- cross-posted to:
- aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
- workreform@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
- workreform@lemmy.world
Say goodbye to breaks and lunch when working > 6 hours a day! Kentucky says just let the feds set the rules.
You must log in or # to comment.
The United States workers need to copy the French! Unite and strike! Workers always have the power when they unite their forces.
In the US the cops have a long history of killing striking workers.
Everyone’s semi-annual reminder that the Pinkerton Agency still exists
And has recently worked for WotC.
Wizards of the coast? Work opportunity tax credit?
In France the opposite is true.
French cops are the closest Western Europe gets to American-style policing. Don’t fuck with French cops, they will break your legs and get away with it.
Well, that’s why you guys are allowed to bear arms, right? In case the cops and government get all crazy? Isn’t that the whole reason for the gun thing? So, go strike. Wait for cops. If they open fire, take them down. Mobilize more people, because the military is next. See what happens. Defend your rights. Don’t just pose around with a shotgun in your truck.
The people striking aren’t the unemployed rednecks posing with shotguns in their trucks.
What’s your point?
That workers in the US have a lot more reason to be wary about striking. Hell, just look at the way protestors are being treated in Georgia over Cop City.
They should still do it, but also it’s more risky than in Europe.
Also if you lose your job (which is harder to lose in the first place) in the EU, you don’t lose your healthcare.
Plus a bunch of the ass backwards red states have laws against unions, dystopianly named “right to work” laws.
When was the last occurrence of cops getting permission to kill strikers in the US?
Less than 100 years ago. I only tried one search though and found a story about a guy who killed a cop and a utility worker, then gave up.
Edit: Blair mountain was 1921, so that was just over 100 years ago, but I expect there have been others since.
The problem with that is the coordination, a general strike like is the flavor in europe requires a lot of prep and a lot of coordinating resources to keep everyone from losing their shirts during the struggle, imagine the problems trying to coordinate a general strike across the whole of Europe, sans language barriers for the most part, and you’ll begin to get a picture of what America’s working with on the labor solidarity front
It’d have to be state by state
At some point, people need to revolt. This is ridiculous.
They are revolting, FOR this… With every GOP vote they prove this is what they want…
I would say this is revolting.
The guy who made this bill needs to be made made example of. Tarred and feathered would be the gentlest reaction
deleted by creator
That time was years ago… but now’s as good a time as any. When will we all have enough?
And how many hours a day do these cunts work?
I emailed my representative here in KY about this and his response was, “I don’t get lunch most days during Session.” JFC How about writing a bill to ensure representatives are allowed to take a lunch break, instead of supporting one that takes away everyone else’s right to one? What an asshole. By the way, his name is Daniel Fister, in case any other people stuck in this hellhole state want to look up his email address and let him know how you feel about how much of a twat he is.
I emailed my representative here in KY about this and his response was, “I don’t get lunch most days during Session.”
Ask him how many bags of mulch, bags of cement mix, or flats of shingles he moves in an average day during session.
That motherfucker needs to get his ass kicked on live TV.
Trial by combat
In even-numbered years, sessions may not last more than 60 legislative days, and cannot extend beyond April 15. In odd-numbered years, sessions may not last more than 30 legislative days, and cannot extend beyond March 30.
Wow the guy works a whole 30-60 days per year 🙄
You should reply that in the next election you’ll be voting for him to have a lot more free time.
This is the response you come up with 2 weeks later while in the shower.
Thank goodness for Lemmy then 😁
I emailed my representative here in KY about this and his response was, “I don’t get lunch most days during Session.”
You’re also not doing physical labor out in the heat of the day.
Just pull yourself up by your bootstrap in the morning and get the work done before the sun is up, sissy.
But don’t you dare drilling that wall before i woke up and enjoyed my breakfast!
the one quick fix to this is to change the last day to run for office to the day after the general assembly session ends. I never was surprised when the really noxious evil bills showed up in committee when it was no longer possible for those people to lose their seats.
also I bet they’re running unopposed. I really hate the kentucky democratic party. the wa6 they operate it’s as though they think the republicans are doing a great job it would be a great inconvenience if they challenged them. it’s been that way since I’ve been voting.
The asshole who put forth the bill owns a landscaping company. His motivation is pretty clear.
Jesus fucking christ.
Thankfully the opposition asked him directly about it during the committee. His response should be concerning for the backers of the Bill.
deleted by creator
Hours are for poors.
Because republicans know they can do litterally anything and still get voted in as long as they shout “BUT THE WOKE” everyone now and then.
Removed by mod
If you’re not concerned about losing your job then you’d just quit once your boss takes away your lunch break.
If you are concerned about losing your job (in debt, little savings, living paycheck to paycheck) you can’t risk playing games like this either. That’s why laws that protect employees are important: to prevent employers from taking advantage of the desperate.
As the saying goes: “Boss makes a dollar, I make a dime, that’s why I shit on company time.”
What assholes they are in the Kentucky government.
They’re not special in that regard when it comes to the South.
I feel like I spent to much time in the sun today…
Why is nobody talking about this?
It would also eliminate the need to pay time and a half overtime on the seventh consecutive day of work for people working at least 40 hours a week,
Am I missing something here. Do these people get paid overtime if they work 7 days in a row, period, as long as they work 40 hours a week? Or does this mean if you work over 40 hours and 7 days in a row, you do not get your overtime pay for the 7th day, even if that puts you over 40 hours?
While i understand many people dont work 7 days in a row, I’m unclear as to why eliminating overtime pay, in any capacity, isn’t a bigger part of this story. I understand breaks are important and it’s not right to take that away, for various reasons, but to eliminate any form of overtime pay is also a big WTF. Idk, this isn’t a thing in my state
And then there’s this:
The bill, if it becomes law, would require employers to pay workers while they are eating instead of giving them a break.
Are they supposed to eat their sandwich while working? The break is only as long as the employee is actively eating? If there’s no break, how are they eating, at all?
Idk. Not like its unusual for me to be dense, but these things really make no sense to me.
As to that second point, if it means that the employer has to pay during a lunch break (which is how it should be), then I’m all for it.
The 8 hrs working plus unpaid lunch way we do it is bullshit.
Y’all are reading into that too much. We have a similar clause in Texas, which is virtually our only protection in regards to breaks. To simplify: they are saying that if the employee is eating AND working, then you have to pay them. I’m not sure how they are wording it in Kentucky but here it’s along the lines of “you don’t have to give the peasants a break, but if you do and it is unpaid then it is illegal to request that they work”.
It sounds stupid because they are literally saying “if you don’t pay them they can’t be forced to work”, but I’m really glad that protection is there or guarantee it would be abused even more than it likely already is.
The practical effect is everyone just gets an unpaid lunch because asking people to work 8 hours with no break is ridiculous.
Yeah i always thought that was stupid. If thats what it means, I wonder if that means it will count towards the 8 hours you actually work? I wonder if companies would want to pay people for the extra hour vs losing an hour of productivity.
Trading off breaks for going home an hour “early” actually sounds like an interesting proposition for office workers, for people that work outside or in a factory, not so much.
I think it’s saying: you don’t have to give your employees a lunch break, but if you do you have to pay them while they’re on break. To me it sounds like a way to convince all employers in the state to not give lunch breaks since they have to now pay employees during lunch.
I got my first job at a pizza place at the age of 15. On my first day, the owner really stressed to me that the law says i had to have breaks, but that they were from laws written for factory workers who couldn’t leave their post to go to the bathroom any time, so it’s okay if they don’t follow exact timelines for my breaks because i could use the bathroom outside of the break time.
Fuck that guy.
Pennsylvania is the same. Employers are not legally required to give breaks during the work day but I’ve never worked or heard of anyone working that didn’t get a break.
Guy who wrote this bill owns a lawncare company. This needs to be struck down and him removed from office.
Then it’s just a matter of time
eliminating work break rights rings
I don’t know why it took me three read-throughs to understand that.
Anyone else have a stroke trying to make sense of the title?
And the body of the article too.
The bill would also would not have to pay minimum wage…
The bill would not would have to not eliminate paying minimum wage.
House Bill 500 would repeal current state legislation that requires employers to allow workers a lunch break for every three to five hours of work completed. The bill, if it becomes law, would require employers to pay workers while they are eating instead of giving them a break.
I don’t get it, it is a paid lunch break or eat while you work? Or are those considered the same thing?
It sounds like lunch may be paid, but the time isn’t mandated. Waiting for a new lot to roll in? Scarf down a sandwich in 7 minutes, get paid for it, and get yer arse back on the line, peasant. You can eat your chips while bolting together widgets. (I have no idea, just a guess.)
deleted by creator
So like Texas then?
But the white left told me the democrats are just as bad on labor!
The what told you?
