The GOP is just getting gross now

[Michchamp]

I mean COME ON.

 

[turok]

s

I mean COME ON.

Just another asshole who thinks its okay for food-service based business to spread a little e-coli with a side order of MRSA b/c the glorious free market will police it...haha!!

b/c the free market has the public's best interests, health and safety in mind first and foremost, and profits take a back seat...yup!!

Thats why we do business with communist China, b/c its such a shining example of what happens when business is permitted to operate largely unregulated.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Moron. The requirement to post a sign saying you don't require employees to wash their hands is also a regulation.

 

[Thumb]

Jesus Christ.

Backing parents who who do not vaccinate their children.

Wanting to allow businesses to stop making employes wash their hands in between touching their genitals and preparing your food.

Yet gay/lesbian marriage is still outlawed in 14 states.

 

[Michchamp]

Real Americans don't worry about such namby-pamby elitist crap as "eating food without human feces in it."

if God wanted us to wash our hands, he would've given us hands that have their own faucets attached to them.

 

[Michchamp]

Moron. The requirement to post a sign saying you don't require employees to wash their hands is also a regulation.

he is one of YOUR senators...

 

[tinselwolverine]

Moron. The requirement to post a sign saying you don't require employees to wash their hands is also a regulation.

Yes exactly.

I don't know what the guy thinks he's going to get out of this that benefits him in any way.

 

[Michchamp]

Yes exactly.

I don't know what the guy thinks he's going to get out of this that benefits him in any way.

he forgot that when using the campaign talking point of "burdensome regulations on business" you're supposed to keep it vague, and not actually go into the details...

Voters will be shocked if by "burdens" you mean "safety railing that keeps employees from falling into a vat of acid while they work" or "a seal on your storage tank that will keep carcinogenic chemicals out of the local drinking water" or "washing your hands to keep fecal matter out of people's food."

 

[byco42]

Good Lord what idiocy in my chosen state. Trust me when I tell you that many of these employees ALREADY don't wash their hands and to actually say its a "burden" on them to make them do so???? Government is not reason.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Good Lord what idiocy in my chosen state. Trust me when I tell you that many of these employees ALREADY don't wash their hands and to actually say its a "burden" on them to make them do so???? Government is not reason.

Yes. Dumb statement but there's already a ton of workers who bypass the sink..

 

[Gulo Blue]

he forgot that when using the campaign talking point of "burdensome regulations on business" you're supposed to keep it vague, and not actually go into the details...

That's a part of it. It's clear in the link he's only using the suggestion as an analogy and he's implying all companies that choose to not require handwashing would go out of business. His point didn't land as he thought it would. It wasn't supposed to be "The GOP is gross" it was supposed to be "Gross. Obviously we don't need this regulation because not following it would drive people out of business." The two parts he's glossing over is the reporting requirements and enforcement and what regulations he specifically would like to do away with.

 

[TheVictors]

Employers should relieve these workers of said burden by removing the burden of employment.

Private business owner rules - "Employees must wash hands before returning to work or they won't return to work at all"

 

[Spartanmack]

Employers should relieve these workers of said burden by removing the burden of employment.

Private business owner rules - "Employees must wash hands before returning to work or they won't return to work at all"

Good point but how do they know if they do or don't wash their hands? Plus the sinks in those places don't look much cleaner than the toilets. They should put a sink or hand sanitizer station right inside the door to the kitchen and tell everyone to use it every time they walk in that door. Problem solved.

 

[Spartanmack]

That's a part of it. It's clear in the link he's only using the suggestion as an analogy and he's implying all companies that choose to not require handwashing would go out of business. His point didn't land as he thought it would. It wasn't supposed to be "The GOP is gross" it was supposed to be "Gross. Obviously we don't need this regulation because not following it would drive people out of business." The two parts he's glossing over is the reporting requirements and enforcement and what regulations he specifically would like to do away with.

That is the point he's trying to make and it's cheaper to make a company disclose that they don't require or follow some guidelines for cleanliness and safety than to have a massive enforcement effort. Market forces didn't work with smoking - it had to be banned outright but if people worry that their food may be laced with turds it would probably have some effect. In NYC there is a letter grade system the health department uses for restaurant cleanliness. I'm not sure if everyone has to display their grade or if just places receiving a "C" or worse have to put a sheet of white paper w/ a big red "C" on it right by the door where everyone can see it.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Yes. Dumb statement but there's already a ton of workers who bypass the sink..

They should all go to Hebrew School.

 

[Gulo Blue]

That is the point he's trying to make and it's cheaper to make a company disclose that they don't require or follow some guidelines for cleanliness and safety than to have a massive enforcement effort. Market forces didn't work with smoking - it had to be banned outright but if people worry that their food may be laced with turds it would probably have some effect. In NYC there is a letter grade system the health department uses for restaurant cleanliness. I'm not sure if everyone has to display their grade or if just places receiving a "C" or worse have to put a sheet of white paper w/ a big red "C" on it right by the door where everyone can see it.

Consumers get information fatigue and the requirement to disclose needs an equally massive enforcement effort anyway. How do you know if a company should or shouldn't be posting the sign without the exact same inspection?

And businesses don't exactly cooperate anyway.

 

[Spartanmack]

Consumers get information fatigue and the requirement to disclose needs an equally massive enforcement effort anyway. How do you know if a company should or shouldn't be posting the sign without the exact same inspection?

And businesses don't exactly cooperate anyway.

if you're limiting enforcement to just the hand washing rule, yes it's the exact same effort and cost to look for the sign that either says "Employees must wash hands..." or "We don't require employees to wash their hands..." But as you said, this was probably just a bad analogy and he's most likely just using it as a single example. When you expand on that simple analogy, it's easy to see where enforcement becomes less complicated. If your enforcement effort is ensuring a sign is posted that says "We take reasonable efforts to ensure cleanliness and sanitary conditions but don't adhere to the strict guidelines of the Dept of Health to the letter" or something like that vs. having people inspect kitchens for cleanliness, pests, rodent droppings, etc, check temperature of food and food storage facilities, inspect inventory to ensure food is properly sealed in storage, etc, etc, etc then you're talking about 2 much different levels of enforcement and there would be a significant cost difference. I'm not saying it would work or that it's a great idea, but I think he has a much broader spectrum of "regulation though market forces" than just employees washing their hands after using those disgusting bathrooms.

Obviously, you would still need the inspection efforts for restaurants that don't want to take the risk that posting that sign would scare patrons away so there will still be some cost of enforcement but it's seems obvious this guy thinks it would be greatly reduced.

 

[Michchamp]

Consumers get information fatigue and the requirement to disclose needs an equally massive enforcement effort anyway. How do you know if a company should or shouldn't be posting the sign without the exact same inspection?

...

how do you know it's a "massive" enforcement effort? Is hiring a few dozen qualified health inspectors for around $75K-$100K/year in salary & benefits "massive" compared to annual city budgets that run into the billions, compared to the cost of public health scares & food-borne disease outbreaks?

I mean... this isn't a new thing. we've had health inspectors since the early-mid 1900's. My grandpa started his career in public health as an inspector for the City of Detroit.

There was a good reason behind hiring, training, and employing (relatively well-paid, making them less susceptible to bribery) health inspectors.

Like a lot of things (e.g. vaccinations), the success of public health departments has made really stupid people & politicians forget why we needed them in the first place, and therefore consider them worth cutting, making it likely we'll have to again go through cholera epidemics, drinking water bans, and other easily treatable health issues that plagued all mid- to large-cities prior to the 20th Century, before we come to our senses.

"Oh, so that's why you need public health regulations, inspectors, and a method to enforce them. Got it. Too bad 100+ people needed to die, and 1,000's of others get sick in that salmonella epidemic... but at least we know now. If only there was some method of recording information that would allow us to preserve this knowledge for future generations..."