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

131–140 of 140 posts

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

#131

Post by taylodl »

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…

Cities have more people and therefore have more votes. What Republicans have been doing is nullifying those votes. Meaning people living in rural areas have more voting power than people living in cities. It's both entertaining and annoying watching Republicans trying to defend this system.

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

#132

Post by Timon3 »

ESTheComposer wrote: post #130
Timon3 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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/rap…

> 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

I looked into this study, and interestingly the authors come to the opposite conclusion you come to:

> Overall patient experience of changes on GnRHa treatment was positive. We identified no changes in psychological function. Changes in BMD were consistent with suppression of growth. Larger and longer-term prospective studies using a range of designs are needed to more fully quantify the benefits and harms of pubertal suppression in GD.

Given that you're misrepresenting the studies you share, yeah, we're done here.

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

#133

Post by fwlr »

mustacheemperor wrote: post #111
fwlr wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thos…

Your assumptions are just mistaken. I got my California OSHA 10 construction safety card within the last few months, and heat related illness prevention - which is not somehow semantically separate from heat exposure - is not part of federal OSHA guidelines. It is an additional part of California’s state guidelines, and that’s probably why you see posters on google. Texas could add similar requirements at the state l…

I did some more research and it seems like we’re both right. Yes, the US OSHA (the Australian body has the same name) does not actually have a national standard for heat-related illnesses. It does however have plenty of (non-Californian) material specifically on heat-related illnesses, e.g. https://www.osha.gov/otm/section-3-health-hazards/chapter-4. According to https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/... (archive here https://archive.md/rHMQm) this is enforced under the general duty clause:

> Federal OSHA enforces heat-related safety under the Occupational Safety and Health Act's general duty clause, which requires employers to provide workplaces that are "free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees."

https://www.fisherphillips.com/news-insights/osha-unveils-pr... agrees:

> There is no heat-related or heat stress standard in place. Instead, federal OSHA has traditionally enforced heat-related hazards through its General Duty Clause.

I will happily admit I was surprised to learn that US federal OSHA does not have specific heat-related illness regulations and have been instead making do with Commerce Clause-style general regulation to enforce heat safety instead. But I was also correct when I said there is plenty of US federal (not state-specific) OSHA material on heat-related illnesses - that osha link above has a detailed breakdown including worked examples on how to use Wet Bulb Globe Temperature testing equipment to measure heat stress risks, tables of Threshold Limit Values, etc.

I also found a convincing explanation for my confusion as to why the former head of OSHA would say that OSHA does not have a national standard for heat-related illnesses when they empirically do have lots of specific material on assessing and managing heat risk: US federal OSHA is (as of October 2021) working on instituting a comprehensive national heat standard https://www.regulations.gov/document/OSHA-2021-0009-0001 and that seems to be why the lack of a national standard was emphasized - it is no doubt a mammoth and expensive task, and it is the natural order of bureaucracy that any such task must be continually justified to protect from bean counter cuts.

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

#134

Post by taylodl »

khuey wrote: post #46
bequanna wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pretty strong conjecture that is the exact opposite of what is currently happening. If Texas is such a terrible place to live, why are so many people moving there?

> why are so many people moving there? Because its legal to build housing there, unlike much of the country.

Yeah, but Texas isn't a state known for thinking ahead. For example, those houses need water and electricity...but Texas doesn't care because that's your problem. Meanwhile, they are collecting your taxes.

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

#135

Post by ESTheComposer »

Timon3 wrote: post #132
ESTheComposer wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/rap…

> 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 I looked into this study, and interestingly the authors come to the opposite conclusion you come to: > Overall patient experience of changes on GnRHa treatment was positive. We identified no changes in psychological function. Changes in BMD were consistent with suppression of growth. Larger a…

[flagged]

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

#136

Post by rightbyte »

Timon3 wrote: post #117
rightbyte wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ye well if you can't go pee at will a mandated brake every 4 hours won't save you underwear. I believe "reasonable breaks" is a worker community and employer problem rather than a government one. It depends so much on the situation that general rules get worthless. But I am all for a loose enough "right to pee and drink" law if it is a practical problem at some employers.

> Ye well if you can't go pee at will a mandated brake every 4 hours won't save you underwear What? Of course it will. If I have the option to go pee every 4 hours it's a heck of a lot better for me and my underwear than if I only have the option every 10 hours.

I need to pee way more often if it is hot and do phyisical work and I am sweating and I drink enough. Like every hour or 2nd hour. Also you need like 10 min break to the hour.

My point I am trying to make is that construction work with "minimum break" in a sunny Texas can't be functional at all. There has to be more breaks?

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

#137

Post by rightbyte »

avgcorrection wrote: post #119
rightbyte wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ye well if you can't go pee at will a mandated brake every 4 hours won't save you underwear. I believe "reasonable breaks" is a worker community and employer problem rather than a government one. It depends so much on the situation that general rules get worthless. But I am all for a loose enough "right to pee and drink" law if it is a practical problem at some employers.

> Ye well if you can't go pee at will a mandated brake every 4 hours won't save you underwear. So to sum up. - Demanding a water break every four hours is useless because you need to drink every 15 minutes in this context - Demanding a pee break every four hours is useless because… everyone has tiny bladders, I guess? This little pitiful rule is not better than having to go whole shifts without being able to pee? I g…

No my point I was trying to make is the opposite. The mandated break is so insufficient that there has to be more.

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

#138

Post by Timon3 »

rightbyte wrote: post #136
Timon3 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ye well if you can't go pee at will a mandated brake every 4 hours won't save you underwear What? Of course it will. If I have the option to go pee every 4 hours it's a heck of a lot better for me and my underwear than if I only have the option every 10 hours.

I need to pee way more often if it is hot and do phyisical work and I am sweating and I drink enough. Like every hour or 2nd hour. Also you need like 10 min break to the hour. My point I am trying to make is that construction work with "minimum break" in a sunny Texas can't be functional at all. There has to be more breaks?

But there aren't. Business owners would make less money if people had fewer breaks, so people have to work in sweltering heat and only pee every 4 hours. That's our reality. And the sad part is: if there were no rules for 4 hours, people wouldn't be allowed to pee every 4 hours.

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

#139

Post by bradchris »

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

Considering Texas has categorized it as child abuse, and begun investigations on by-every-metric very loving parents to take custody away from them, even for those who transitioned prior to any law changes (and the fact that Texas has some of the worst foster care outcomes), it’s an objective fact they’re hostile to trans people (youth are people, too)

Also, Texas even specifically cites puberty-blockers (which are reversible…) within the list of punishable offenses, so even Texas qualifies it as trans-healthcare, so your opinion is not particularly relevant.

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/13/1098779201/texas-supreme-cour...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/09/23/texas-tra...

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

#140

Post by jfengel »

Volundr wrote: post #78
avgcorrection wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Local “bag charges” and “bag bans” on non-reusable plastic bags at grocery stores were outlawed in 2018. Most “bag bans” are a propaganda campaign to frame the last participant in the supply chain as the culprit of everything. I’ve heard of stores that let you bring your own glass jars to fill up on e.g. almonds. That sounds more practical.

> 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…

It has never been about local control. They've been quite explicit about it: they want state control. That means not federal, not local, and certainly not individual. The state is the unit of decision making where they can exert maximum power.

They're perfectly happy to exert federal control as well, when they can get it. But when they can't, they'll protest that they want state control. They want you to hear it as if that was moving power closer to the individual, but it's diametrically opposed to that. "States' rights" means "not your rights".

Post reply on HN