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