Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Texas rules requiring water breaks for construction workers will be nullified

texastribune.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 140 posts

Re: Texas rules requiring water breaks for construction workers will be nullified

#91

Post by Buttons840 »

bombcar wrote: post #38
Buttons840 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ones that basically tell their staff they can’t drink water I would have to believe quickly will find no one will want to work for I've never done something as difficult as construction, but I was a cashier, sanding still on concrete all day for 8 hours, no fun. I don't think anyone wanted to do that, but there they were doing it anyway. And there they still are every time I go to the store, no stool to sit on, sta…

There are very very few jobs that people actually want to do - and some places do provide stools. Aldi’s does and they’re notoriously famous for overworking their cashiers as much as they can. I’d expect to see stools at union grocery stories (but I don’t) so it must not be that big of a complaint. I have seen that almost all now have those padded floor things.

I agree, as you say, there are very few jobs people want to do, but they do them anyways. Thus, people will probably continue to work for employers that deny them water breaks. The question is whether we collectively want workers to be treated that way in our society.

Re: Texas rules requiring water breaks for construction workers will be nullified

#92

Post by throw0101a »

hef19898 wrote: post #79
trilbyglens wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Texas is probably the least democratic of all the states.

From the outside looking in, the whole of the US is, despite pretty decent split between the executive and legeslative branches, a lot less democratic the at least I believed for a very long time.

But in what other country can you be elected as dogcatcher?

* https://www.vermontpublic.org/vpr-news/2018-03-16/meet-the-c...

* https://www.npr.org/2018/04/07/600482792/you-couldn-t-get-el...

Re: Texas rules requiring water breaks for construction workers will be nullified

#93

Post by Buttons840 »

darth_avocado wrote: post #27
Buttons840 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been asking: When the things that happen in a healthy free market aren't happening, what does that mean? (Maybe too abstract because I haven't got an answer from those I ask.)

Either the market isn’t healthy or the understanding of what happens in a healthy market is wrong.

True. My full frustration behind this question is that some people oppose regulation saying that the free market will solve the problem, then later when the free market has not solved the problem I ask my question, then they say that it's not something the free market can solve or we just have to wait longer for the solution to arrive (meanwhile, people are suffering or dying). There is a balance to be found here, free markets have their merits, but I do hate to see ideas dismissed because of a hand-wavy claim that the market will fix it.

Re: Texas rules requiring water breaks for construction workers will be nullified

#94

Post by infamouscow »

kthejoker2 wrote: post #73

Okay guys, focus on the real issue here, which is Texas state government is Republican, but every major Texas city is Democratic. So rural Texas bumpkins want to impose a rule of law on their economic engines (while conveniently decrying interference from federal agencies on things like policing, voting rights, LGBTQ discrimination, border policy, etc) This is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, while…

Economic activity does not equate to political worth.

Although cities may be the economic hubs it doesn't equate to the political worth or value of an individuals vote. Everyone regardless of where they live or their economic contribution should be entitled to an equal vote in a fair and democratic society.

One of the original concerns about direct democracy is the potential it has to allow a majority of voters to trample the rights of minorities. This is why we have minority protections.

Re: Texas rules requiring water breaks for construction workers will be nullified

#95

Post by jjtheblunt »

ckemere wrote: post #36
jjtheblunt wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was just thinking that, that perhaps this looks click-bait-ish as a news item because of course workers are allowed to drink water. Is it maybe the point that not every commonsense-ism needs legislation backing it, IF it is truly respected and honored universally as common sense. Or is this a news item because there are tyrants who forbid workers from drinking water and taking bathroom breaks? If so, that's bizarre…

Please observe a construction site in Houston (I just drove by some roofers a few minutes ago). There are breaks, but they are much rarer than a "normal" person might expect.

that's scary. thanks for the data point (not joking) because here north of Phoenix it's hot as hell too, yet less hot than at lower elevation like the valley Phoenix is in, so it would be nuts to not respect the climate.

Re: Texas rules requiring water breaks for construction workers will be nullified

#96

Post by Volundr »

avgcorrection wrote: post #88
Volundr wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most “bag bans” are a propaganda campaign to frame the last participant in the supply chain as the culprit of everything. I doubt you meant it this way, but this is the thing that peeves me most about the Republican party continuing to spout on about local control, small government, and personal freedoms. As soon as a locality makes a choice they don't like (bag bans), or a person uses their freedom in a way they d…

You’re right that I meant none of those things since I didn’t mention them. An aside.

Yep, I assumed you didn't, which is why I said it. My point was that if pressed, the lawmakers responsible for overriding these "bag bans" would say something similar to you, essentially that bag bans are bad (though I suspect their reasoning would look very different). Yet one can easily find them advocating for local control as a reason why shouldn't be decided at the federal/state level. Local control, until "local" does something they don't like.

Re: Texas rules requiring water breaks for construction workers will be nullified

#97

Post by hef19898 »

throw0101a wrote: post #92
hef19898 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the outside looking in, the whole of the US is, despite pretty decent split between the executive and legeslative branches, a lot less democratic the at least I believed for a very long time.

But in what other country can you be elected as dogcatcher? * https://www.vermontpublic.org/vpr-news/2018-03-16/meet-the-c... * https://www.npr.org/2018/04/07/600482792/you-couldn-t-get-el...

Ah, the true purpose of democracy right there!

Also, TIL...

Re: Texas rules requiring water breaks for construction workers will be nullified

#98

Post by BaseballPhysics »

systemvoltage wrote: post #89
BaseballPhysics wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, if you don't like local communities being able to make decisions on behalf of their citizens (or put another way: democracy), it must sound great.

I prefer balanced federalism. You obviously can't have local nut jobs passing insane laws but same applies to top down federal powers – IMO this is the real problem in USA across all states. Federal agencies are in some ways more powerful and have unchecked powers – congress leaves a lot of leeway as they can't exactly dictate every single rule/regulation. Unelected people dictate vast majority of the day to day rule…

> You obviously can't have local nut jobs passing insane laws but same applies to top down federal powers

Honestly, I struggle with this.

Constitutions, bills of rights, or similar documents in various democracies exist specifically to protect fundamental rights of citizens that can never be trampled on by any level of government.

Beyond those codified rights, why shouldn't local nut jobs be allowed to pass insane laws if that's what people vote for?

If those laws are truly insane, then isn't that what constitutional amendments are for?

To me, the real problem is that those documents are so frozen that it's impossible to renegotiate the contract periodically, and so you end up being forced to hand over strong powers to higher levels of government (see: the voting rights act).

> In regards to freedom, New Hamsphire/Florida ranks #1 or #2 usually in the freedom index across the board: https://cdn.freedominthe50states.org/download/2021/print-edi...

Yeah, sorry, you'll forgive me if I discount this immediately. The Cato Institute has a very specific definition of "freedom" that I fundamentally disagree with.

If you're a small government, anarcho-libertarian, Cato is gonna be your jam.

If you, on the other hand, believe that government plays an important role in protecting freedoms (for example, Cato believes occupational licensing is fundamentally antithetical to "freedom", while I'd argue that it plays a critical role in reducing information asymmetry, thereby protecting the rights of consumers), you're definitely not gonna agree with Cato's approach. I know I don't.

And, by the way, I would expect (hope) Cato would disagree with what Texas is doing, here, as those actions are trampling on the rights of local communities to govern themselves.

Re: Texas rules requiring water breaks for construction workers will be nullified

#99

Post by systemvoltage »

BaseballPhysics wrote: post #98
systemvoltage wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer balanced federalism. You obviously can't have local nut jobs passing insane laws but same applies to top down federal powers – IMO this is the real problem in USA across all states. Federal agencies are in some ways more powerful and have unchecked powers – congress leaves a lot of leeway as they can't exactly dictate every single rule/regulation. Unelected people dictate vast majority of the day to day rule…

> You obviously can't have local nut jobs passing insane laws but same applies to top down federal powers Honestly, I struggle with this. Constitutions, bills of rights, or similar documents in various democracies exist specifically to protect fundamental rights of citizens that can never be trampled on by any level of government. Beyond those codified rights, why shouldn't local nut jobs be allowed to pass insane la…

Thanks, at least you're honest about your biases. I'll take CATO over anecdotal definitions of "freedom". Discounting it is almost poetic in Trumpian sense; rejecting anything regardless of substance if it doesn't align with his ideology.

Re: Texas rules requiring water breaks for construction workers will be nullified

#100

Post by avgcorrection »

Volundr wrote: post #96
avgcorrection wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re right that I meant none of those things since I didn’t mention them. An aside.

Yep, I assumed you didn't, which is why I said it. My point was that if pressed, the lawmakers responsible for overriding these "bag bans" would say something similar to you, essentially that bag bans are bad (though I suspect their reasoning would look very different). Yet one can easily find them advocating for local control as a reason why shouldn't be decided at the federal/state level. Local control, until "loca…

> My point was that if pressed, the lawmakers responsible for overriding these "bag bans" would say something similar to you, essentially that bag bans are bad (though I suspect their reasoning would look very different).

They would say something similar to me. Except the reasoning would be very different.

So the only similarity is that they would say that it is “bad” (I would say that the ban is pointless per se).

So they wouldn’t say something similar to what I said.

Next up: “Wars are bad”. Did avgcorrection say that? Or a Libertarian? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZITP93pqtdQ

Post reply on HN