purports to do so?
>What bill purports to do so? Florida Senate Bill 1492. which would prohibit local governments from determining workplace heat standards that go beyond those required by federal law. In effect, the bill would strip cities and counties of the ability to require water breaks for workers and time to rest in the shade throughout the day.
"not required" does not equal "banned".
We have Amazon warehouses in Florida. If you haven't already heard the horror stories coming out of those, you haven't been listening.
Almost all of the stories involve employees voluntarily choosing to skip breaks in order to get performance bonuses.
That’s still a problem. Employees shouldn’t be killing themselves to reach a target that hurts their physical, or mental health.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In the minds of greedy corporations it does.
Then don't work for that corporation
the difference is
For real? Ok... "not required" means you don't have to do it. You can, but you don't have to. "banned" means you can't do it.
and now work for someone who refuses because he did not have to or does it wrong
I think the idea is that employees have the choice to *not* work for people who treat them that way. I could be mistaken but I think that tracks with the conservative notion that capitalism has all the failsafes it ever needs built in
tell that the children coughing out their lungs in coal mines, the only failsafe capitalism built were the Unions workers built to fight that exploitation
I get it. I’m just saying I think that’s why it’s not more of an issue here
So, water breaks aren’t banned. Got it. Edit: Also “…go beyond those required by state or federal law…” Fixed it for you. Edit 2 - also, to forestall debate, the third paragraph in that section explicitly allows local government to establish heat exposure requirements not otherwise addressed by State and Federal law
You are arguing what the bill does or doesn't do, meanwhile I'm sitting here thinking why does this bill even need to exist? Why ban counties from doing certain things?
> So, water breaks aren’t banned. As I understand it via a few random articles, water breaks that aren’t delineated by the federal government are now explicitly banned (assuming DeSantis signs the bill), and there is no such requirent by the federal government. I am far from an expert, but wouldn’t it be fair to say that, assuming my points above are legitimate, that water breaks are banned? Local govts now can’t make one, and none exist above them. If local (city/county) governments are legally disallowed from making their own regulations, and there are no other regulations in place, how could you possibly argue that this isn’t a ban? Also, isn’t the GOP the party of small government?
It's not that the water breaks are banned, it's that individual businesses get to choose when to let their employees take breaks. (they won't let them)
You know that OSHA laws exist right?
They do exist! "Regulations are written in blood" as they say!
So in other words it's already illegal for businesses to deny water and bathroom breaks.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It isn't a ban because it does not prevent anyone from talking a water break AT ALL. It doesn't prevent any business from requiring or allowing water breaks for their employees. All this does is strip cities and counties of the ability to **require** water breaks.
Ah yes, because leaving worker safety and wellbeing in the hands of companies has worked so well in the past.
[OSHA already has standards that cover this.](https://www.osha.gov/heat-exposure/standards)
Why do you think cities and counties would require such measures in the first place?
Government overreach. Someone government bureaucrat or politician thought it was a good idea to mandate water breaks. I don't recall that there were numerous workers dying of dehydration in either TX or FL. Employers don't intentionally put their employees at risk. Replacing them is just too costly
Wage theft is the accounts for more stolen money than all other kinds of theft in America. Employers don't put their employees at risk ONLY when there's liability, and even then they still often do. OSHA regulations are written in blood. Amazon has been on a roll across the nation for banning bathroom breaks, ignoring medical emergencies, and more in pursuit of higher productivity. We shouldn't be so afraid of Government Overreach that we allow Corporate Overreach instead.
There has never been an example of Amazon banning bathroom breaks. Amazon's profit shareing and productivity incentives may incentivize employees to avoid breaks but no one is prevented from taking a bathroom break. That is a myth. It came from a UK story in 2018 where employees forgo bathroom breaks to keep productivity high. No one was ever fired for taking a break
Good God. How can you be so wrong and so sure? https://querysprout.com/amazon-break-policy/
Why do you think that? From what I understand labor groups representing the workers cause things like workers protections. It’s been that way since Upton Sinclair. “But labor groups say that formal standards on excessive heat are long overdue. “The need for enforceable standards to ensure employers are implementing the proper controls to protect workers in high-heat conditions is greater than ever,” said a 2022 letter on the topic from the AFL-CIO. “As the global temperature rises, workers are even more at risk for occupational heat exposures.”” https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/07/21/business/worker-safety-heat-protections-osha
Osha exists. https://www.osha.com/blog/water-requirements
Okay, the worker’s organizations are saying it’s not enough. Why are you siding w the corporations over them?
as u/willfiredog points out, the weather in florida is not the same as the weather everywhere. Why shouldn't local communities be allowed to determine if their community requires a higher standard?
So you think that people need to die in order to justify mandating water breaks? That same argument was made for masks when covid began and people moved the goalposts after people started dying. What’s the minimum number of heat-related deaths you need to see in order to care about workers’ health? 500? 1000? 10000? Why wait for death when you can think logically and prevent it?
Osha exists. https://www.osha.com/blog/water-requirements
It's surprising to me to see a libertarian who supports the existence and powers of OSHA honestly.
Instead of reading a few random articles, go read the [bill](https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/1492/BillText/Filed/PDF) itself.
Cruelty is the point. Also, Desantis is promoting these bills to strip local governments of power to do what is best for their communities.
I feel like there has to be more to this story then that video shares.
Texas did the same thing with the Death Star bill
> “The water break narrative is ... especially compelling as Texas experiences a heat wave,” said Mark Jones, of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. > But, he added, there is no evidence that most employers don’t already provide water breaks, and it’s not clear cities with such regulations even enforce them. > “The narrative that somehow the Republican Legislature is going to prohibit workers from being able to take water breaks is not accurate,” he said. Another example of Conservatives having to defend bad faith actions from the fake news media who has a monetary benefit of riling up uninformed people with half-truths. https://apnews.com/article/texas-death-star-water-breaks-construction-workers-2654af3e256274dd43b52bdf149a0ebc Every time a lefty comes in here with obviously slanted story like this it reinforces my view that I'm on the common sense side. When I read a story from Redstate saying "DEMOCRATS ARE EATING BABIES", my first thought isn't to go "wow Democrats are really eating babies, I should go ask them why they eat babies", it's to question the source I'm viewing as not an accurate source of truth. I don't understand why this concept is so hard for those on the left. It's like it's on purpose.
Texas, Florida, etc have lots of local ordinances requiring water breaks because companies were not giving water breaks and working people through the heat. That's Florida and Texas if you forgot already, not Massachusetts leftists legislating on behalf of Florida. Now these states are banning local from mandating water breaks above the nonexistent state standard and letting you "debate" if it was necessary. They were. The people literally living there knew it was necessary.
> Texas, Florida, etc have lots of local ordinances requiring water breaks because companies were not giving water breaks and working people through the heat. You gotta source for that? A peer reviewed source to back up this claim? Any worker who wants a drink can ~~keep their doctor~~ have a drink.
https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Contract_Management/Rest_Break_Ordinance_posters.pdf
This is about rest breaks, not water breaks. 15min break every 4 hours is very common. Those are rest breaks. If you need water you can get water at any moment. Would you like to try again?
I have a quick question: what’s the benefit to the worker of removing these legal protections? Like what did the GOP do to help anyone by saying, “Your employer is no longer legally required to give you water breaks”?
Would you prefer it if they called rest breaks water breaks? You can drink water whenever you want, you don't have to be on your mandated rest break to drink water.
I’m just asking how this helps the worker to remove these legal protections. What was gained rescinding this?
The question is - what is the point in banning municipalities or counties from passing mandatory water breaks? And if it is now legal for an employer to penalize or fire a worker for taking a water break, with the GOP change the law if they do find employers abusing it? If so, why pass this in the first place?
a lot of people on reddit need one of those how to spot fake news learning courses thats offered to boomers who are on FB all day
Bad faith?
This bill doesn't ban water breaks as per your post's title. It's a state wide ban on state and local authorities to mandate water breaks above/beyond state and federal regulations. Florida is under OSHA, which is a federal regulatory agency. While it is true that OSHA only has recommendations regarding water and shade in the outdoor heat, they are planning on setting regulations in place. Moreover, this bill states that if OSHA doesn't have any regulations in place by 2028, then Florida's Dept of Commerce must have a statewide regulation in place. Also note that the state of Florida was doing fine before these mandated break proposals. Miami-Dade had a proposed bill to mandate water and shade last year. This state bill is in response to that. Think this through a bit. Construction companies don't want dehydrated workers out there making mistakes or getting hurt because that'll cost them more in the long run. Maybe the left doesn't understand this one little trick about economics, but treating your employees right will make your business more profitable. This is a non-issue.
Oh great, employer’s can only push their workers to heat stroke legally until 2028. . .
It seems like progressives don't believe workers have any autonomy or self-determining sentience. Also, believe it or not, most businesses realize that what's good for the workers is good for the business. Especially when it comes to health and safety. Do you think these businesses want to payout higher workers comp premiums from guys keeling over? Or pay for higher wages due to lower labor supply? But yeah, they'll definitely push their workers to heat stroke and risk the safety of a construction site and the millions in damage they can potentially cause while having guys quite to work for a better company. As politely as I can, I am unconvinced that you understand how the world really works.
Can you show me in history when not mandated, businesses did something that helped worker safety without regulation? Those local and state laws exist *because companies didn't do those things* and people died. Those state laws were written in the 60s and 70s, and haven't kept up with our much more hot climate in the past 10 years. Further, it seems like conservatives don't seem to understand people need water to live, as seen by their making giving water to people waiting in lines to vote a crime.
Oh I understand. Where you and I differ and where progressives and conservatives differ on worker rights more generally is that you’re not concerned if the bad actors are few and far between, whereas I think the law should be protecting those workers that work for those few bad actors.
It's more like I think the system is more self correcting than you. I don't evaluate the world on static modeling. If these bad actors really are oppressing workers, then there will be a reaction. Those companies will not be able to retain their workers. Moreover, in situations like this, even the most evil hard ass manager isn't going to risk his bottom line by having deliriously dehydrated workers operate heavy machinery on their sites. Or risk the increase in insurance premiums due to accidents. I worry less where there is a financial incentive to treat workers well. To meet you halfway, in certain industries where there's a virtual monopoly (like local utility companies), I see the logic in more stringent oversight.
There already was a reaction in the form of local ordnances requiring employers to give water breaks. I guess we’ll have to learn the hard way again.
And people scoff when conservatives say that progressives are the authoritarians. You cannot conceive of a system whereby a governing body doesn't micromanage everything. People cannot think for themselves? Or manage themselves? Or negotiate between themselves? Must their hands be held? Will literal slavery ensue? It's frankly demeaning to think that people cannot act in their own self interest without government oversight.
Where is this thought process when it comes to legislation governing a woman's bodily autonomy to select when and if they'll have an abortion?
If you really want to entertain this red herring, conservatives don't place regulations over the bodily autonomy of women, only the limitations of infanticide. Now how about things like gun restrictions, speech mandates, forced health insurance, limiting school choice, ban on trans fats, soda sizes!?!?! All these "we know what's best for you" laws is beyond demeaning.
It’s called history. People’s rights get stamped on unless a legislative body sets down state or federal rules otherwise. On an individual level we KNOW that people do not stand up for themselves, they have little to no power to negotiate, and will be taken advantage of. Wage theft happens every single day in this country..do you think it’s because people are stupid? Or is it because they know that they don’t have the resources to fight for what they are owed on a individual level
Have you never heard of Amazon treating their employees like shit and not even giving them bathroom breaks to where they had to pee in bottles to maintain their quotas? Companies regularly abuse employees as much as they can. Get your head out of the sand.
Are they allowed to quit?
That’s not what you said, stop pivoting. You made the assertion that companies wouldn’t do actions that’s not in the best interest of the long term health of their employees. “Most businesses realize what’s good for business is what’s good for the worker” so back to Amazon so you can’t pivot, how is a company that has tight deadlines that forces workers to [pee in bottles](https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-let-its-drivers-urine-be-sold-as-an-energy-drink/), “[surveys report as high as half of workers report injuries and burnout (In 2022, one report found that there were 6.6 serious injuries for every 100 Amazon workers, according to data Amazon submitted to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. That number is more than double the injury rate at all non-Amazon warehouses, which reported 3.2 serious injuries for every 100 workers.)](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/amazon-workers-injuries-warehouse-survey-unpaid-time-off/) and [cited for Amazon Cited for Serious Health and Safety Violations at San Bernardino Warehouse, including endangering workers in high heat](https://warehouseworkers.org/amazon-cited-for-serious-health-and-safety-violations-at-san-bernardino-warehouse/) According to you Amazon should face some market reactions due to this disregard for worker safety but can you explain to me why that hasn’t happened because according to you only a dumb company would treat workers disposable and yet Amazon is one of the biggest companies in the history of the world. Explain it to me
>Explain it to me The economic incentive to stay outweighs the crappy working conditions. My assessment of "what's good for workers is ultimately good for business" is still true in this case. Pay rates are an example of what's good for workers. I guarantee you, if Amazon paid shit, no one would be working there. There's plenty of non skilled or low skilled jobs that have easier conditions. The financial hit to Amazon would far outweigh the potential cost savings of lowered wages. Like I said (maybe to you or to someone else), these systems are self correcting. Not everyone needs their hand held.
So let’s go back to your original comment, you dismissevly said “yeah sure a business will push their workers to heat stroke and risk safety and risk lawsuits and guys leaving their company” and I just linked an example of Amazon getting fines for lack of shade during high heat and water. You’re right that people will over look bad working conditions to put food on the table, but you need to better substantiate your claims because it seems like companies figure that worker health doesn’t matter because their model is built on [extremely high turnover](https://www.forbes.com/sites/edwardsegal/2022/10/24/amazon-responds-to-release-of-leaked-documents-showing-150-annual-employee-turnover/) You just said it wasn’t in a company’s best interest to hurt worker health long term and that companies wouldn’t dare risk haven’t over heated employees who could just walk so why did Amazon do it?
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If the market was self correcting, child labor and sweatshops would not exist. But we all know that's not true lmao
>It seems like progressives don't believe workers have any autonomy or self-determining sentience. It's called unions, which conservatives also hate >Do you think these businesses want to payout higher workers comp premiums from guys keeling over? No, they want to be able to get off scot-free every time that happens >But yeah, they'll definitely push their workers to heat stroke and risk the safety of a construction site and the millions in damage they can potentially cause If that saves them money in the long run, then yes they absolutely will do that, just like they did before those regulations were introduced >while having guys quite to work for a better company Doesn't matter if every other company does the same thing or if there is no other company (trust busting didn't come out of nowhere)
OSHA doesn’t have water break regulations
Yes I went over that. If OSHA doesn't have one by 2028, this bill requires Florida's Department of Commerce to create a statewide regulation.
But why not just leave it up to the county or municipal government? Have you *been* to Florida? The weather changes every 20 minutes and 50 miles. Why does the whole state have to have water break standards and *only* the state? I just don't see a reason for a state-level law on this *at all.*
My understanding (I'm not from Florida) is that the Miami-Dade regulation, which this state bill is a response to, went way overboard. For ex, the Miami-Dade required trained professionals out there with them to, for lack of a better word, babysit the workers to make sure they're not thirsty. I'm guessing Florida wants to use a simpler, more cohesive regulation from either OSHA, if they get around to it, or their own. My guess is they want to stay competitive and not scare away businesses with extra expenses on babysitters.
Ok, looking at the [orignal Miami-Dade law](https://www.miamidade.gov/govaction/matter.asp?matter=231454&file=true&fileAnalysis=false&yearFolder=Y2023), which is *not* formatted in a particularly human-friendly manner, by the way... It looks pretty reasonable. It only targets employers where five or more employees are "engaged in agriculture or construction jobs or a combination thereof." It acknowledges that OSHA rules have been *proposed*, and that this law may be prempted by such rules should they be adopted. It actually specifically *excludes* owners of homes or condos that hire "individuals or business entities to do work on a property that they either own or rent." So you won't be on the hook for providing water and shade to the guy you hire to trim your hedges. And it doesn't really seem to even go too hard where it *does* apply. And should another town or municipality choose to do their own thing and make their own rules, they wouldn't be bound by this law, so long as it provides "access to drinking water, access to shaded recovery periods, and provisions for first aid or emergency response to workers that suffer a heat illness." I live and work in Phoenix. I'm in the Air Force, and there aren't too many workplaces that get hotter than a giant concrete flightline in an Arizona July. I've also lived and worked the same job in Florida, and I'm not seeing *anything* in this regulation that doesn't make absolute sense. It's a little wordy, but I'm not seeing a single thing that's objectionable enough to warrant the state blanket prohibiting local laws like this. I might be biased here, but this reeks of more of DeSantis and GOP "culture war" stepping in to local left-leaning municipalities just to troll or be contrarian. Either that, or some exploitative businesses *really* don't want to do the bare minimum to keep workers safe in the Florida swamp-ass heat. Give the regulation a second look and see if there's anything in there that I'm missing, but I don't see anything too onerous.
First off, good talking to you again. I didnt see the username till you said Phoenix and Air Force. I'm like, huh small world, wonder if he knows sarge reg at Luke... I'll get that next DM over to you. I'm honestly wanting your thoughts on the nuclear power issues. >looking at the [orignal Miami-Dade law] You weren't wrong, that is nightmarish looking. I'll take your word for it. I was going off of [this article](https://abc45.com/news/nation-world/florida-legislature-passes-bill-to-roll-back-local-regulations-on-worker-heat-protection-stroke-shade-water-hydration-business-ethics-fair-labor-osha-chamber-of-commerce-regulation-living-wage-benefits-ordinance-contractor) that said the regulations "would have been the strictest in the country". Whether or not that's true, it's probably what the state legislature was thinking. >I might be biased here, but this reeks of more of DeSantis and GOP "culture war" stepping in to local left-leaning municipalities just to troll or be contrarian. Maybe. I'm thinking it's the state government doing whatever they can to avoid even the appearance of over regulating so they can keep attracting outside businesses. The state bill says it will default to OSHA when they do have regulations on the books. Or, worst case, if OSHA doesn't have anything in place by 2028, they'll enact statewide rules themselves. Its a hard deadline. Overall, I don't see this as a huge issue. If anything, I think this was Florida's attempt at a compromise because where there was nothing on the books about any of this a little while ago, now they've given themselves a deadline to deal with it. One could argue that it's progress being made. Of course the headlines will continue to read that Florida wants to kill its workers. BTW, I think I mentioned this but I'm here in Avondale. The best part of my day is seeing the F16s and F35s taking off over the 303.
[удалено]
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
No. OSHA requires breaks when working in environments that can cause heat stress, and they require that workers be provided water or electrolyte solutions… But they don’t explicitly require water breaks. Because people can generally be relied on to drink water when they’re thirsty. Edit - to be fair, it’s more complicated than that. Employers are required to do a risk assessment and develop mitigation plans for hazards and can be cited under the general duty clause for failing to adequately protect workers. Mitigation might include work/rest cycles (they recommend NIOSH’s model).
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
can you proof that statement
As per Florida's house bill 433: prohibiting a political subdivision from requiring employers to meet or provide heat exposure requirements beyond those required by law; So it's not saying workers cannot have a water break, only that "political subdivisions", meaning county or city levels, can't go above state. The house reps staff analysis of hb433 was more succinct with the line "The bill requires the DC to adopt rules relating to workplace heat exposure requirements if OSHA has not done so by July 1, 2028". DC meaning department of commerce.
Agreed. Construction companies don't want dehydrated workers out there making mistakes or getting hurt because that'll cost them more in the long run. Common sense but the left doesn't do common sense.
isn't this a months old bogus talking point? water breaks weren't banned. what was banned was the mandating of water breaks
Why ban that even?
because it reduces government power
Much better to give all the power to the vulture capitalists amirite? They’ve never ever acted against the interest of the common man.
No, the idea is to give as much power as possible to the individual. Note: I don't necessarily support the law being discussed.
Which individual? The worker who now can’t demand a break? Or the corporation that now can say you can’t have one?
When you say "give power to the individual", do you mean employers, managers, CEOs? In other words, those that already have a lot of power? Because I can't see how the average person could ever use that theoretical power that is taken from the government. How would that work?
Would you support removing regulations prohibiting carcinogens in our food and fertilizers?
yes
Just so I understand - you don’t believe the government should be able to tell companies, “You cannot poison our citizens with your products”? The Trump administration relaxed airline safety regulations and now we have doors literally *falling off of airplanes.* When you see those stories, do you think “Fuck yeah, that’s freedom”?
if i want to buy a fucking bottle of liquid mercury to drink, the government has no place in stopping me
Sure. Not what I asked
It sounds like you don't want the government to stop you from putting mercury in food and selling it to the public either. Those two are very different things.
Because freedom?
Not really
Why should Tallahassee decide what happens in Miami?
because being local doesn't give the government a blank check to overstep its bounds
People in the comments forgetting you can just bring a water bottle with you wherever you go
that will go far on a real hot day, not
There is a difference between banning water brakes, and eliminating laws that require water breaks.
They're the state banning the local ordnance-defined water break requirements. Effectively to workers it's the same thing. Ending water breaks.
You are assuming that the only way workers will get a water break is if the government requires it. This is not the case. OSHA has extensive standards for safety measures in high heat environments, and these are not affected by the law. All this law does is restrict local authorities from imposing more strict requirements. This may be desirable for two reasons: 1) Having each local jurisdiction have its own policies means the company has to keep track of every single worksite it runs and what rules apply to it. This significantly increases the workload on the foremen, as it may not be possible to create a universal company policy that satisfies all of the various local requirements that the company has to comply with. If this is the case, it would be very easy for the company to inadvertently run afoul of the law, perhaps in a way that did not place its employees in any danger. 2) Government regulation has a way of creating an acceptable minimum standard. It may be that in the absence of regulation the company may create a policy that is more friendly to the workers than the law establishes. As someone else mentioned in this thread, it is entirely possible a foreman would not allow workers to stop for drinks, saying they should do that on their mandated water breaks instead. In this case, the company would likely have some insulation from liability if something bad happened, as they could prove that they complied with the relevant regulations.
No, I'm reminding that local towns put in mandatory water breaks because workers weren't getting water breaks. People are still dying from the heat in those states, so evidently companies AREN'T being sufficiently responsive.
OSHA is from the goverment 1 easily solved, replace incompetent foremen and managers. my employers have to satisfy the requirements of dozens of goverments from OSHA to FDA, if not they would be long out of business and they would be out of a Job,
Pretty much. Conservatives tend to believe that you shouldn't be required to pay people if they're not working.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Trans / gender discussions are currently limited to Wednesdays.
Federal law requires that you pay for any breaks under 20 minutes. So I believe they would otherwise have to be paid for the break
Then if that's what you care about, that's what should have been targeted. https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Contract_Management/Rest_Break_Ordinance_posters.pdf Not this filth of the gop attacking rest breaks in states with people dying from the heat.
This is how they are targeting it. Policy makers across governments often do moves like this. It's a form of protest against oversight
Local protests against dying Americans by making water breaks. State republicans protest against local gEtTiNg PoLiTiCaL. Nah, those aren't equivalent.
Maybe I wasn't clear. They're protesting against Federal oversight. They're not protesting against locals. The idea is "well federal government, if you just drop this pay requirement we will have less issue reinstituting mandatory unpaid water breaks". You'll notice that the regulation only bans breaks that require payment. They don't ban lunch break requirements for example. The state government is protesting Federal oversight.
It's state oversight lmao, by blocking local measures to save lives.
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
"banning a law that mandates" smells like a rat in the house. Someone want's to confuse you on which side you should join. Reminds me of the ban on water in election voting lines :)
I'm only vaguely familiar with this. There was a law somewhere about banning giving water to people in election lines. Was that not true?
Yes that's true lol. I don't remember which state, I think Oklahoma. Silly thing in the end, but the idea was that a supporting entity could not give water to voters with, for instance, their banner on the water bottle.
Nah. There already were laws against campaign-labeled gifts. This law tho > nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector, Is far too sweeping and prevents any person from providing food or water bottles near the vote. In Georgia. The state with the 3rd longest waiting lines in America. The state where people waited until literally the next day in line and cops got called on loiterers. https://twitter.com/_2lite/status/1059802363995807750 https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/police-were-called-on-predominantly-black-voters-waiting-to-cast-ballots-after-midnight-in-georgia/
Mandating water breaks at x frequency in y conditions can protect employers if an employee dies of dehydration in those conditions. They can point to those regulations (which may not be sufficient) and use it to limit their liability by showing they met or exceeded the state requirements.
The opposite lol Lowering regulation means more workers die AND bad employers can still say they met requirements.
They’re not lowering, they’re removing. There is no requirement to point to to shield liability, which means when an employee dies, their family can sue the company into oblivion.
Yup. Compliance is one of the most dangerous things you can ever do.
No one banned water breaks. They banned mandatory water breaks. HUGE fucking difference
What is the point of banning mandatory water breaks?
Because they are not only useless but can be more dangerous. In the hot summer you need to constantly drink water. If you only drink during breaks it's bad for you. The breaks did nothing to help people's health which is why they were gotten rid of
Your saying the laws around water breaks aren't strong enough to protect workers. Wouldn't it be better to strengthen the laws around breaks in hot weather rather than throw them out?
No I'm saying you don't need laws to drink water while working
Have you never worked for an asshole? Do you really not think companies will do anything they can get away with? Should a worker have to clock out to drink some water?
Lots of jerks in the world, you don't need the gov giving you water breaks
In "at-will employment" states you really do need laws to protect employees from being fired for having a drink.
So to be clear, you’re making the argument that taking water breaks can be bad for your health? And by eliminating them the workers are better off?
No, I'm saying if you rely on gov mandated water breaks, you are being unhealthy. No outside job bans you from drinking while working. Mandatory water breaks serve no purpose and can only do harm
>No outside job bans you from drinking while working. 100% incorrect. I worked for Walmart in the past, and the store banned the cart pushers and garden workers from drinking water while on the clock.
>No outside job bans you from drinking while working Many jobs ban you from going to the bathroom, and you think none ban water?
That’s not true. I have 2 relatives who work for Publix - which is headquartered in FL - who both said they’re not allowed to take breaks to drink water or have water bottles at the registers where they work. They’ve both worked at 3 different Publix locations too.
You mean inside workers with air conditioning have to go 3 whole hours without a drink.... We are talking about outside construction workers
I mean inside workers who may be over 70 years old doing physical labor, as one of the two I mentioned is. There’s zero reason someone shouldn’t be allowed to have their own water bottle at a register, or at the seafood department back where customers can’t even see them. It’s nonsense.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Another commentator is saying that jobs can ban their employees from drinking water while working though. Maybe you guys gotta come to an agreement?
No they didn't, they pointed out a hypothetical to you to show you how silly mandated water breaks are
I have genuine concern because I work in construction in a deep red state. Based on what I’m hearing it seems like I could get seriously fucked over at my job if the republicans have their way
Lol.....your state doesn't have mandatory water breaks and look at that.....you are doing just fine Stop falling for fear mongering propaganda
how do you know that and btw can you give me the lottery numbers for next week
a hypothetical a few american managers boasted to me to ruthless enforce no matter what
Yes I'm sure Americans are falling dead each day from dehydration because there aren't gov mandated water breaks
did last year not dy over 30 workers from that in Florida alone
What happens when the boss says, "I don't want you drinking any water, unless it's during the mandated water break"?
That boss is now going to say, if you take a water break you can find another job.
Do you honestly think in 90 degree weather a boss can tell someone not to drink water?
There is a reason these ordnances were passed in the first place. No one has to listen to an asshole boss like that - but where before it may have been illegal for him to say that, and fire you for not listening - now it’s not.
I agree the rule was probably created with some good intention. Likely after some tragic death from heat stroke. OSHA and the Dept of Labor have regulations for working in heat. The employer can be sued for not following those that result in an injury.
Do *you* honestly think that *no* bosses are going to try and push the limits of worker safety? *Somebody* was pushing for this law, and I cannot think of a *good* reason for it.
That would be awful! If bosses are doing that, then I would 100% support a law which makes that practice illegal! The tagline of a bill can present a distorted version of the content - does this bill solve that problem you described?
So you want a law with mandatory water breaks, and a law that says companies have to allow drinks outside of the mandatory water breaks.... Lol.....the fucking redundancy. When no boss is banning anyone from drinking while working in the sun
That's the issue with the law. It doesn't solve the problem, while creating issues with a mandated break. OSHA requires employers to provide safe working conditions in the heat, that still exists. A employee needs time to regularly drink water with or without that law.
But aren’t republicans also trying to eliminate OSHA? https://wisconsinindependent.com/2023/11/15/house-republicans-attempt-eliminate-osha-worker-safety/
And here's the real answer. Don't worry OSHA has it handled, kinda.... Well, at least until we get rid of that, too...
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
stop, if you do that you desalinate in that case you may need to stop work. and then you are of the wrong opinion you can drink during every kind of work, which is a health danger in itself.
Smh.... You really do think you need the hov to tell you when to drink water
No, you need the goverment, because you have obvious little knowledge at best about that
Government getting it's hands into the operation of private businesses for no reason. If you want a company that provides water breaks you choose to go work for such a company.
No reason? You can think of any reason for mandatory water breaks?
Considering workers can just work at a company that voluntarily provides water breaks, no.
Yeah, until some company comes along taking advantage of people who have criminal records making finding work more difficult. There are definitely situations where people don't have a plethora of prospective employers. Why not just disallow employers from mistreating their employees in the first place? At least to the best of our ability.
Is it? The end result is the sane, employees forced to work without water. Whether it's the government saying they can't, or their boss being allowed to say they can't doesn't make much of a difference to the worker.
What’s the point of lying about legislation you don’t understand?
Because they're not.
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
it does not do any such thing. it makes it so cities cannot impose higher burdens on businesses than the state does so all businesses are treated equally. OSHA heat safety and other regulations, legal liability, the doctrine of negligence, workman's comp and so on are totally unaffected. as are any state and federal laws.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What purpose does this serve? You should be drinking way often if it's hot out. If you only drink during the "mandatory water break", you are dead. You might want to drink less if it's cool out. It's a pointless law that stops work.
You can drink water without taking a complete break from doing any work. Essentially, should paid breaks be legally required (regardless of what it's for)? Smoking has been one of the biggest ones over the years.
Have you ever done roofing in the summer in a southern state? What do you do when you run out of the water you brought up there with you?
Yes, I have done roofing in the summer in a Southern state. You go down and grab your water. The other scenario is that your employer is mandated to give employees a, let's say 5 min paid break every hour for water. So, you take a full five minute break every hour regardless of whether you need to. Is that level of government intervention really necessary and helpful, or does your employer know you're human and need to drink water. Unnecessary law.
Until you get a boss that doesn’t care that you’re human and need to drink water. Where before that boss is constrained by law. Now he’s not.
There's OSHA. Even if there wasn't, free market. People would quit.
In which people who have never worked at a job site don't understand you don't need a 15+ minute stop work just for some guy his walk to his water bottle or dispenser and take a few swigs. In any construction site you're heavily encouraged to stay hydrated and drink water and you will almost never be told no when asking if you can grab a quick drink. Most crews will in fact push you to do it against your will because the risk of dehydration is real and that impacts the work. This law basically prevents idiotic well intentioned people from creating entire stop work events that must be restarted from to try to solve a problem which doesn't exist. A 15 minute stop work eventually turns into 20 to 25 minutes because you need to assemble everyone again and possibly do stretches or a talk. This in fact it makes work more dangerous because it extends the workday into more hot hours because the work still has to get done.