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

101–110 of 140 posts

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

#101

Post by Volundr »

avgcorrection wrote: post #100
Volundr wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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). S…

sigh my point was that they would happily use the reasoning "it's bad" as a reason for overriding local government, despite having a long history of preaching about the importance of local government, and using that importance to try to shut down discussion of other issues, as something that should be handled "locally".

Call it an aside to your aside if you want.

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

#102

Post by tzs »

fwlr wrote: post #71
mustacheemperor wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Folks on site often just want to get the job done and can view stuff like regular breaks for water as an obstacle if they feel they don’t need it, whether that’s an individual working through their break or a crew chief who grumbles about people setting tools down for it. Unfortunately people aren’t very good judges of when they need a break for water working in hot conditions. Cal-OSHA has an entire additional train…

I can see the wisdom in that, certainly. It does seem like it’s an OSHA issue so I’m not sure why these laws were passed directly by local government instead of being enforced by OSHA, but I can imagine good reasons - maybe OSHA does not have the power to mandate the specific things needed to make this situation safer (although in the case of “breaks and water” it seems like they probably would?) I’ve worked in heavi…

> Perhaps that is the best argument for removing these laws. OSHA has a lot of expertise in managing the balance of safety and productivity, so they should be the ones in charge of deciding on how often and how mandatory heat breaks should be.

That was covered in the article:

--begin quote--

David Michaels, who was head of OSHA from 2009 to 2017, disagreed with the approach of HB 2127 proponents.

“Under OSHA law, it is employers who are responsible to make sure workers are safe,” said Michaels, now a professor at the George Washington University School of Public Health. “And we have compelling evidence that they are doing a very poor job because many workers are injured on the job, especially in Texas.”

Michaels pointed out that OSHA does not have a national standard for heat-related illnesses and issues citations only for over-exposure to heat after an injury or death, but not before that occurs.

“The better solution would be to have a national standard, but since we do not, local ordinances are very important for saving lives,” he said. “Prohibiting these local laws will result in workers being severely hurt or killed.”

--end quote--

> These laws made by non-OSHA bodies are perhaps too rigid: they could simultaneously be overkill for some situations (like indoor installations) while being wholly insufficient for other situations (like road repair)

I don't see how that would realistically be a problem, at least with the laws in Dallas and Austin. Their laws are 10 minute breaks every four hours. It's hard for that to ever be overkill.

If there is some fear that some cities might go farther and actually require so many breaks that it does non-trivially impact then it might be reasonable for the state to step in--but the sane way for the state to step in would be to make 10 minutes every four hours a state law.

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

#103

Post by whycombagator »

BaseballPhysics wrote: post #84
denimnerd42 wrote: post #29

Is this specific regulation really an issue? I understand heat related deaths do occur but is it because they are not allowed water breaks every 4!! hours? If you're working out there in 115+ heat index like June, July, August, September bring you're going to need a water break every 20-40 minutes, especially decked out in full PPE. I don't see overseers out there driving these Hispanic laborers to work 8 hours strai…

> I don't see overseers out there driving these Hispanic laborers to work 8 hours straight. Are you joking?

I haven’t seen it either. Where have you seen or heard about it?

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

#104

Post by fwlr »

tzs wrote: post #102
fwlr wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see the wisdom in that, certainly. It does seem like it’s an OSHA issue so I’m not sure why these laws were passed directly by local government instead of being enforced by OSHA, but I can imagine good reasons - maybe OSHA does not have the power to mandate the specific things needed to make this situation safer (although in the case of “breaks and water” it seems like they probably would?) I’ve worked in heavi…

> Perhaps that is the best argument for removing these laws. OSHA has a lot of expertise in managing the balance of safety and productivity, so they should be the ones in charge of deciding on how often and how mandatory heat breaks should be. That was covered in the article: --begin quote-- David Michaels, who was head of OSHA from 2009 to 2017, disagreed with the approach of HB 2127 proponents. “Under OSHA law, it…

Realistically, no, it wouldn’t be a problem for this case. I was charitably trying to come up with the strongest possible argument for the repeal bill. I think it’s a decent argument in the general case - it’s not hard to see how hard-and-fast rules made by politicians serving the two masters of worker safety and popular vote could stack up to cause death by a thousand cuts. Especially if trying to repeal any of those laws gets you / your party mercilessly dunked on for wanting to kill and maim workers, as is happening in this case and would doubtless happen in any other case as well. That’s a recipe for a one-way ratchet. (Again I want to stress that I don’t think the actual motivation for the repeal is pure of heart.)

I don’t know what to make of the former head of OSHA’s statements. Obviously his prior position gives him impeccable integrity but the things he’s quoted as saying just don’t make any sense. Like, OSHA absolutely does have national standards for heat-related illnesses, this is trivially verifiable, googling “OSHA heat” turns up dozens and dozens of info pages, safety posters, etc. on the matter. The only way I can make sense of his statement is by assuming there is some technicality regarding what counts as a “national standard”, or perhaps “heat-related illness” is a newly introduced category that is parallel to “heat exposure”, such that OSHA has plenty of regulations on heat exposure but none on heat-related illnesses. But that is deliberate deception, why would the former head of OSHA be deliberately deceptive about OSHA? Maybe this is one small comment mined out of a much larger conversation and the journalist is to blame?

Something just doesn’t seem right about any of this, so I am going to remain skeptical of the surface-level narrative that local ordinances are reasonable and this bill is trying to screw over or even kill workers in order to save businesses some money. (Please, once again, note I am also continuing to remain skeptical of the motivations of the repeal bill as well!)

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

#105

Post by throw0101a »

rightbyte wrote: post #72
avgcorrection wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this applies to drinking water?

Yes. I assume the workers are able to drink any time they want? "The law will nullify ordinances enacted by Austin in 2010 and Dallas in 2015 that established 10-minute breaks every four hours so that construction workers can drink water and protect themselves from the sun." Like, every 4th hour? You need to drink maybe every 15th minute if it is hot and you work with your body. I smell a forced water break to ensure…

> Yes. I assume the workers are able to drink any time they want?

What about on the other end (i.e., peeing)? "14-hour days and no bathroom breaks: Amazon's overworked delivery drivers":

* https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/mar/11/amazon-de...

"Amazon strikes: Workers claim their toilet breaks are timed":

* https://www.bbc.com/news/business-64384287

I wouldn't put it past some employers preventing water intake if water 'outtake' is a documented problem.

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

#106

Post by teclordphrack2 »

infamouscow wrote: post #94
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 tr…

[dead]

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

#107

Post by ESTheComposer »

flangola7 wrote: post #74
bob1029 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am curious what your experience was like moving TX=>CA. I've been considering the same.

Between being queer and having a trans daughter, I feel far less worried that the government will arbitrarily impoverish, imprison, or kill me, or kidnap my children. Or that one of the locals will take it upon themselves to do so. I don't care if the rent in Texas was negative.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever of this randomly happening without a crime being committed?

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

#108

Post by BaseballPhysics »

systemvoltage wrote: post #99
BaseballPhysics wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You clearly missed the point. Cato's definition is every bit as "anecdotal" as any other. It's not like they ascribe to some perfect, platonic ideal of "freedom". They just picked one set of lines and tradeoffs and definitions of "freedom" while ignoring others.

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

#109

Post by BaseballPhysics »

whycombagator wrote: post #103
BaseballPhysics wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't see overseers out there driving these Hispanic laborers to work 8 hours straight. Are you joking?

I haven’t seen it either. Where have you seen or heard about it?

Sure, fine, I'll do the googling for you:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Even...

> That kind of heat exhaustion is common for construction workers in Texas, nearly 40 percent of whom say they are not given regular breaks on job sites, even in the heat of the summer, according to surveys by the Workers Defense Project.

...

> According to a Workers Defense Project report from 2017, more than a third of workers in Houston reported that they did not receive any rest breaks during the past work week

Seriously, did you think these laws--which are on the books right now--simply come out of nowhere?

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

#110

Post by Server6 »

infamouscow wrote: post #94
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 tr…

The problem is that Texas has been gerrymandered to the point that Democrats in the cities don't have an "an equal vote", and are being dictated to by what the see as rural rubes.
Post reply on HN