Random Politics

[The Sybian]

I certainly don't agree with Mr. D about the lack of difference between Dems and R's. But, it is awfully discouraging that all these fucking politicians feel like they don't have to follow the rules they dictate for others. In addition to Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco joined a big birthday party at the very same restaurant as Newsom's party - the very next day.

Yeah I don’t know if any Dem Congressional reps have been busted doing that, but the power of being a big-deal chief executive definitely goes to anyone’s head no matter what party.

We did have Pelosi getting her hair done at a salon in SF during a time the City of SF prohibited salons from opening. The salon owner seemed in on a setup by claiming Pelosi bullied her into opening, while Pelosi claimed ignorance in not knowing salons were prohibited, but even I knew that, so it was a very lame excuse and very bad look.

[mister d]

And more from the best of our best:

[mister d]

File that away for the next time you want to claim the Republicans are playing politics with people's lives. They are, but they aren't unique.

[P.D.X.]

Don't let me steal your thunder, but like, who doesn't already know this shit?

[mister d]

Who doesn't pretend that Pelosi is pure of heart relative to those evil Republicans by virtue of being a Democrat?

[Steve of phpBB]

File that away for the next time you want to claim the Republicans are playing politics with people's lives. They are, but they aren't unique.

I guess I'm missing the story - is the Republican Senate passing a more generous aid package and Pelosi's demanding cuts?

[mister d]

This tweet probably sums it up better than my words would:

[P.D.X.]

I guess any stimulus package is the same as zero stimulus package? I don't doubt Pelosi is a turd, but which do you think the republicans would prefer and which is she championing?

[mister d]

$150,000 for a specific mom and pop bakery is better than nothing too. Can we please stop with the "look, she didn't do nothing!" as a standard of action?

[P.D.X.]

Sure, as long as we can stop "Look they're all the same!" despite tangible evidence to the contrary.

[mister d]

At their core, they are all the same in that their top priority is never the people it should be. From that starting point which shouldn't exist, some are better and some are much worse.

[Steve of phpBB]

This tweet probably sums it up better than my words would:

Sorry, I still don’t get this.

[mister d]

People who don't have money can't pay rent.

[BSF21]

At their core, they are all the same in that their top priority is never the people it should be. From that starting point which shouldn't exist, some are better and some are much worse.

I don't get why people this this is a controversial take. 80% of the 538 want re-elcted and to keep their lifestyle and standard of living. Pelosi is far closer to McConnell than she is to AOC. This includes the other side of the aisle, as I'm sure there are some republican candidates/congresspeople that aren't shitbird Trump ass licking Republicans and have run on the idea of smaller government and a different way to honestly come about solutions to real problems for Americans. The entrenched brass of both sides are far closer to each other and the center than they are to the progressive (or regressive) fringes of their party and that's what's frustrating.

Why is the automatic response to someone pointing out shitty behavior "well at least that's not nearly as shitty as the other guy!". We know. It doesn't preclude establishment democrats from being shitty sometimes.

[Steve of phpBB]

People who don't have money can't pay rent.

I do understand that. I don't understand how this relates to the latest terrible thing that McConnell - sorry, I mean Pelosi - has done.

[mister d]

Agreed to a stimulus package that does not guarantee money for people.

[Ryan]

Yeah this one’s not that cryptic. “We don’t need that much money anymore because people can safely go back to work in July”

[P.D.X.]

I guess this is where someone needs to explain to me how extending and funding unemployment benefits isn't money going to people. (

[mister d]

You can't quit and also your company trying to force you to work or quit has indemnity in this bill.

[Steve of phpBB]

Serves me right for actually being somewhat productive today.

I'm not seeing anything on this, however - do you have a link to what Pelosi agreed to?

[mister d]

(Which doesn't include people who earned money before in non-UE qualifying ways.)

[P.D.X.]

(Which doesn't include people who earned money before in non-UE qualifying ways.)

Is this an assumption or can you source it? Read earlier today that it included benefits for gig & hourly workers. (Can't find the article now.)

[mister d]

I'm sure it would cover some, but given the way UE works and the republican attempts to force corporate indemnity in, wouldn't that leave anyone who won't return to work fucked? Like say you work at a meat-packing plant that's open, your choices are assume personal risk or what?

[A_B]

I'm sure it would cover some, but given the way UE works and the republican attempts to force corporate indemnity in, wouldn't that leave anyone who won't return to work fucked? Like say you work at a meat-packing plant that's open, your choices are assume personal risk or what?

Or your executives place bets on how many people get sick, I think.

[mister d]

"If you really care about paying rent, get in on the bet and win."

[Johnnie]

America is an extremely fucking degenerate society. It's pretty gross.

[A_B]

America is an extremely fucking degenerate society. It's pretty gross.

Hey we aren’t the ones that work for them.

[mister d]

"Blue" No Matter Who!

[Steve of phpBB]

"Blue" No Matter Who!

Isn't it a bad thing to play politics with people's lives?

[mister d]

By indemnifying the corporations that forced some of those people either into unsafe conditions or out of work? That's not "playing politics", its protecting people over industry.

[Steve of phpBB]

By indemnifying the corporations that forced some of those people either into unsafe conditions or out of work? That's not "playing politics", its protecting people over industry.

People will obtain many many times more "protection" by receiving economic relief right now than they would by preserving a supposed right to sue their employers for Covid exposure, especially since in most states, state workers compensation laws prevent workers from suing their employers.

Lawsuits are a bad way to get money to people. Among other things, a plaintiff in a lawsuit has to prove that he or she got Covid from the defendant's business and not from any of the other myriad exposure paths. There's no presumption that the disease came from work. Every plaintiff will have to prove it to a jury. And it will take years for any plaintiff to get anything out of such a lawsuit.

Workers comp is a lot better when it comes to clearly defined injuries that clearly happened at work, but if there are questions about liability, then it is not that much better than traditional litigation. (I did workers comp defense for my first two years of practice.)

Even with that, I don't want to see employer liability protection without a guaranteed compensation system. But here's the thing - as things now stand, it doesn't look like the Dems can get people any relief *without* giving in to this GOP demand. I mean, the Dems in the House passed the Heroes Act six months or so ago. That Act has lots of good stuff in it for people. And it has no waiver of liability for industry. And the Dems have been talking about it for months. And it has not done anyone a damn bit of good, because Mitch McConnell won't bring it or anything like it to a vote in the Senate.

So it may be - and I think it probably will be - that liability protection is the ransom we may have to pay in order to get relief to people who need it.

Anyway, that's how it looks to me. What do you think? Do you think Republicans will agree to a broad-based relief bill without employer liability protection? If not, should the Dems continue their refusal to agree to the liability protection, even if it means that there will be no relief bill? To me, that is the ultimate in playing politics with people's lives.

(For the record, right now it's 7% of Senate Dems being willing to accede to the GOP demand, and 93% remaining unwilling. Who knows how all this will play out. Hell, it may ultimately be "better" if the Senate approves a bill with the waiver, the House does not, and then there might finally be enough public pressure to get the Senate to agree to drop or limit the waiver in conference.)

[mister d]

Anyway, that's how it looks to me. What do you think? Do you think Republicans will agree to a broad-based relief bill without employer liability protection? If not, should the Dems continue their refusal to agree to the liability protection, even if it means that there will be no relief bill? To me, that is the ultimate in playing politics with people's lives.

I think if you can't sufficiently sway the public into joining you to demand a second round of cash payments, you have no right being in public office. If you're at the level of corporate concessions to get less than before, you're either fully inept or complicit.

[Steve of phpBB]

Anyway, that's how it looks to me. What do you think? Do you think Republicans will agree to a broad-based relief bill without employer liability protection? If not, should the Dems continue their refusal to agree to the liability protection, even if it means that there will be no relief bill? To me, that is the ultimate in playing politics with people's lives.

I think if you can't sufficiently sway the public into joining you to demand a second round of cash payments, you have no right being in public office. If you're at the level of corporate concessions to get less than before, you're either fully inept or complicit.

In other words, you have no answer. If there is a policy disagreement and people who prefer another policy have veto power, it must be the Democrats' fault somehow.

[mister d]

If one side is saying "no money for people who need money and also give us corporate concessions" and is winning against the other side that's saying "money for people" then yes, I have no answer for how to fix this abject failure of a party.

[The Sybian]

By indemnifying the corporations that forced some of those people either into unsafe conditions or out of work? That's not "playing politics", its protecting people over industry.

People will obtain many many times more "protection" by receiving economic relief right now than they would by preserving a supposed right to sue their employers for Covid exposure, especially since in most states, state workers compensation laws prevent workers from suing their employers.

Lawsuits are a bad way to get money to people. Among other things, a plaintiff in a lawsuit has to prove that he or she got Covid from the defendant's business and not from any of the other myriad exposure paths. There's no presumption that the disease came from work. Every plaintiff will have to prove it to a jury. And it will take years for any plaintiff to get anything out of such a lawsuit.

While you are undoubtedly correct, I think this misses the point. If industries are given a very public indemnification against lawsuits from workers contracting COVID, businesses will see it as a green light to force workers to return to unsafe working conditions. Sure, the reality is that a lawsuit is very difficult to win, but knowing they may be held liable for gross negligence chills grossly negligent behavior. It's a very clear statement from Congress encouraging businesses to put profits before worker safety, and there is no way in hell I would ever sign or support such a statement. In addition to the moral repugnancy, it will fan the flames of spreading the virus.

If our system had any sense, we would financially encourage people to stay home, or if not encourage, mitigate the damages incurred by workers and businesses putting communal public safety before profits and paychecks. But like everything else, our political system prefers short term profits over long term harms like pollution, and we end up spending more to fix problems than it would have caused to prevent the problems. But, since the tax payers pay to fix it instead of decreased corporate profits, the corporations continue to pay the politicians to do the wrong thing.

[mister d]

People will obtain many many times more "protection" by receiving economic relief right now than they would by preserving a supposed right to sue their employers for Covid exposure, especially since in most states, state workers compensation laws prevent workers from suing their employers.

Circling back to this sentence, aren't the people who are being sacrificed (to use your term) by allowing for corporate indemnity the ones who are left to choose between unsafe conditions and quitting their job versus being let go? Doesn't this bill make them gamble current paycheck against the risk of potential future health expenses (now unrecoverable no matter how negligent their employer) and/or "death"?

[Steve of phpBB]

People will obtain many many times more "protection" by receiving economic relief right now than they would by preserving a supposed right to sue their employers for Covid exposure, especially since in most states, state workers compensation laws prevent workers from suing their employers.

Circling back to this sentence, aren't the people who are being sacrificed (to use your term) by allowing for corporate indemnity the ones who are left to choose between unsafe conditions and quitting their job versus being let go? Doesn't this bill make them gamble current paycheck against the risk of potential future health expenses (now unrecoverable no matter how negligent their employer) and/or "death"?

See, I think you are making a false link between employer liability immunity and "sacrificing" workers.

* You're assuming that in the absence of Congressional action, workers would otherwise be able to sue their employers for negligence. That is not true in Utah, and my understanding is that it is not true in most other states. (However, some states may not treat occupational diseases the same as workplace accidents, so it's possible that in some states workers would otherwise have a right to bring these suits.)

* You're also assuming that filing a lawsuit would give a plaintiff a reasonable chance at adequate compensation. Most of these lawsuits will lose because it will be nearly impossible for workers to prove that they got their exposure from work as opposed to at the grocery store or school or home.

If you want to give employees a way to avoid working in dangerous situations, then let's get the money to them. And the only way to get the money to them (and certainly the *fastest* way to get money to them) is by agreeing to GOP demands for liability protection.

(I don't think I said that agreeing to employer liability would be sacrificing people. I think I meant the opposite - more people will be protected by agreeing to a liability waiver.)

[Steve of phpBB]

While you are undoubtedly correct, I think this misses the point. If industries are given a very public indemnification against lawsuits from workers contracting COVID, businesses will see it as a green light to force workers to return to unsafe working conditions. Sure, the reality is that a lawsuit is very difficult to win, but knowing they may be held liable for gross negligence chills grossly negligent behavior.

Based on my experience, this is not really how things work out in practice.

Again, though, even if it is, what is your proposed solution if the Republicans simply will not agree to relief otherwise?

[mister d]

If you want to give employees a way to avoid working in dangerous situations, then let's get the money to them. And the only way to get the money to them (and certainly the *fastest* way to get money to them) is by agreeing to GOP demands for liability protection.

Where are you seeing money for workers who quit jobs they perceive to be unsafe?

[DSafetyGuy]

Also, most of the jobs that can/will be perceived to be unsafe are those classified as unskilled or semi-skilled labor where management can easily terminate people who can easily be replaced by a temporary labor agency. Most of these jobs take place in factories, warehouses, and other places where there are large open spaces where large numbers of people are in close contact. As such, they will almost certainly have large numbers of people get infected, not isolated cases.

For example, my sister's welding shop, while not a place of unskilled labor, fits this physical description. As of a couple weeks ago, her shop had a 32% positive rate.