> Texas’s Republican governor, Greg Abbott, signed a controversial bill into law on 14 June that prohibits local municipalities from enacting heat protection standards for construction workers. The bill nullifies ordinances previously passed in Austin and Dallas that mandated 10-minute breaks for workers every four hours.
How often are these guys taking breaks? 10 minutes every four hours seems like not nearly enough break time even in normal conditions. Yet somehow the governor signed a bill saying they're not entitled to even that? What is going on in USA with workers right? Is this normal?
This is Texas. Other states have different rules. For comparison, at a heat index of 100F, Oregon requires 30 minute breaks every 1 hour. Here is more detail (PDF): https://osha.oregon.gov/OSHAPubs/factsheets/fs90.pdf
Do American politicians have a thing against letting the common people survive? Jeez, I was in the Middle East, and even the sheikhs and kings there mandated that no outdoors work be done in the afternoons or on days with extremely high temperatures. That is, 11 am to 4 pm absolutely blocked, no ifs or buts. Work in the 5 searing summer months happened in the night.
Remember, the side that is banning water breaks in lethal heat for blue collar workers are the party that's here to protect the little guy from coastal elites!
Don't forget the blue collar workers being denied breaks in lethal conditions are the same people voting for these people. Zero sympathy at this point. They want it? They can have it.
Just you wait until you find out about that laptop that totally exists but uh fedex lost or those email servers that they couldn't even pin anything on her for or that time Hilary was kinda bad at her job and let some americans die in an embassy out of a lack of caution but she couldn't be punished because punishing top level politicians for being mediocre at their jobs would open an entire can of worms that would actually help improve things and oust bad actors so nope can't do that!
I worked outdoors in Saudi Arabia and we just worked 24 hours/day (sometimes I'd go 70 hours without sleep while wiring detonators to hundreds of feet of explosives). I'm American btw, just worked on oil rigs there for a couple years as a "Wireline Engineer".
In both USA and Saudi, it seemed to be more based on company rules, rather than state/federal rules.
That could be possible. My observations were in the UAE, Jeddah, Qatar, Oman and Bahrain. From what I know, the above four countries have some form of rules on outdoor work in summers.
Username is Starcraft2 reference, loosely inspired by some uThermal build that was mis-referenced by Harstem and maybe misremembered by me as "the repairman build".
Thankfully I never had any safety incidents. But nothing I was doing was safe work while under the effects of sleep deprivation. We had a dozen different ways to kill people directly and hundreds of things could go wrong to kill people in more Rube Goldberg fashions. I was unhappy with the work environment so I left.
Some of those include:
- A 3 mile long cable under +/- 10,000 lbs of tension
- A powerful neutron generator that can be started with two button clicks on a windows desktop
- Little radioactive source materials like the one that was lost in Brazil[0]
- High voltage & current electricity
- Shaped charges[1] (these are really only used in military and oil wells AFAIK)
...Dare I ask what in Sam Hill a high energy neutron source was required for in terms of working with oil rigs and such?
Wasn't aware of any applicability in that space, but freely admit I've not spent many cycles on contemplating the issue. Like I guess being a fundamental part of some diagnostic or sensor gear maybe... but neutrons sources? Gamma I might could understand. Neutrons're just good for making shit hard to dispose of I thought.
The cable would legit give me nightmares though.
If you're not at liberty to say, that's fine, but man. I gotcha.
It is common to use DD neutron generators in oil exploration. You measure the backscattered neutrons to measure density, or something (I used a DD neutron generators manufactured by Schlumberger to characterize particle detectors in grad school... And I also know that they are used to measure density on glacial firn... Not sure exactly what they're used for in oil wells though).
To clarify, the state didn't override those specific ordinances. They passed a law severely limiting the ability of cities to make ordinances in general; my understanding is that these specific ordinances seem to simply be the ones the news media has latched onto to create a narrative.
So it’s worse than what the media is saying? Because the state has exerted even more control over local authorities? Not sure what you’re getting at here.
Correct. The “small/limited government” state legislature took away all sorts of rights from individual communities’ self-determination - involving things like running elections (but only in counties above a certain population size, meaning that exactly, uh, one large, diverse county was actually subject to this law) or mandating standards for animal shelters.
As far as animals go the Texas law says up near the top where it is saying what it covers that it:
> does not, except as expressly provided by this Act, affect the authority of a municipality to adopt, enforce, or maintain an ordinance or rule that relates to the control, care, management, welfare, or health and safety of animals;
so it at least gives the appearance that it isn't going to allow people to just do whatever they want with animals.
But then much farther down in the miscellaneous provisions section it says:
Sec. 229.901. AUTHORITY TO REGULATE ANIMAL BUSINESSES.
(a) A municipality may not adopt, enforce, or maintain an ordinance or rule that restricts, regulates, limits, or otherwise impedes a business involving the breeding, care, treatment, or sale of animals or animal products, including a veterinary practice, or the business ’s transactions if the person operating that business holds a license for the business that is issued by the federal government or a state.
(b) Except as provided by this subsection, a municipality may not adopt, enforce, or maintain an ordinance or rule that restricts, regulates, limits, or otherwise impedes the retail sale of dogs or cats. A municipality may enforce or maintain an ordinance or rule adopted before April 1, 2023, that restricts, regulates, limits, or otherwise impedes the retail sale of dogs or cats until the state adopts statewide regulation for the retail sale of dogs or cats, as applicable.
I have a friend in the call center world. You are required to take the next call before you finish your notes on the previous and to never mute yourself. It is nearly straight torture to keep people talking two hours at a time with penalties if you are heard swallowing. A lot of employers love our quasi-dystopian monitor every moment future.
This article[1] has the stated reasons (this comment is not an endorsement, just informative):
Republican lawmakers pushing the new law have said it eliminates a “hodgepodge of onerous and burdensome regulations” that Texas businesses face. The effort aims to prevent cities and counties from enacting progressive policies that counter the state Republican supermajority’s aims.
“For too long, progressive municipal officials and agencies have made Texas small businesses jump through contradictory and confusing hoops,” said the Republican state representative Dustin Burrows, who introduced the bill.
The comment I'm responding to goes against several HN guidelines, but I'm hoping I can use the opportunity to turn it away from low-effort trolling into an opportunity for education and clarity.
The 2-party system in the US causes hundreds of distinct groups and ideologies to be lumped into either a D or R, regardless of any ideological cohesion to any particular label- left, right, liberal, conservative, authoritarian, libertarian, etc.
The state-level government in Texas is controlled by the Republican party, but specifically by a neoconservative, nationalist, social conservative-Christian cohort. The fiscal conservatives and libertarian small-government conservatives are essentially powerless, minority members of either the Democrat or Republican party, and individuals whose views match those labels will likely vote split-ticket in most elections rather than a straight-party voting pattern.
In essence, while the comment I'm responding to is alluding to a hypocrisy of beliefs, a better interpretation is that the "small government" conservatives don't really hold any power in the Texas state Republican establishment. To the extent that any of them vote R, they're mostly doing so in a "choose which of 2 bad choices seems least bad" context.
This is nonsense. The people saying that government should be small and local, ie Abott himself, are the exact same people saying that they need to prevent Austin from governing itself.
Eh. Let’s say you run a small construction company. Each week you might be in a different town, chasing whatever work is available to you. I can absolutely see it being onerous/possibly impossible to follow different ordinances in each city.
Any reasonable company would already have water breaks more often than that, and presumably OSHA has rules for that too.
I’m a wedding photographer. Sometimes we hire on second photographers for a day. Should I get in trouble if I didn’t realize in was within specific city limits that mandated I give a defined water break to that second photographer after so many hours? Most weddings you just get water whenever you can, here and there.
You aren't responsible for an independent contractor's breaks. You have no obligation to tell a wedding photographer to take a lunch if they have worked 8 hours straight. That's entirely on them as their own boss.
>Each week you might be in a different town, chasing whatever work is available to you. I can absolutely see it being onerous/possibly impossible to follow different ordinances in each city.
Even our small town of 7000 people managed to employ two entire construction empires. If the amount of money in that system is not enough for you to give enough of a crap to provide required breaks and other health important things for your workers, I cry no tears when you are fined.
It's always the same people crying about "onerous" regulation because they refuse to even do a simple google search.
>Any reasonable company would already have water breaks more often than that, and presumably OSHA has rules for that too.
Then you have nothing to worry about. If you have rules that are above and beyond any existing standard, you are not violating a standard. This really isn't complicated and people are bending themselves in half to try and justify this clearly hostile act. Stop with the devil's advocate bullshit.
If wedding photography had a high risk of death from heat stroke, I'd be happy for you to have to deal with local regulations putting some boundaries on how you abuse your employees while risking their lives.
Sorry about the inconvenience, but maybe being an employer isn't for you if you don't give a damn about the people for whom you're responsible.
Central Texas has been straddling that red/black line for the past month, and I suspect this would be classified as "moderate work," so that would require 40 minutes of rest for every 20 minutes of work. Thankfully, Gov. Abbott cannot make it illegal for the Army to enforce this.
>What is going on in USA with workers right? Is this normal?
This is Texas, which is having a competition with Florida to see who can "own" the "libs" harder, which usually means causing harm to people who already have mediocre situations because it upsets people who aren't heartless.
For people who are interested, I highly recommend reading the bill. It's actually fairly straightforward, so I won't regurgitate the specific text, as you can easily read it on Page 6, lines 10 through 20. [0]
The main situation that the state is trying to prevent is conflicting laws.
Let me give you an example - let's say you are building a road, which happens to travel through multiple jurisdictions. Now in one jurisdiction, there may be a rule that requires one set of employee benefits and different benefits in other jurisdictions.
Now, which one should the contractor follow? What happens when they conflict? And it's easy to be in two jurisdictions at once, which really causes a problem. Now clearly this example doesn't hold because the government builds roads, not private entities, so this activity is excluded from the law. But it is as simple illustration.
One side note - a friend of mine has a house that sits on a county and city border, and is taxed in 2 different cities and 2 different counties here on the outskirts of Houston. He gets multiple tax bills per year, and doing anything to his house is a nightmare because of the different codes (yes, he has multiple building codes in different parts of his house). This is what the state is trying to reduce.
Finally, from reading the article, it looks like the employer is guilty of negligence, and probably gross negligence at that. Any rational human being in Texas gives people breaks, and if this article is at all accurate, someone needs to go to jail for a really long time...preferably without air conditioning.
I don't see how there could be a meaningful conflict with any sanely written laws. One jurisdiction says 10 minute break per 2 hours, one jurisdiction says 15 minute break per 3 hours? Just give them a 15 minute break per 2 hours. Why split hairs? They're human beings.
Laws that conflict would be a problem. But what's an example? If one law says give employees a 10 minute break every 4 hours, and another law says give them a 15 minute break every 4 hours, that's not a conflict -- it's easy to obey both laws.
Exactly. Laws rarely actually conflict, you just have to obey the stricter one.
(Personally, I would like to see a federal law that says that if there is an actual conflict the higher authority wins, or if that's not an option the person/company can choose which one to follow--document it and tell anyone trying to enforce the other to pound sand.)
More likely is cases where multiple jurisdictions want their piece of the pie. For example, the house mentioned in this thread straddling a line and getting taxed by both. Or contractors that need licenses for each area they might reasonably work--in all too many cases this is just a revenue grab.
States agreed to some written terms, limiting their own sovereignty, to join a union. That union then ignores terms it dislikes. States try to enforce those terms, but suddenly the union changes tune, finds that enforcing (some) terms actually is important, and stops those states.
But preventing laws from changing from city to city is the real tragedy.
Sp, 2 wrongs make a right? From what I remember, immigration is federal jurisdiction and not state. States have no standing in enforcing immigration laws and the supreme court judgement agrees with that viewpoint.
And you are talking about the same state that asked the rangers to push people into the Rio and not to give water to the immigrants? At some point, you would think those are your fellow people.
Preventing laws from being humane is the real tragedy.
> States have no standing in enforcing immigration laws
Think that over - states have no standing in enforcing the terms of their joining the union? On the other hand states are allowed, and even forced (by threatening to cut federal funds), to enforce federal laws and edicts, such as drinking age [1], transgender bathroom access [2], or not hiring enough minority-owned tunneling companies [3].
Only when it comes to enforcing federal laws that the federal government would rather not see enforced, do suddenly issues of standing and federal jurisdiction appear - as if states have no interest in who enters their territory.
States and their populations direct how the federal government should act by passing laws. That government then ignores those laws at their leisure, and prevents the states from enforcing them. Doesn't that sound a bit undemocratic to you? Though that accusation seems to be levied only when convenient, with little relation to its meaning.
The system is not a democracy, it's a democratic republic. The undemocratic elements you're referring to are just that - the republic. If the federal government were to capitulate to the states, there would be no republic. They tried that with the Articles of Confederation, the US's first government. You need a strong federal government with its own set of rules. Home rule must be limited to some extent to allow for people to work together. I think in this case for Texas, they've squeezed home rule too hard, but that is always going to be a balancing act.
Also, as an aside, I find it very interesting you mentioned transgender people, but not gay people in that bathroom example - the ban was on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination of all forms, why did you choose to single one particular kind out?
>states have no standing in enforcing the terms of their joining the union? On the other hand states are allowed, and even forced (by threatening to cut federal funds), to enforce federal laws and edicts, such as drinking age
100% yes. This was the explicit opinion of several founders, to the point of publicly stating that any provision for any sort of "exit" of the union makes it entirely pointless. The constitution forever bound us, purposely, intentionally, and with an explicit supremacy clause that makes it VERY clear the Federal government is in charge.
We are NOT a federation, were never meant to be, and there is no honest reading of the constitution within context that comes up with such a claim.
This was done because the Articles of Confederation was such an abysmal failure that left the country weak, bickering, and basically a bunch of small kingdoms of governors refusing to interact in ways that benefited the country as a whole. We tried the "weak, small, limited federal government that lets the states do mostly their own thing" and the result was very nearly the end of the country in its infancy. The constitution was entirely "Sign this and we be strong together, or we are re-conquered in twenty years when europe gets it's shit together"
> makes it VERY clear the Federal government is in charge.
And when the federal government ignores the likewise federal laws binding it and directing its actions? In any other situation, if the executive branch ignores the legislative or judicial ones, it's called fascism.
Man, the people of Texas really expect very little regard to their own humanity, seeing as they keep re-electing these guys. I can see how that’s very good for business.
That's a pretty flimsy strawman you have there. Can we at least cite some examples of actual disruption, harm, etc. that came to these projects before the law? Or point us to sources backing up their claims?
Is that really the only rationale for this bill? Why does this it dilute stronger worker protection laws in the name of uniformity and not the opposite?
> One side note - a friend of mine has a house that sits on a county and city border, and is taxed in 2 different cities and 2 different counties here on the outskirts of Houston. He gets multiple tax bills per year, and doing anything to his house is a nightmare because of the different codes (yes, he has multiple building codes in different parts of his house). This is what the state is trying to reduce.
This is not at all what the state is trying to reduce. The number of people who live in houses that straddle jurisdictional barriers is vanishingly small. And I’m sorry to be uncharitable to your friend, but what else on earth would you expect if you choose to buy into such a bizarrely situated property?
Exactly! Anyone deciding to build across cities/counties deserve whatever they get. Won't they reap benefits of both locations? Living in 2 cities qualifies you for benefit of both cities. i.e. You can use both of their libraries. So double taxes is the correct solution.
> Let me give you an example - let's say you are building a road, which happens to travel through multiple jurisdictions. Now in one jurisdiction, there may be a rule that requires one set of employee benefits and different benefits in other jurisdictions.
> Now, which one should the contractor follow?
What do you mean by "benefits"?
Generally what are usually considered benefits in employment are things like health insurance, life insurance, paid time off, retirement plans, life insurance, and similar.
What jurisdiction's law controls those would generally be the jurisdiction(s) that the employer legally resides in. A city regulation with requirements or restrictions on say employee health insurance plans would only apply to businesses that reside in that city.
The city regulations that an employer from another location doing a contracting job in the city would have to worry about would be regulations that affect how the actual job must be done.
For example here in Washington different counties have different regulations on how deep underground water lines must be, because different counties have different frost lines and so a depth that would work fine in one country would might be a pending burst pipe in another.
In both Texas and Louisiana I've seen two solutions to extend the working periods in between rests. But on the hottest days, no one should be working more than 15 minutes at a time outdoors. This isn't unreasonable -- we stop work for lightning storms as well and no one thinks that's an undue burden on business.
Those two solutions are:
- Low humidity days: Hyper-adsorbent textiles that you "fill up" with water and they evaporate over time, lowering the apparent temperature.
- High humidity days: Two enormous chest freezers full of special phase-change "ice" packs. Due to some inherent properties of the universe (thermodynamics) it's best if the phase change happens around 50-60 degrees F or so, instead of at freezing. So it's not pure water. One chest freezer is for "frozen" packs. Workers take the packs from these and load them into pockets in special vests. Then after 30 minutes or so you remove them and put them in the other chest for "used" packs and reload yours with fresh ones. Then after lunch break the used packs from the morning should be frozen again.
These techniques increase the amount of time someone can safely work outside by about 15 minutes per hour. Chemical plants in Louisiana are generally quite good at limiting the time that contractors and direct employees spend working outside on hot days. If the limit for today's temperature is "45 minutes per hour", then ice packs can extend that to continuous work. If the limit is "15 minutes per hour" then with ice packs workers could work 30 minutes per hour, but would have to be indoors in A/C for the other 30 minutes.
Working 15 minutes every hour is very inefficient, but it's moral, humane, and in the long run calculated to be cheaper than the lost time of large teams being derailed by depositions in a wrongful death lawsuit and less productive teams for months until that's all resolved.
Often instead of having workers work 15 minutes per hour, we'd just reschedule them for 1-2 weeks later when it's a bit cooler again.
> we'd just reschedule them for 1-2 weeks later when it's a bit cooler again
That makes a lot of sense. My wife used to work for a lawn service company and when it was predicted to be above a certain temperature, they'd just start a couple hours earlier in the day to avoid most of the heat.
The heat index has been 110F in Austin for the past 3 weeks and I see construction workers leaving job sites every weekday about 4 pm. I'm wondering how they manage their physical condition in extreme heat without cooling and not having a heart attack. I'll have to remember to ask about how often they grab something to drink or take a break during such extreme heat.
I can't imagine it would be that hard to make a body temperature sensor that beeps when body temp exceeds 101F. I know you can get an athletic one that pairs to your bike computer for less than $300. It may be a good idea to use something like that for working in dangerous heat index levels.
Seems like a great startup idea for preventing heat injuries at work sites.
It's not: I worked for a company that was doing exactly that (with some other features). But at the same time, it's not hard to set a timer on your phone or watch to take a periodic water break either. And save yourself having to buy yet one more gadget.
A sensor is more reliable as it protects you against local effects. (Say, working around machinery that puts out enough heat to change the protection you need.)
One thing a lot of people don't take into account is that roads and un-shaded rock can increase perceived temperature by 10-20 degrees. I used to work as a rock climbing instructor and the top of the rock would be over 120F. Same for roads, which makes road construction particularly dangerous.
For a while I worked weekends at the race track, all of the drunk people would drop like flies if it went over 100F. The pavement temperature was 150F+. It was like standing on a griddle. You could feel the radiated heat trying to cook your skin.
Even without introducing things like roads I have found it infeasible to get a reasonable air temperature measurement while hiking--something could probably be 3D printed but I don't have one.
Garmin, what possessed you to make a *black* temperature sensor? And provide no proper sun shield for it? (Although I'm not sure how effective a sun shield would be. I've got a thermometer in the back yard that is inside a manufacturer's sun shield--vented white plastic--and it still can report 15 degrees above actual even though it's under a tree.)
Even putting it something like an inch deep in my pack has produced readings of 90+ when hiking away from the sun for an extended period.
This is because temperature is complicated. If you want to measure the air temperature you need to isolate from other systems like the 5770K fusion explosion in the sky and the 70-80C ground. (The Sun is constantly trying to reach equilibrium with the earth and would happily burn us to a cinder except we are re-radiating that energy back into space.) Typically measurements are taken in shaded, well ventilated areas, 5 feet off of the ground.
If you want your Garmin to take a valid measurement, place it on a string, 5 feet from the ground, in a shaded area for 5-10 minutes.
It's just physics unfortunately. You might be able to use an IR camera to take a "Picture" of the ambient temperature and kind of take a stab at guessing, but a simple thermocouple is never going to be able to do what you are asking of it. However, that won't stop Garmin from selling one to you!
Once again, this is not a technology problem. We have ample knowledge of how to stay safe in high heat work, hell the US army has publicly available manuals on this.
But a company does not care if a blue collar worker keels over on the job if they aren't forced to care by the government. Simple as.
I did not intend to imply that this would be sufficient to prevent heat stroke without other mandated safety measures. However I was thinking more along the lines of an additional precaution to regular breaks and plenty of cold water.
My thought is to prevent death. There are circumstances under which no matter what procedures you use, heat stroke happens anyways. People with heart disease, diabetes, obesity, or even just a winter on the couch can contract heat stroke where everyone else is fine. Alcoholics tend to be the worst off.
Heck, I kind of want something like this for mowing my lawn some days.
87 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 172 ms ] threadHow often are these guys taking breaks? 10 minutes every four hours seems like not nearly enough break time even in normal conditions. Yet somehow the governor signed a bill saying they're not entitled to even that? What is going on in USA with workers right? Is this normal?
This is Texas. Other states have different rules. For comparison, at a heat index of 100F, Oregon requires 30 minute breaks every 1 hour. Here is more detail (PDF): https://osha.oregon.gov/OSHAPubs/factsheets/fs90.pdf
https://www.constructiondive.com/news/osha-heat-standard-con...
One side much much much more than the other. Only one side banning mandated water breaks.
In both USA and Saudi, it seemed to be more based on company rules, rather than state/federal rules.
Is that how you got your username?
Thankfully I never had any safety incidents. But nothing I was doing was safe work while under the effects of sleep deprivation. We had a dozen different ways to kill people directly and hundreds of things could go wrong to kill people in more Rube Goldberg fashions. I was unhappy with the work environment so I left.
Some of those include:
- A 3 mile long cable under +/- 10,000 lbs of tension
- A powerful neutron generator that can be started with two button clicks on a windows desktop
- Little radioactive source materials like the one that was lost in Brazil[0]
- High voltage & current electricity
- Shaped charges[1] (these are really only used in military and oil wells AFAIK)
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goiânia_accident
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpVVGk2OfQQ&t=0m10s
Wasn't aware of any applicability in that space, but freely admit I've not spent many cycles on contemplating the issue. Like I guess being a fundamental part of some diagnostic or sensor gear maybe... but neutrons sources? Gamma I might could understand. Neutrons're just good for making shit hard to dispose of I thought.
The cable would legit give me nightmares though.
If you're not at liberty to say, that's fine, but man. I gotcha.
> does not, except as expressly provided by this Act, affect the authority of a municipality to adopt, enforce, or maintain an ordinance or rule that relates to the control, care, management, welfare, or health and safety of animals;
so it at least gives the appearance that it isn't going to allow people to just do whatever they want with animals.
But then much farther down in the miscellaneous provisions section it says:
Sec. 229.901. AUTHORITY TO REGULATE ANIMAL BUSINESSES.
(a) A municipality may not adopt, enforce, or maintain an ordinance or rule that restricts, regulates, limits, or otherwise impedes a business involving the breeding, care, treatment, or sale of animals or animal products, including a veterinary practice, or the business ’s transactions if the person operating that business holds a license for the business that is issued by the federal government or a state.
(b) Except as provided by this subsection, a municipality may not adopt, enforce, or maintain an ordinance or rule that restricts, regulates, limits, or otherwise impedes the retail sale of dogs or cats. A municipality may enforce or maintain an ordinance or rule adopted before April 1, 2023, that restricts, regulates, limits, or otherwise impedes the retail sale of dogs or cats until the state adopts statewide regulation for the retail sale of dogs or cats, as applicable.
Freedom.
I suppose this is why we need laws because morality and ethics are beyond some of us.
Republican lawmakers pushing the new law have said it eliminates a “hodgepodge of onerous and burdensome regulations” that Texas businesses face. The effort aims to prevent cities and counties from enacting progressive policies that counter the state Republican supermajority’s aims.
“For too long, progressive municipal officials and agencies have made Texas small businesses jump through contradictory and confusing hoops,” said the Republican state representative Dustin Burrows, who introduced the bill.
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/23/greg-abbott-...
The 2-party system in the US causes hundreds of distinct groups and ideologies to be lumped into either a D or R, regardless of any ideological cohesion to any particular label- left, right, liberal, conservative, authoritarian, libertarian, etc.
The state-level government in Texas is controlled by the Republican party, but specifically by a neoconservative, nationalist, social conservative-Christian cohort. The fiscal conservatives and libertarian small-government conservatives are essentially powerless, minority members of either the Democrat or Republican party, and individuals whose views match those labels will likely vote split-ticket in most elections rather than a straight-party voting pattern.
In essence, while the comment I'm responding to is alluding to a hypocrisy of beliefs, a better interpretation is that the "small government" conservatives don't really hold any power in the Texas state Republican establishment. To the extent that any of them vote R, they're mostly doing so in a "choose which of 2 bad choices seems least bad" context.
This isn't even hypocrisy, it's just lying.
Any reasonable company would already have water breaks more often than that, and presumably OSHA has rules for that too.
I’m a wedding photographer. Sometimes we hire on second photographers for a day. Should I get in trouble if I didn’t realize in was within specific city limits that mandated I give a defined water break to that second photographer after so many hours? Most weddings you just get water whenever you can, here and there.
>Each week you might be in a different town, chasing whatever work is available to you. I can absolutely see it being onerous/possibly impossible to follow different ordinances in each city.
Even our small town of 7000 people managed to employ two entire construction empires. If the amount of money in that system is not enough for you to give enough of a crap to provide required breaks and other health important things for your workers, I cry no tears when you are fined.
It's always the same people crying about "onerous" regulation because they refuse to even do a simple google search.
>Any reasonable company would already have water breaks more often than that, and presumably OSHA has rules for that too.
Then you have nothing to worry about. If you have rules that are above and beyond any existing standard, you are not violating a standard. This really isn't complicated and people are bending themselves in half to try and justify this clearly hostile act. Stop with the devil's advocate bullshit.
Sorry about the inconvenience, but maybe being an employer isn't for you if you don't give a damn about the people for whom you're responsible.
Central Texas has been straddling that red/black line for the past month, and I suspect this would be classified as "moderate work," so that would require 40 minutes of rest for every 20 minutes of work. Thankfully, Gov. Abbott cannot make it illegal for the Army to enforce this.
This is Texas, which is having a competition with Florida to see who can "own" the "libs" harder, which usually means causing harm to people who already have mediocre situations because it upsets people who aren't heartless.
The main situation that the state is trying to prevent is conflicting laws.
Let me give you an example - let's say you are building a road, which happens to travel through multiple jurisdictions. Now in one jurisdiction, there may be a rule that requires one set of employee benefits and different benefits in other jurisdictions.
Now, which one should the contractor follow? What happens when they conflict? And it's easy to be in two jurisdictions at once, which really causes a problem. Now clearly this example doesn't hold because the government builds roads, not private entities, so this activity is excluded from the law. But it is as simple illustration.
One side note - a friend of mine has a house that sits on a county and city border, and is taxed in 2 different cities and 2 different counties here on the outskirts of Houston. He gets multiple tax bills per year, and doing anything to his house is a nightmare because of the different codes (yes, he has multiple building codes in different parts of his house). This is what the state is trying to reduce.
Finally, from reading the article, it looks like the employer is guilty of negligence, and probably gross negligence at that. Any rational human being in Texas gives people breaks, and if this article is at all accurate, someone needs to go to jail for a really long time...preferably without air conditioning.
[0] - https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HB02127F....
This part is the problem.
(Personally, I would like to see a federal law that says that if there is an actual conflict the higher authority wins, or if that's not an option the person/company can choose which one to follow--document it and tell anyone trying to enforce the other to pound sand.)
More likely is cases where multiple jurisdictions want their piece of the pie. For example, the house mentioned in this thread straddling a line and getting taxed by both. Or contractors that need licenses for each area they might reasonably work--in all too many cases this is just a revenue grab.
(Spoiler: it’s for eroding local control for democratic run major cities and not for preventing conflicts)
States agreed to some written terms, limiting their own sovereignty, to join a union. That union then ignores terms it dislikes. States try to enforce those terms, but suddenly the union changes tune, finds that enforcing (some) terms actually is important, and stops those states.
But preventing laws from changing from city to city is the real tragedy.
And you are talking about the same state that asked the rangers to push people into the Rio and not to give water to the immigrants? At some point, you would think those are your fellow people.
Preventing laws from being humane is the real tragedy.
Think that over - states have no standing in enforcing the terms of their joining the union? On the other hand states are allowed, and even forced (by threatening to cut federal funds), to enforce federal laws and edicts, such as drinking age [1], transgender bathroom access [2], or not hiring enough minority-owned tunneling companies [3].
Only when it comes to enforcing federal laws that the federal government would rather not see enforced, do suddenly issues of standing and federal jurisdiction appear - as if states have no interest in who enters their territory.
States and their populations direct how the federal government should act by passing laws. That government then ignores those laws at their leisure, and prevents the states from enforcing them. Doesn't that sound a bit undemocratic to you? Though that accusation seems to be levied only when convenient, with little relation to its meaning.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/four-ti...
[2] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-admin-holding-school-...
[3] https://www.kiro7.com/news/federal-government-threatens-pull...
Also, as an aside, I find it very interesting you mentioned transgender people, but not gay people in that bathroom example - the ban was on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination of all forms, why did you choose to single one particular kind out?
100% yes. This was the explicit opinion of several founders, to the point of publicly stating that any provision for any sort of "exit" of the union makes it entirely pointless. The constitution forever bound us, purposely, intentionally, and with an explicit supremacy clause that makes it VERY clear the Federal government is in charge.
We are NOT a federation, were never meant to be, and there is no honest reading of the constitution within context that comes up with such a claim.
This was done because the Articles of Confederation was such an abysmal failure that left the country weak, bickering, and basically a bunch of small kingdoms of governors refusing to interact in ways that benefited the country as a whole. We tried the "weak, small, limited federal government that lets the states do mostly their own thing" and the result was very nearly the end of the country in its infancy. The constitution was entirely "Sign this and we be strong together, or we are re-conquered in twenty years when europe gets it's shit together"
And when the federal government ignores the likewise federal laws binding it and directing its actions? In any other situation, if the executive branch ignores the legislative or judicial ones, it's called fascism.
* Russia
* China
... yup
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opi...
There are hundreds of situations like this. I picked this one at random.
There were also bizarre municipal regulations on taxis, signs, and all sorts of other things.
This is not at all what the state is trying to reduce. The number of people who live in houses that straddle jurisdictional barriers is vanishingly small. And I’m sorry to be uncharitable to your friend, but what else on earth would you expect if you choose to buy into such a bizarrely situated property?
And I doubt you can use both libraries. Typically such straddle places are deemed to be located where their front door is.
> Now, which one should the contractor follow?
What do you mean by "benefits"?
Generally what are usually considered benefits in employment are things like health insurance, life insurance, paid time off, retirement plans, life insurance, and similar.
What jurisdiction's law controls those would generally be the jurisdiction(s) that the employer legally resides in. A city regulation with requirements or restrictions on say employee health insurance plans would only apply to businesses that reside in that city.
The city regulations that an employer from another location doing a contracting job in the city would have to worry about would be regulations that affect how the actual job must be done.
For example here in Washington different counties have different regulations on how deep underground water lines must be, because different counties have different frost lines and so a depth that would work fine in one country would might be a pending burst pipe in another.
Those two solutions are:
- Low humidity days: Hyper-adsorbent textiles that you "fill up" with water and they evaporate over time, lowering the apparent temperature.
- High humidity days: Two enormous chest freezers full of special phase-change "ice" packs. Due to some inherent properties of the universe (thermodynamics) it's best if the phase change happens around 50-60 degrees F or so, instead of at freezing. So it's not pure water. One chest freezer is for "frozen" packs. Workers take the packs from these and load them into pockets in special vests. Then after 30 minutes or so you remove them and put them in the other chest for "used" packs and reload yours with fresh ones. Then after lunch break the used packs from the morning should be frozen again.
These techniques increase the amount of time someone can safely work outside by about 15 minutes per hour. Chemical plants in Louisiana are generally quite good at limiting the time that contractors and direct employees spend working outside on hot days. If the limit for today's temperature is "45 minutes per hour", then ice packs can extend that to continuous work. If the limit is "15 minutes per hour" then with ice packs workers could work 30 minutes per hour, but would have to be indoors in A/C for the other 30 minutes.
Working 15 minutes every hour is very inefficient, but it's moral, humane, and in the long run calculated to be cheaper than the lost time of large teams being derailed by depositions in a wrongful death lawsuit and less productive teams for months until that's all resolved.
Often instead of having workers work 15 minutes per hour, we'd just reschedule them for 1-2 weeks later when it's a bit cooler again.
That makes a lot of sense. My wife used to work for a lawn service company and when it was predicted to be above a certain temperature, they'd just start a couple hours earlier in the day to avoid most of the heat.
Best to work 6am to noon rather than afternoon.
The sun intensity is worse than the heat, imo.
I begged for OJ that they had right there, and they refused.
There need to be criminal penalties for refusing medical aide to someone. It should be OK to demand a drug test, but not to refuse medical aide.
How would one unjust firing end your career?
Seems like a great startup idea for preventing heat injuries at work sites.
https://corebodytemp.com/
For a while I worked weekends at the race track, all of the drunk people would drop like flies if it went over 100F. The pavement temperature was 150F+. It was like standing on a griddle. You could feel the radiated heat trying to cook your skin.
Garmin, what possessed you to make a *black* temperature sensor? And provide no proper sun shield for it? (Although I'm not sure how effective a sun shield would be. I've got a thermometer in the back yard that is inside a manufacturer's sun shield--vented white plastic--and it still can report 15 degrees above actual even though it's under a tree.)
Even putting it something like an inch deep in my pack has produced readings of 90+ when hiking away from the sun for an extended period.
If you want your Garmin to take a valid measurement, place it on a string, 5 feet from the ground, in a shaded area for 5-10 minutes.
But a company does not care if a blue collar worker keels over on the job if they aren't forced to care by the government. Simple as.
My thought is to prevent death. There are circumstances under which no matter what procedures you use, heat stroke happens anyways. People with heart disease, diabetes, obesity, or even just a winter on the couch can contract heat stroke where everyone else is fine. Alcoholics tend to be the worst off.
Heck, I kind of want something like this for mowing my lawn some days.