Texans Die from Heat Exhaustion After Governor Bans Water Breaks

L4sBot@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world – 526 points – Texans Die from Heat Exhaustion After Governor Bans Water Breaks
texasobserver.org

House Bill 2127 pre-empts municipalities from enacting legislation in eight areas—with predictable results.

100

You are viewing a single comment
View all comments

I am vehemently opposed to this law. It is useless, dangerous bullshit, done only for political signalling.

However, this artcle is bullshit too, having absolutely nothing to do with the law, except for the headline.

Local ordinances mandating water breaks for workers outdoors, passed in Austin in 2010 and in Dallas in 2015, have contributed to a significant decrease in annual heat-related illnesses and heat deaths. Since 2011, annual workplace heat-related illness numbers have dropped by 78 percent, while workplace heat-related deaths have cut in half. San Antonio considered a similar ordinance before the Death Star zapped its chances.

In addition to overturning existing local ordinances, House Bill 2127 bans cities and counties from passing new ones at the risk of legal action. These include any bills concerning agriculture, finance, insurance, labor, natural resources, property, business and commerce, and occupations.

[...] come September 1, those water breaks in Dallas and Austin will no longer be mandatory. Some workers fear that bosses seeking to increase production will eliminate existing breaks.

Trying to understand how this has nothing to do with it?

How can people be dying now to something that comes into effect on September 1st?

I didn't say the headline was the best, I said the article discussed the topic at hand and provided examples with how.

The fact that people are ALREADY dying and this would LIMIT their MANDATED breaks, it goes to show this is very much a step in the wrong direction.

That's not even acknowledging the fact that all estimates indicate summers will only get more severe.

I didn't say the headline was the best

Biggest understatement.

The headline implies that people died as a direct result of this legislation, when the law have even gone into effect and the deaths had absolutely nothing to do with the law.

OK, they described the content and background of the law. But the article is about 11 deaths that are utterly unrelated to that law. And the headline is a salacious attempt to link the two.

Do you actually disagree with my point, or is this just useless pedantry?