Coronavirus

[Lurker]

I have a friend right now who is 31, no pre existing conditions, athletic and healthy and not a “complainer” I’m pretty sure she even votes trump.

Sick as all hell, can’t breathe, can’t get into a hospital because of her age and her family is planning her funeral. So sure Lisa, believe whatever you want. I hope and pray you don’t learn the hard way and that the tri state manages to contain it for your benefit so you can continue living in la la land blaming liberals for being slightly inconvenienced.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. They're taking away the care. But at least we get videos of them patting themselves on the back.

 

[justjess]

IDK. If the company did not allow masks/gloves. Maybe even stretch that to did not provide them. It just seems like it would be very hard to show where you got sick.

Catch 22 with any sort of malpractice lawsuit or wrongful termination or basically any time you try to take on a power structure.. doesn’t make it right. And the fact they are trying to legislate away your right to even TRY is startling - why bother if there is nothing to worry about?

 

[Lurker]

Catch 22 with any sort of malpractice lawsuit or wrongful termination or basically any time you try to take on a power structure.. doesn’t make it right. And the fact they are trying to legislate away your right to even TRY is startling - why bother if there is nothing to worry about?

Yeah, just let the courts figure it out.

 

[justjess]

We have more leverage with striking anyhow.. atleast in positions that need some sort of training/skill or like a general strike (not like it will ever happen).

They shouldn’t be taking away our ability to sue, even if I don’t trust the courts to be objective either. We have a right to hold our employers and our country accountable in areas they exert control. Our avenues for doing so are disappearing daily.

 

[Thunderian]

EMPLOYEES CAN NOT SUE EMPLOYERS DUE TO COVID SAFETY CONCERNS.

What should employers be doing to protect workers? Is there more than sanitizing and masks? Why should an employer be liable for coronavirus, but not the flu, or any other communicable disease that might cause death? I’m not trying to fight with you, just wondering.

 

[Lurker]

What should employers be doing to protect workers? Is there more than sanitizing and masks? Why should an employer be liable for coronavirus, but not the flu, or any other communicable disease that might cause death? I’m not trying to fight with you, just wondering.

I think the shielding is her issue. Not the safety protocols.

 

[Maes17]

Woman, I’m a woman, colonel.

I don’t think they are trying to hide anything but maybe businesses would be scared to open of their employees could sue them if they got sick. People aren’t always honest or truthful ya know.

^^^
Have to agree
@Lisa is not wrong here

 

[Maes17]

What should employers be doing to protect workers? Is there more than sanitizing and masks? Why should an employer be liable for coronavirus, but not the flu, or any other communicable disease that might cause death? I’m not trying to fight with you, just wondering.

Yeah that can turn into a potential “loophole” narrative.

Another damned if you do/don’t situation

 

[vancityeagle]

President Donald Trump said during a press briefing Monday evening that his administration is aiming to shield corporations from legal responsibility for workers who contract the novel coronavirus on the job, a move that the Chamber of Commerce and right-wing advocacy groups are aggressively lobbying for as the White House pushes to reopen the U.S. economy against the warnings of public health experts.

Trump Wants to Shield Companies Against COVID-19 Lawsuits From Sick Workers

Businesses are asking for the right to expose their workers to fatal risks with no consequences.

truthout.org

That is just disgusting.

If he's so sure it's all just an overblown "hoax" then he shouldn't be protecting businesses from lawsuits.

Such a despicable human being.

 

[justjess]

What should employers be doing to protect workers? Is there more than sanitizing and masks? Why should an employer be liable for coronavirus, but not the flu, or any other communicable disease that might cause death? I’m not trying to fight with you, just wondering.

Okay so imagine an employer that doesn’t provide protective gear, that doesn’t decrease capacity, that knows other staff or clients are sick and doesn’t close down to properly sanitize and protect their staff or send the sick person home or notify their employees etc.. imagine they don’t follow hygiene protocols, they don’t do the basic things you are citing in your response. Employees get sick and die. If they just quit they won’t get unemployment since the business is open so that’s not an option..

By barring employees from suing their employers for unsafe business practices you are allowing all of the above to take place. Most people wouldn’t sue, as mentioned previously people can’t afford the time and money to do so.. but the threat of being sued works as a deterrent to the above mentioned practices (they still happen but less often).

Again, if there is nothing to worry about, no reason to have stay at home orders, there should be no reason for this at all.

 

[vancityeagle]

And for those defending Trump, saying "he's just defending companies from false lawsuits"

Bullshit. Isn't that what corporate lawyers and trials are for ? It's not like all lawsuits automatically win. They do have to PROVE a case, wouldnt even be easy to do in these type of situations.

Like @justjess said, the fact Trump is trying to circumvent that whole process entirely show him for the disgusting elite serving bastard that he is.

 

[justjess]

What should employers be doing to protect workers? Is there more than sanitizing and masks? Why should an employer be liable for coronavirus, but not the flu, or any other communicable disease that might cause death? I’m not trying to fight with you, just wondering.

I just want to follow this up.. OSHA has very clear guidelines/regulations about certain identifiable communicable diseases and how they need to be handled once knowledge of exposure occurs. So we already do hold employers/companies accountable in regards to fatal communicable diseases. Creating an exception here... why?

 

[Aero]

OSHA has no teeth though.

Where I work I could pick out 100 OSHA violations daily. It's mostly product stacked too high causing potential harm, and out of date equipment that's literally a ticking time bomb for someone to get hurt. But none of that means anything. They are "guidelines" but that doesn't mean anything will happen if I report them.

Actually something will happen. I will be retaliated against by my employer for wanting safe conditions.

 

[justjess]

OSHA has no teeth though.

Where I work I could pick out 100 OSHA violations daily. It's mostly product stacked too high causing potential harm, and out of date equipment that's literally a ticking time bomb for someone to get hurt. But none of that means anything. They are "guidelines" but that doesn't mean anything will happen if I report them.

Actually something will happen. I will be retaliated against by my employer for wanting safe conditions.

Do you follow the AIDS protocols for blood exposure?

 

[Maes17]

OSHA has no teeth though.

Where I work I could pick out 100 OSHA violations daily. It's mostly product stacked too high causing potential harm, and out of date equipment that's literally a ticking time bomb for someone to get hurt. But none of that means anything. They are "guidelines" but that doesn't mean anything will happen if I report them.

Actually something will happen. I will be retaliated against by my employer for wanting safe conditions.

Yup!

 

[justjess]

So fuck it then? Just give employers the green light to fill their buildings to capacity to maximize profit in the middle of a pandemic that hasn’t been contained yet? Because OSHA has no teeth? I’ve literally never worked at a place that didn’t follow the protocols for communicable diseases (as outlined by OSHA and others). Why? Because if they didn’t and half the staff got aids they’d have more than OSHA to worry about.

 

[Aero]

Do you follow the AIDS protocols for blood exposure?

We are supposed to. But if faulty equipment, misplaced product and slip, and fall hazards fly under the radar, I would imagine blood cleanups do too. I will admit that chemical and disease type hazards seem like they are taken more seriously.

BTW nobody is saying fuck it. It's just that OSHA sucks. I like the idea of going on strike, but most of the sackless Unions will never take the risk. This is actually a perfect time to go on strike and really fuck the corporation though. If they can't find temporary workers, which in the middle of a pandemic seems likely, they will have to give in to whatever we demand.

 

[Lurker]

So fuck it then?

 

[justjess]

We don’t have to have a union to strike. We have to have a united workforce, no formal union required.

I’ve seen safety protocols ignored, but never with communicable diseases (blood etc). Never. I get it that OSHA can be worthless and nothing typically happens other then some meaningless fines.. but this thread wasn’t about OSHA. It was about the government prohibiting employees from SUING employers who expose them to covid. OSHA was a side comment because of something thunder said about we don’t hold employers accountable for other diseases - we do, OSHA was the example.

People shouldn’t be sent back to work without proper precautions. And if employers don’t take this seriously we should be able to sue them. None of that negates that I still think we would be better off striking - if we can maintain the necessary unity to do so.

 

[justjess]

My daughters head just almost exploded because the words to the song were wrong lmao