Houston lawsuit seeks to halt looming “Death Star” bill

  • Thorosofbeer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    From the title alone you can tell this article is going to be sensationalist because the law doesn’t “ban” water breaks. That’s not even a mistake it is an intentional lie to make it sound worse.

    • coffeetest@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe you’d like to explain then.

      “Once HB 2127 goes into effect in September, local ordinances mandating water breaks for workers outdoors in cities across the state, which the Observer writes contributed to a “significant decrease in annual heat-related illnesses and heat deaths,” will be overturned and localities will be barred from passing new ones.”

      • CrazyEddie041@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, teeechnically he’s still right. It doesn’t ban water breaks, it bans mandating water breaks. Companies are still free to give people breaks, but not because they’re legally required to. All that being said… for all intents and purposes, it’s a water break ban.

      • EtherWhack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think they are meaning that it removes the requirement to give water breaks, doesn’t ban them, but leaves if they are actually allowed to the employer (of which could now penalize the employee if they wanted)

        • keeb420@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          and we all know in capitalism employers always act in the best interest of their employees and never abuse them or anything.