• ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    “Supporters of the bill say it will establish uniform regulations instead of having inconsistent rules across the state, NBC News first reported.”

    I agree with this. There’s shouldn’t be a dozen different water break policies across a state. Especially when it effects a lot of people in lawn care and construction and road work that go all over the place for jobs. There should only be one good set of regulations for breaks and temp and humidity and what have you that blanket covers the state. There isn’t any good reason that every city or county should each have their own. The state needs to make a good one.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      8 months ago

      Sure, but there aren’t any other rules, so what you get is employers putting people in danger:

      Florida employers would be required to follow general rules set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which has not yet issued standards for dangerously high temperatures, NBC News noted.

      Which is the whole point of this.

      • Transporter Room 3@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        8 months ago

        Or as the first manager of my last job said “I don’t have to give you SHIT except 20 minutes for lunch, and ONLY if your ass is here for 8 hours or more”

        If they can get away with giving you nothing, then nothing is what you will get.

      • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Hence when I said the state should make a set of good ones. It shouldn’t be a county to county and city to city issue.

        Then, if you did vote to to make it one, what of all the cities that don’t make a policy? Or make a shitty one?

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          One easy option would be: we have a minimum standard, and people can choose something stricter if local conditions warrant.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      The state and the federal government don’t have one. This is actually to prevent any protections from being put in place at all.

    • Spazz@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Stop it.

      Stop pretending this is anything other than an attack on workers, there’s no excuse

      • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        What do you think happens when a city opts to make a really shitty heat policy because “fuck em”, then a company works someone to death in the heat and their family has issues even suing or getting much from the company because instead of “our company policy on weather was garbage and not good enough” it’s a case of “we were following the cities safety protocols”.

        The state needs to make a good policy for it. Not let dozens of different ones, or choosing to not have one at all, happen.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          The state needs to make a good policy for it

          Great! But are they?

          In true ex-Reddit fashion I didn’t read the article, but what I see here is only preventing locales from creating their own worker safety rules. If this is a two-parter establishing consistent rules across the state, people would be all for it. However it’s not. It’s only negative. It’s only consolidation of power without implementing that good policy. It’s only preventing other layers of government from improving worker safety