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

121–130 of 140 posts

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

#121

Post by BaseballPhysics »

whycombagator wrote: post #120
BaseballPhysics wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks for that. The worker in the article doesn’t say that a foreman forced her to work without a break explicitly: > Cruz, 46, said she had not been able to take a break all day because of the pressure to finish the job The article also links a report I can’t download due to too many redirects so I’m not able to determine how many workers were surveyed etc

> The worker in the article doesn’t say that a foreman forced her to work without a break explicitly

Okay, so because it doesn't specifically use those words, you'll just disregard the statistics cited?

And that's ignoring the fact that worker intimidation is rarely so explicit.

Not much point continuing to discuss if the confirmation bias is that strong.

> The article also links a report I can’t download due to too many redirects so I’m not able to determine how many workers were surveyed etc

Does that matter?

Your claim is it never happens. I cited a study that says it clearly does.

So now we're at the nitpicking the statistical analysis phase? Oh no, maybe it's actually 30% plus or minus 10% 19 times out of 20 because of sampling errors and that somehow invalidates the fundamental point that yes, in fact labourers do experience this type of abuse? Thanks, I'll pass.

Once again: did you think these bylaws got passed for no reason at all?

Edit: but you know, here, I'll do the work, anyway, and give you the 2023 report:

https://workersdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Build-...

They surveyed over 1,000 labourers, by far enough to generate a valid statistical sample. 28% of US born workers reported no breaks. Among undocumented workers that number rose to 46%.

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

#122

Post by whycombagator »

BaseballPhysics wrote: post #121
whycombagator wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for that. The worker in the article doesn’t say that a foreman forced her to work without a break explicitly: > Cruz, 46, said she had not been able to take a break all day because of the pressure to finish the job The article also links a report I can’t download due to too many redirects so I’m not able to determine how many workers were surveyed etc

> The worker in the article doesn’t say that a foreman forced her to work without a break explicitly Okay, so because it doesn't specifically use those words, you'll just disregard the statistics cited? And that's ignoring the fact that worker intimidation is rarely so explicit. Not much point continuing to discuss if the confirmation bias is that strong. > The article also links a report I can’t download due to too…

Yeah I see the 2023 report but still can’t seem to find the actual source for the data. Which is unfortunate.

Also:

> Your claim is it never happens

I did not make that claim. Please see my literal written words and do not misconstrue them to fit an imaginary argument we aren’t actually having. I think you are getting far too overexcited

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

#123

Post by BaseballPhysics »

whycombagator wrote: post #122
BaseballPhysics wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The worker in the article doesn’t say that a foreman forced her to work without a break explicitly Okay, so because it doesn't specifically use those words, you'll just disregard the statistics cited? And that's ignoring the fact that worker intimidation is rarely so explicit. Not much point continuing to discuss if the confirmation bias is that strong. > The article also links a report I can’t download due to too…

Yeah I see the 2023 report but still can’t seem to find the actual source for the data. Which is unfortunate. Also: > Your claim is it never happens I did not make that claim. Please see my literal written words and do not misconstrue them to fit an imaginary argument we aren’t actually having. I think you are getting far too overexcited

> Please see my literal written words and do not misconstrue them to fit an imaginary argument we aren’t actually having.

Then what exactly are you trying to achieve?

Because you thus far seem unwilling to acknowledge that these laws have been passed to solve a real labour abuse problem, and that is, of course, the original disagreement that spawned this entire thread:

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

...

> 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

#124

Post by ESTheComposer »

Timon3 wrote: post #116
ESTheComposer wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Since they are trying to make "receiving trans healthcare" a crime, technically no. Functionally it's the same thing.

Can you provide a link to the law where it says receiving trans healthcare is a crime? Or are you talking about providing hormone blockers to kids?

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

#125

Post by Timon3 »

ESTheComposer wrote: post #124
Timon3 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since they are trying to make "receiving trans healthcare" a crime, technically no. Functionally it's the same thing.

Can you provide a link to the law where it says receiving trans healthcare is a crime? Or are you talking about providing hormone blockers to kids?

Puberty blockers are a part of trans healthcare.

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

#126

Post by ESTheComposer »

Timon3 wrote: post #125
ESTheComposer wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you provide a link to the law where it says receiving trans healthcare is a crime? Or are you talking about providing hormone blockers to kids?

Puberty blockers are a part of trans healthcare.

I don't personally think blocking puberty is a good thing for kids but I also think it's disingenuous to equate that with what the OP was posting.

If you think that is Texas being anti trans then so be it I guess

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

#127

Post by Timon3 »

ESTheComposer wrote: post #126
Timon3 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Puberty blockers are a part of trans healthcare.

I don't personally think blocking puberty is a good thing for kids but I also think it's disingenuous to equate that with what the OP was posting. If you think that is Texas being anti trans then so be it I guess

What do you think the state will do if you give your children proper trans healthcare? Will they let them stay with you?

Luckily it's not your opinion that is important regarding what healthcare should be done and what shouldn't. The medical consensus is that puberty blockers are an important part of trans healthcare. Denying this to children is equivalent with denying them other healthcare.

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

#128

Post by ESTheComposer »

Timon3 wrote: post #127
ESTheComposer wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't personally think blocking puberty is a good thing for kids but I also think it's disingenuous to equate that with what the OP was posting. If you think that is Texas being anti trans then so be it I guess

What do you think the state will do if you give your children proper trans healthcare? Will they let them stay with you? Luckily it's not your opinion that is important regarding what healthcare should be done and what shouldn't. The medical consensus is that puberty blockers are an important part of trans healthcare. Denying this to children is equivalent with denying them other healthcare.

Luckily you are mistaken that it is "medical consensus" and your opinion isn't the only valid one.

There are studies that show that hormone blockers don't actually decrease psychological distress (which is why England just said they're going to limit puberty suppressing drugs).

I think it's more interesting that people think children who can't possibly comprehend lifelong implications of most things are being given life altering drugs that don't have proper long term research is a good idea.

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

#129

Post by Timon3 »

ESTheComposer wrote: post #128
Timon3 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think the state will do if you give your children proper trans healthcare? Will they let them stay with you? Luckily it's not your opinion that is important regarding what healthcare should be done and what shouldn't. The medical consensus is that puberty blockers are an important part of trans healthcare. Denying this to children is equivalent with denying them other healthcare.

Luckily you are mistaken that it is "medical consensus" and your opinion isn't the only valid one. There are studies that show that hormone blockers don't actually decrease psychological distress (which is why England just said they're going to limit puberty suppressing drugs). I think it's more interesting that people think children who can't possibly comprehend lifelong implications of most things are being given l…

> Luckily you are mistaken that it is "medical consensus" and your opinion isn't the only valid one.

Well, it is the only valid one in the sense that there exists a medical consensus, an it is what I described.

> There are studies that show that hormone blockers don't actually decrease psychological distress

Mind sharing those studies?

> (which is why England just said they're going to limit puberty suppressing drugs)

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the conservative government desparately trying to distract their populace from the terrible job they are doing keeping the country running.

> I think it's more interesting that people think children who can't possibly comprehend lifelong implications of most things are being given life altering drugs that don't have proper long term research is a good idea.

Puberty blockers have been researched since the 80s. How much longer do you want studies to be done?

It's also funny that people like you always say "children who can't possibly comprehend lifelong implications of most things are being given life altering drugs", when the whole point of the drugs is to give them time. By delaying puberty those children have time to actually grow up and make an informed decision at the right time. You want to take that ability away from them, you want to condemn them to a lifestyle that is proven to drastically increase suicide rates. I'd like to know - is that a bug for you, or is it a feature?

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

#130

Post by ESTheComposer »

Timon3 wrote: post #129
ESTheComposer wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily you are mistaken that it is "medical consensus" and your opinion isn't the only valid one. There are studies that show that hormone blockers don't actually decrease psychological distress (which is why England just said they're going to limit puberty suppressing drugs). I think it's more interesting that people think children who can't possibly comprehend lifelong implications of most things are being given l…

> Luckily you are mistaken that it is "medical consensus" and your opinion isn't the only valid one. Well, it is the only valid one in the sense that there exists a medical consensus, an it is what I described. > There are studies that show that hormone blockers don't actually decrease psychological distress Mind sharing those studies? > (which is why England just said they're going to limit puberty suppressing drugs…

How are you defining medical consensus? Because if there are conflicting medical opinions and the vast majority don’t agree then I don’t think it’s correct to call it medical consensus.

As for the England thing you can deflect with the politics if you want, but many countries (some that pioneered dysphoria treatments) are cautioning against puberty blockers and that more research needs to be done.

https://ukom.no/rapporter/pasientsikkerhet-for-barn-og-unge-...

https://www.academie-medecine.fr/la-medecine-face-a-la-trans...

https://cass.independent-review.uk/publications/interim-repo...

And here is the study that I believe England is using where 43 out of 44 patients didn’t find any help with puberty blockers

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

And here is a paper critiquing studies that have been done and accusing them of bias to promote a viewpoint

https://accpjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.100...

You can use emotional arguments all you want but the science from what I see doesn’t show an overall help with puberty blocking drugs and I don’t think we do have enough long term evidence for people who aren’t hitting early puberty and are taking these drugs. What you’re mentioning from the 80s is like saying it’s totally safe to give everyone who wants chemo chemo because it helps people who have cancer. Puberty blocking drugs are useful in specific use cases, but giving them to kids who feel they are the wrong gender (which by the way, things kids say and what they actually feel are so freaking varied and again, most kids don’t know wtf they’re talking about until they’re much older) does not have full scientific consensus.

How about you provide some links now to the OPs original argument of all the things they mentioned? If not then I think we’re done here as you are just throwing emotional argument after emotional argument as if the choice is between a shitty under researched drug on pre pubescent children who aren’t experiencing early onset puberty (which is the usage you’re talking about from the 80s) vs full on suicide.

Post reply on HN