• unalivejoy@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      Florida is a right to work state, which means the state has the right to work you to death.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Wrong. Very wrong.

        They want you to think that so you don’t report them.

        They are obligated to provide a safe working environment- under federal law. That’s true for every single state and US territory.

        All “right to work” really means is that you get to quit at any time and they get to fire you at any time.

        The exception to that is in retaliation for complaining or reporting safety hazards (they also can’t fire you for being a protected class etc.)

        • SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          At least in the United States, right to work laws specify that employees can’t be required to contribute financially to union representation as a condition of employment if they opt to not join a union in a unionized workplace.

          They have nothing to do with at-will employment.

    • pete_the_cat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah, he’s seriously an asshole. I just moved down to Miami from NJ, and even though it gets really hot and humid up there, it’s stupid hot down here. The humidity makes a massive difference. Today, it was 78 and about 55% humidity and a relatively low dew point, and it was comfortable. Yesterday, it was also 78, but like 80% humidity and high dew point, and it was sweltering. In my dance class, I was literally drenched in sweat even though the people that had been down here for a while weren’t.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s very rational when you are a Republican bigot and you know that basically all of those workers are poor and most of them minorities, many of whom are immigrants. Fucking over poor and brown people is the rational thing to do when you want a white ethnostate with chattel slavery.

    • cdf12345@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Well it ain’t “surviving in Florida” because that’s an oxymoron.

  • azimir@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s also the coolest summer for the rest of our lives. It’ll only get worse from here, and the Repugs want people to suffer even more from it.

    • FenrirIII@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      They want the poor and working classes to suffer so they can save a buck and lower the AC a couple degrees.

  • Crackhappy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 months ago

    Florida saw some of the draconian measures Texas is enacting and said “Hold the phone, and my beer, I got this”.

  • mojo_raisin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is sadism, and a move in the class war.

    Ensuring workers don’t overheat is the more profitable thing to do, they are giving up some profit specifically to harm those in the working class that they hate.

    The state of course prevents one from defending oneself against such clear attacks. This is why the state (not Florida, the state) is the problem.

  • tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    2 months ago

    I don’t really have a strong opinion as to the right way to go on this, but from a purely legal-technical standpoint, is there a good reason for having the rule made at the state level rather than the local?

    I mean, ordinarily I’d think that it tends to make sense to let things be legislated at a low level unless there’s a reason not to.

    If a locality over-protects workers against heat then, okay, they suffer economically and maybe people and business head to the next town over. I’d think that that’d self-resolve without the state getting involved.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      is there a good reason for having the rule made at the state level rather than the local?

      Basic human anatomy doesn’t change from place to place. It needs to be made on the national level.

    • Bilbo_Haggins@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 months ago

      And if a municipality underprotects against heat? What happens?

      People die of heat stroke, that’s what happens. And the municipality maybe changes the law, but only after someone dies.

      Protections in this situation are at the federal and state level because the consequences of doing them wrong are much more than just “suffering economically.”

      And because worker deaths aren’t always a strong enough motivator at the local level. Frankly, not every town cares about their migrant workers and other working class folks, especially if labor is divided along racial and/or class lines.

      • girlfreddy
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        Pretty sure that’s never happened even once in the history of capitalism.

    • drmeanfeel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Are you really enough of an insane ghoul to be suggesting “The Invisible Hand of the Market” about dying of heatstroke?