 |
Hello:
I'm for removing ALL the regulations about food safety. I'm a winger too. The protection a consumer should have is to sue.. But, wait... The people who don't want regulations, ALSO want to limit how much you can sue for... They want it BOTH ways.
I don't know about you, but it looks to me like they want to set us consumers adrift... They say the free market will protect us..
Does anybody believe this claptrap?
excon
If they do away with food safety entirely then there could be severe outbreaks of very nasty diseases causing premature death. Maybe that's WHAT they want. To kill off more people their way.
The free market won't protect anyone.
And as far as suing someone over bad food is a really really BAD idea as the clever defense attorneys will claim that the food eaten did not make the plaintiff sick but something else did making it virtually impossible to sue and collect. I can see it now very clearly.
So what brought up this topic, Exie? Or are you bored as usual?
That of course would be a winger position... a winger from another planet. But if you ask me ;the problem with food safety isn't a lack of regulations... it's over regulation with multiple agencies with overlapping responsibility of oversight. (I speak from experience having been in the food and,drug,industries my whole career) .Quote:
I'm for removing ALL the regulations about food safety. I'm a winger too. The protection a consumer should have is to sue..
Here is a GAO evaluation of the salmonella scare :
The FDA and USDA inspections of 1,451 domestic food plants overlap contributed to the egg salmonella scare. The USDA Saw bugs and trash at egg farms but failed to inform the FDA .Quote:
In 2008, GAO testified before a House subcommittee that “FDA is one of 15 agencies that collectively administer at least 30 laws related to food safety. This fragmentation is the key reason GAO added the federal oversight of food safety to its High-Risk Series in January 2007 and called for a government wide reexamination of the food safety system.
Hello again, tom:
So, it's NOT regulations so much as it's ENFORCEMENT... I wonder if some of those enforcers are believers in the notion that government IS the problem.. You know, what your favorite president said.. If so, NO WONDER they didn't enforce diddly.
I think today's SEC is staffed with those same kind of people. But, they're ineffective for a DIFFERENT reason... It's hands off the crooks with them because their boss wants to get re-elected and the crook HAS the money...
I refer you to my GET BIG thread which is about this very thing. These are the results, of course, of the wrong headed Citizens United decision.
excon
I don't know how you conclude that over regulation is the result of regulators not doing their job. I often deal with FDA inspectors and I can assure you they are a dedicated group overall. I don't understand why you slander them. They have a job to do and they always attempt to do it in my opinion. I've yet to see one that slacked because they were philosophically opposed to the job they do... do you listen to yourself ?
I'm not sure what claptrap you are referring to ex, the claptrap of wanting to do away with regulation, or the claptrap of believing the free market will protect you and ex I'm certainly for streamlining the legal process to get vexacious litigation out of the courts. If there is a regulation that is breached there should be a substantial penalty and punitative damages but leaving the sum up to a court?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The way this administration behaves you'd think regulations are meant to be used to bully American businesses without ever telling anyone why.
For the second time since 2009, Obama's DOJ has raided Gibson guitar facilities, one can only assume for the reason the DOJ suspects them of violating environmental regulations in the import of rosewood for their famed guitars. As the article states, "the government seems to be questioning whether some wood sourced from India met every regulatory jot and tittle."
Of course if you're Michelle Obama, it's OK to give one of those very guitars to the French First Lady. But hey, why quibble?
Just what is it that this administration has against American business. It doesn't matter if Gibson has to spend tons of money defending themselves, losing production time or watching employees sit at home instead of feeding their families, the government must make sure they comply with "every jot and tittle" of federal regulations.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I'm left to wonder how you'd feel IF the company they were investigating produced MEDICINE that YOU are taking... I'll bet you'd APPLAUD the government requiring them to comply with "every jot and tittle" of federal regulations...
Or, maybe not. I have trouble telling when right wingers LIKE government intervention, and when they don't...
excon
Have you ever explored a federal regulation? I can't even understand what the hell they say, how am I supposed to comply with something as incomprehensible and confusing as say, CFR 49? I had to ship some fire alarm parts to Germany this year, took me half a day to figure out how to do it.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Sure I have. They're completely incomprehensible. But, just because our congress doesn't know how to write good law, doesn't mean that we shouldn't have any...
excon
I love good laws and good regulations, but we don't always agree on what "good" is. Either way, if they expect me to comply they need to make them comprehensible.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Another example of regulations run amok. California is moving through their legislature a bill that would require parents "to provide workers' compensation benefits, rest and meal breaks and paid vacation time" to babysitters.
Terrible bill is an understatement. This is just plain stupid, you would have to hire 2 people to go on a date with your wife, a primary sitter and a reliever.Quote:
Assembly Bill 889 (authored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, will require these protections for all “domestic employees,” including nannies, housekeepers and caregivers.
The bill has already passed the Assembly and is quickly moving through the Senate with blanket support from the Democrat members that control both houses of the Legislature – and without the support of a single Republican member. Assuming the bill will easily clear its last couple of legislative hurdles, AB 889 will soon be on its way to the Governor's desk.
Under AB 889, household “employers” (aka “parents”) who hire a babysitter on a Friday night will be legally obligated to pay at least minimum wage to any sitter over the age of 18 (unless it is a family member), provide a substitute caregiver every two hours to cover rest and meal breaks, in addition to workers' compensation coverage, overtime pay, and a meticulously calculated timecard/paycheck.
Failure to abide by any of these provisions may result in a legal cause of action against the employer including cumulative penalties, attorneys' fees, legal costs and expenses associated with hiring expert witnesses, an unprecedented measure of legal recourse provided no other class of workers – from agricultural laborers to garment manufacturers. (On the bright side, language requiring an hour of paid vacation time for every 30 hours worked was amended out of the bill in the Senate.)
Unfortunately, the unreasonable costs and risks contained in this bill will discourage folks from hiring housekeepers, nannies and babysitters and increase the use of institutionalized care rather than allowing children, the sick or elderly to be cared for in their homes. I can't help but wonder if that is the goal of AB 889 – a terrible bill that needs to be stopped.
It's a bad bill but here's a better discussion of it minus the hyperbole:
AB 889 (Ammiano and V. Manuel Pérez): Domestic work employees. (California Assembly Bill)
Excuse me once again for using an unapproved source. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
You just cited a portion of the bill, here's the whole thing. It's a bad bill and I didn't see any hyperbole in my source, but feel free to point it out if you can find it.
Ok, explain to me how your occasionally babysitter would require compensation benefits and paid vacation time under this bill?
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Now where's the hyperbole?Quote:
Existing law requires an employer to provide its employees with
Specified information regarding their wages either semimonthly or at
The time of each wage payment. Under existing law, this requirement
Does not apply to employers of persons who engage in specified types
Of household domestic service.
This bill would delete the exclusion for employers of persons who
engage in specified types of household domestic service, thereby
requiring those employers to provide the above-described information...
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the
Following:
(a) As recognized by the State of California in Resolution Chapter
119 of the Statutes of 2010, it is the policy of the state to
Encourage and protect the rights of domestic work employees.
(b) California's domestic workers, which includes housekeepers,
Nannies, and caregivers for children, persons with disabilities, and
The elderly, work in private households to care for the health,
Safety, and well-being of the most important aspects of Californians'
Lives: their families and homes.SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) As recognized by the State of California in Resolution Chapter
119 of the Statutes of 2010, it is the policy of the state to
Encourage and protect the rights of domestic work employees.
(b) California's domestic workers, which includes housekeepers,
nannies, and caregivers for children, persons with disabilities, and
The elderly, work in private households to care for the health,
Safety, and well-being of the most important aspects of Californians'
Lives: their families and homes.[/B]
Do you believe a Friday evening babysitter for four hours would qualify under that bill?
He does - he believes that bill means they get $10 an hour, 2 weeks vacation, health insurance and severance pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Someone has lost the plot
I know, I hate it when people write fiction when we ask for facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Until I see the exception for babysitters then I think they will be able to use this law to make that case. Oh I think under 18 babysitters and illegal domestic workers will be excluded . But the Dems want domestic workers to be filtered through an agency ,preferably a state controlled agency using unionized workers. Ultimately the law will screw the adult babysitters of the State.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Dude, if your sole intent is to mock others you need another hobby. You also need to learn the meaning of 'hyperbole' if you're going to use the word, and to know when you've been thrashed in a debate. You have nothing but ad hominems and diversions, I have the truth on my side.
I know the meaning of hyperbole, as in your above quote and not my source. I know the meaning of "any man, woman and minor employed in any occupation", "domestic work employees" and "delete the exclusion". Man up, dude, you know I'm right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I can't see anything in the legislation that mentions 'Friday night' (re the original post above). I would say this is the hyperbole being referred to. In other words the 'Friday night out' claim is being inferred from the preamble to the legislation.
Tut
That's not hyperbole, Friday night dinner and a movie is an Anerican tradition. Until the bill excludes the other tradition, hiring a teenage babysitter, the Friday night out reference is spot on.
Now, does anyone want to refute the claims on the facts, or just keep playing silly games?
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hi Speech,
That's what makes the original article's reference to Friday night a hyperbole. It is commits the fallacy of appealing to popularity. In other words, it is the writers intended aim to prove the claim true because of the tradition involved.
As stated before the conclusion reached in the article cannot be gleaned from the preamble which represents a statement about about the existing law and the intention of the legislation.
Tut
Hello again:
My right wing friends tell us that corporations don't need regulations because it's in themselves interest NOT to screw people...
But, when it comes to INDIVIDUALS acting in themselves interest, they seem to LOSE faith. So, they enact lots and lots of laws governing PERSONAL behavior... That's how come we're the worlds largest jailer...
I'm missing something here. Am I the only one?? Aren't individuals running corporations??
excon
Appealing to popularity is not hyperbole. Hyperbole is exaggeration and there is none in the article. Debate the facts or not, OK?Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
In big bold letters at the top the article leads off by calling it the "Babysitting bill".Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
The you said:
.Quote:
you would have to hire 2 people to go on a date with your wife, a primary sitter and a reliever
You do realize that media outlets write their own headlines.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
All true. If it's true it isn't hyperbole.Quote:
The you said:
You would have to hire 2 people to go on a date with your wife, a primary sitter and a reliever
Can't follow your logic anymore, it makes my head ache.
I can't help it if you can't figure out what hyperbole is. That's a good indication you should stop throwing the word around.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Oh I know what it means.
It's your logic I can't follow. You say that there's none in the article, then I point out a case in the article headline and you reply with the fact that they write their own headlines. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.
a) If the point of any of this was discussing the headline you MIGHT have a point, but since the bill in its current form DOES affect babysitters you don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
b) I am addressing the subject matter not the headline, which is usually written by the paper's staff, not the contributing author. The headline is irrelevant to the discussion, which you refuse to engage in. You're busy playing games and trying to make me look silly. It won't work, it just makes you look petty.
c) You seem to think posting a link to part of the bill's text is "discussion" and it isn't.
Now, do you have anything to add to the discussion, or do you just want to play your silly games? If you want to play games play them by yourself because I am wasting no more time on you in this.
Hello again,
Can we cut the sniping please? I asked a very good question that you MISSED because you want to fight... Would somebody answer it please...
I await your response with baited breath.
excon
What I am trying to do is to get people to calm down on the inflammatory, divisive rhetoric that gets thrown around. It doesn't lead to discussion, it just leads to pedantic pejoratives hurled around.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Someone left the irony on again.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
As long as certain self-appointed board monitors whose admitted intent is to monitor my posts play games and sling bullsh*t instead of engaging in the discussion, I'm going to call them on it. You can either help me stop this nonsense or let it continue.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
You post misinformation and I'll call you on it. And that's true anyone who does it - you're just one of the worst offenders. :) And that post you linked to: that's when you were trying to chase me off this website for daring to correct you.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Have you no shame?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Ovbiously not
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:03 AM. |