The hand that was dealt was the GOP can't get anything passed without some Dem support. They decided not to budge on their number, as if they have some kind of negotiating leverage.

Looks to me like the GOP didn't play their hand.

However you want to say it, it's undeniable the D's could have got $400 a week for the unemployed and another $1200+ for most families, among many other things, which had enough GOP support to pass. They decided nothing was better than that. The $2T never was going to pass because of the evil GOP....great argument. You get the blame the GOP. What now?

But also nothing, as in literally nothing, no unemployment insurance at all, for workers uncomfortable going back to the office when forced to and have to quit rather than being laid off now that their employers have immunity when forcing their workers back, and also nothing for workers who go back to work and get seriously sick or even die because of their employer's greed and unwillingness to take proper safety precautions.

That's absurd. First, that does not circumvent OSHA, or the NLRB. The other thing is, I can't imagine any person/group winning a lawsuit based on stuff that occurs during a pandemic. Ultimately, if you don't feel safe at work, you don't have to go to work. You can't be "forced" to go back to work. I guess you are thinking they would lose their jobs. But if it's unsafe to go to work, you've kinda lost your job already.

They don't have immunity. They just can't be sued. OSHA prevents you from getting fired for not working due to an unaddressed safety issue, and you can collect unemployment if they fire you for not working because of that.

LOL

So all the burden is on the people with the least power in the organization.

How does that promote good health during a crisis ?

jfc.

Do you honestly want to die drowning in your own lung fluid ?

I can think of better short term goals.

Burden? I'm not understanding that . If you feel it's unsafe to work....you don't work, and won't get paid. If the company shuts down because it's not safe to operate, you don't get paid. Why would you go to work if you don't think it's safe? The company does have the right to operate, absent a shut down order. You have a choice to operate with them, or not. In making that choice, you can leverage the legal protections afforded to you to put the employer in the predicitiment of doing the right thing (i.e. not denying your UE claim), or they can face the challenges from NLRB/OSHA, especially if you work in concert with your colleagues. With that said, you can't put a company in a no win situation.



What possible liability would a company face? If the company did something unsafe, they still have to deal with OSHA. If they don't allow their employees to discuss health and safety concerns, they have to deal with the NLRB and OSHA. If they take action against you for any of those things, you have legal protections with the aforementioned agencies, and the media.


I'm a big fan of the NLRB and OSHA. I'm also not unaware of the difficult circumstances workers face, which I'm facing personally (I have an active NLRB complaint that's probably going to be successful, along with a few other colleagues who were in the same position as me) which is why I think a pragmatic response from D's was warranted, rather than play politics and a game of principals when it comes to the second round of stimulus. If you know the GOP won't budge on your demands, having your constituents go without is the worst possible response to that, IMO. Besides, I'm rather sure the liability shield could have been negotiated out. The issue has been about the amount the D's wanted to get, mostly due to the city bailouts.

I don't give a damn about having the ability to sue a company, I much rather have what was being offered by the GOP a month ago and I'm pretty sure my colleagues feel the same way, despite them being hardcore Democrats. Holding out for more when you can get something when you are suffering is not my idea of pragmatism, or leadership. It's certainly not representative of what I need.

It would be much more effective if your employer had a normal amount of responsibility. Being pro actively protected for what they're going to do is nonsense.


Besides you don't like unions so I assume you aren't in one. And if they peg you as a trouble maker your days will be numbered. Whether you know it or not.


And, I will ask it again, ......HOW DOES THAT MAKE THE COUNTRY SAFER ?

This is kind of funny. That knowledge that you think I might be unaware of, is precisely why my (and my colleagues) NLRB case is likely to be successful, and as a consequence of that NLRB charge is why the company most likley did not dispute my UE claim (their reasons for terminating me would have become public record). So, I have first hand knowledge of knowing that if my rights are violated, I have recourse, and it's because I generally know labor law and how to work within it. I gave them multiple opportunities to do the right thing, and made clear I was working in concert with my colleagues, and they did not, and they took action against us.

Yeah, so you got lucky this time.

Your luck will run out though. Especially if you make a habit of being a trouble maker. But whatever. Good for you as long as you can get away with it. Most people can't at all and sooner or later you'll hit a wall.

You're playing a negative ev game and you just won a few hands. Keep grinding and you'll see the odds come around.

Trump is caving. He really wants his bigly signature mailed out on some more checks before November.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...e11_story.html

Hmmm....She settled for way less than $1T that was offered a month and half ago.

That wasn't an offer. The offer was a $500B bill that came out of the Senate that was mainly about protecting business owners instead of working people.

No Trump Bux.

...

Nope. Tabled offer already up to $1.6T; including $250B for state/local govts. Pelosi has styled on them, pretty much.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/01/coro...lief-bill.html

I'd guess a deal gets done for like $1.75~1.9T.

Now it’s just a question of which party will do a better job of claiming credit.

What Pelosi should do to get the Senate on board is to include the entire $500 billion Senate bill including its language into her bill. So here is how I would do it.

$500 billion Senate
$500 house Democrats
$250 billion White House

Let each group pick and choose their own stuff they want to keep in there as long as the spending number remains the same. So if Senate wants to change it as long as it doesn't go over 500 billion they can. Same with house democrats and the White House. Basically make it a blank check bill to be ironed out later but pass something today.

1.25 Trillion everyone almost gets what they want

But they should at minimum pass the $1200 checks and the business loans or it's going to be a really bad Christmas for people.

The liability protection for businesses is a disaster for working people who get sick on the job, and that's the provision the Republicans really crave. Even if that makes it into the final bill, that provision should not be granted for nothing. As such, passing it via your strategy is really stupid.

What does Christmas have to do with anything? Nov 3 is the only date that matters to R's.

If this wasn't an election year there would be no second stimulus outside of maybe the airline bailout.

I think unless employees can prove gross neglience employers should be exempted from direct liability from employees that get sick. The governments are controlling the methods that those businesses can use to protect against the virus so the liability should also pass on to the taxpayers as well. What Congress could do is set up a compensation fund for workers and in that legislation remove most liability from businesses. Pay each wrongful death 250k and other disabled workers up to 100k.

I think that the Senate Republicans don't want Trump to win. That would be my main conclusion if they don't support a bill. If there is no bill passed before the election he's definately going to lose some support. He's already down 7 percent in the polls. So even if he loses 1 percent of the vote it could matter. But House Democrats already look great for the election even if nothing passes. Trump already said that he is fine with a larger bill. We need this bill to smooth out things until we get better employement numbers and a vaccine is ready. This is a huge quarter for struggling businesses. We need as much money as possible moving through the economy.

But what is gross negligence? Should anti-mask business owners get protection when they ban masks in their establishments?

Gross negligence would be allowing known infected workers to work around other people. (except in cases of the defense production act being implemented then liabiilty would shift to the governemnt) Beyond that I do not think they should have any liability.

The virus is in a large enough proportion of the population that it would be very difficult to show that transmission happened as a result of any particular incident. Customers have free will. If they want to go to a business without a mask and stay there then they are interpersonally liable for that. The flu virus kills people as well are we going to start holding businesses liable for protecting all of their customers from each other?