https://www.alternet.org/gop-lawmaker-lunch-breaks/ GOP lawmaker wants to eliminate lunch breaks and cut worker pay Kentucky state representative Phillip Pratt (Image: Kentucky Legislative Research Committee / public domain) Carl Gibson March 01, 2024 A Republican state representative in Kentucky is proposing a bill that, if passed, would repeal the requirement that employers provide workers with lunch breaks. It also includes language that would result in a reduction in net pay for many workers. The Kentucky Center for Economic Policy (KCEP) — a fiscal policy think tank in the commonwealth — recently broke down House Bill 500, which was sponsored by Republican Rep. Phillip Pratt. Aside from its language allowing companies to avoid having to provide lunch breaks to workers, it would also eliminate mandatory rest breaks and end the requirement to pay time-and-a-half wages to employees who work seven days a week. HB 500 also removes any liability for employers who don't pay workers for time on the clock traveling between jobs, and allows companies to not pay workers for tasks associated with starting and ending a job. Additionally, the bill reduces the amount of time workers have to report labor violations from five years to three years, and blocks plaintiffs from being paid punitive damages for suffering emotional distress, humiliation or embarrassment over wrongful termination. "Collectively, these provisions weaken multiple common sense protections for safe working conditions and fair pay that have been a part of Kentucky’s safeguards for more than half a century," the KCEP wrote in its analysis of the bill. "HB 500 will make work more dangerous by depriving workers of food and rest, incentivizing them to travel too quickly to get to their job site, and discouraging them from taking proper precautions at the start of shifts. And it will take pay away from workers when they are moving between job locations, working excessive weeks, and engaging in necessary tasks at the beginning and end of the work day." Should the bill pass, Rep. Pratt would stand to reap a financial benefit, as he is the owner of a lawn care and landscaping business in Georgetown, Kentucky. Outdoor workers like landscapers typically have to take frequent breaks throughout the day due to the physically demanding nature of their jobs — particularly in hot summer months. In Texas, for example, the City of Dallas mandates that construction workers have a 10-minute break every four hours (a bill Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law last year eliminated mandatory water breaks). Even if the bill passes the Kentucky legislature, Democratic Governor Andy Beshear is unlikely to sign it into law. But Kentucky Republicans have the ability to override him due to their veto-proof majorities in both chambers. The Kentucky legislature's official website shows that HB 500 has not yet received a full floor vote. Rep. Pratt announced in late 2023 he will not seek a fifth term in office, and will serve out the rest of his term, which ends on December 31. @2024 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.
I like it so much better when government representatives attempt to pass laws in the open, rather than covert unions arm wrestling employers into to submission. That is Kentucky and, despite having a Dem governor, it's a pretty red state. If such a bill was ever to pass (very unlikely), I wonder what impact it would have on labor immigration and shortage, considering how easy it is to pack up and move. This guy is retiring so he doesn't care about voter reaction, but I'm surprised at the audacity of this bill in 2024. It also shows that no unions are needed to debate detailed employment rules where they should be decided, in the open.
holy mental gymnastics batman. I'll let someone else take this one cuz I'm having a hard time even understanding what you're saying.
Can I ask why you don’t like unions arm wrestling employers into submission? Can you tell me how it causes you harm? Not theoretical harm but actual harm.
The Executive Management Team and Board met last week to discuss and collectively come to an agreement on how the company would respond to the problem of recent employee... collectivization.
Harm is a big word and I'd rather call it impact. Let me give you an example... Ford and GM are heavily unionized. Labor costs and shared decision making are such that it's hindered their ability to innovate and be profitable. As a consequence, they've just about given up making cars to concentrate on their still profitable pickup trucks and SUV sold primarily in the US and Canada. Those lines have remained for years with minor annual refresh and, as a consequence, GM and F aren't growing, operating on single digit profit margins. Nobody really cared (satisfied with mediocrity) until Tesla came along and changed the world of automobile. Despite 10 years or so of Tesla growth neither GM nor F have been able to produce competitive vehicles to Tesla's. Why? Management has to take a chunk of responsibility for it, but it's also key to understand that they are a product of the straightjacket unions have placed them in... Decision by consensus, process changes through negotiations, hire/fire by union approval. No harm to me personally, no impact either since I've never purchased an American vehicle.
He champions Libertarianism despite being critical of it. Take the following for instance: He's deluded himself into thinking that such transparently pro-corporate law is "a good thing actually" because in theory, if adopted, employees would "vote with their feet" and the omniscient free market would have that labor force go elsewhere. You see, all of that w/o a single need for a union, just beautiful market dynamics. The failure in that delusion of course is that if adopted, it's not a single employer that would take advantage of it so it's not like you can just go next door to the next employer. You literally have to pack and leave the state- a simple task done by millions in Vicbee's world. Problem w/that mentality is, it's much harder for the low income earners, it's much harder for older employees and people w/families or people w/roots in the area who've accumulated wealth through properties. Never mind the destruction of local economies The failure in that delusion is that employers may squeeze as much as they can w/o causing an exodus. Making it intolerable enough for you to stick around, intolerable enough to be replaced by people who will put up with it (minors, immigrants) & intolerable enough to convince you that getting unions involved, who'd improve things would in fact make your situation worse. The failure in that delusion is that geographically, the next state over may follow suit or if elected, the whole nation would, so at that point this "voting w/your feet" becomes an international exodus. Vicbee's issue is a lack of imagination and doesn't see that's in fact what's happened through Latin America & elsewhere.
Lol, I have to ping @johnarb for being called a Libertarian, that will make him laugh too. Let me correct you and clarify. I'm the opposite of a libertarian because I strongly believe in government. You should know because more than once you've criticized my pro government stances. I believe in government because its representatives, president, senators and congressmen are all elected by The People. That's a great power taken far too lightly by way too many in the US. If we don't like our elected officials we can vote them out. I may not like some elected officials, but if they are still in office it's because enough electors do, and I have to respect that. All I can do is become an activist to sway people to vote for someone else or walk away. In the above case, I find that bill being presented by the outgoing Republican Rep preposterous but, more fascinating, is that he was reelected 5 times before retiring. Clearly, enough people in Kentucky appreciate Mr. Pratt and his actions. Therefore, we must believe his constituents are in agreement with the bill put forward and that's very important. About that bill... It's precise and detailed, which means our government is fully empowered to drill down on defining what workers rights are. There is no need for unions to further extract benefits if those are clearly spelled out by our elected officials in law. Let's consider the wild possibility that the bill passes, meaning approved by all state representatives, thus a majority of the state's voters, and the Governor approves it and becomes law. In America no elected official has much authority and that law would quickly be challenged in courts by local groups, then possibly appealed and appealed again to the state supreme court. If that law stood to challenges, the federal government would challenge the state supreme court decision, appeal and appeal again to the US Supreme Court. That's a lot of challenges and delays implementing this law by people whose job is to ensure crazy bills don't pass and make everyone look like imbeciles. Yet, if no one was to challenge this law in the first place, the last option for those affected by it is to pack up and move to another state. Destitute Central Americans are ligning up at our border because they have no voting rights, no police protection from criminal gangs, no legal system to defend them and no economic opportunities. That's not what we're talking about here. While we discuss labor laws, the right wing efforts to change the course of what seemed established law of the land are working. A number of states have made abortions illegal and those elected officials who were instrumental passing those laws are being reelected. Unless an upswell of discontent leads to alternative politicians who can reverse these laws, I strongly encourage women and families appalled to live in those states to pack up and go to states they feel better represented by. America is a transient nation, we move for opportunities, belief systems, whatever. America's federal system allows for variations at the states level and continues to date to be a healthy source of contention. My point is, not everyone has to live according to my general belief system, even if I find it best. For reasons I don't always understand, others want to live according to very different rules, some I even find offensive. But it's not my place to force my belief system on them anymore than theirs on mine, provided they have freedom of choice.
Well said. As I tried to point out in my joke post, employers are "unionized" already, if not deliberately or legally, then simply by alignment of values.