Washing Your Hands - That's Big Government.

[Newell Steamer]

https://www.districtsentinel.com/freshman-gop-senator-im-okay-not-forcing-restaurant-workers-wash/

“I was having a discussion with someone, and we were at a Starbucks in my district, and we were talking about certain regulations where I felt like ‘maybe you should allow businesses to opt out,’” he said, “as long as they indicate through proper disclosure, through advertising, through employment literature, or whatever else.”

Tillis was, at the time, the minority whip of the North Carolina House of Representatives.

“She said, ‘I can’t believe that,’” he continued in retelling the story. “And at that time we were sitting back at a table that was near the restrooms and one of the employees just came out. She said: ‘For example, don’t you believe that this regulation that requires this gentleman to wash his hands before he serves your food is important and should be on the books?’”

“I said: ‘As a matter of fact, I think it’s one that I can [use to] illustrate the point,’” he remarked. “I said: ‘I don’t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as they post a sign that says “We don’t require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restroom,”’” he recalled, as the audience chuckled. “The market will take care of that.’”

Just imagine the competition.

Hey, are you tired of fecal matter, rhinovirus and the stench of a rotting Ruben sandwich emanating from your barista's fingers because he didn't wash his hands after he groped his penis?

Well, come on down to Sam's Coffee!

Where we wash our hands after #1s, #2s AND the occasional afternoon bathroom stall crank!!

Don't accept the residue from someone's potentially diseased private areas after they urinate, defecate and manhandle their nether regions - by ordering a cup of joe, from Sam's Coffee!!

 

[BoberFett]

And as we all know, the mere existence of laws are enough to stop bad behavior. That's why murder never happens and drugs don't exist.

 

[Brainonska511]

"Tonight you in for a real treat. I'm personnaly going to prepare the dinner for you and my Audrey."

The problem with this guy's suggestion is that real people can actually be injured. Sure, "the market" might see those shops closed down in time due to lack of business, but I'm sure that will provide little solace to the people that get sick from poor food preparation practices.

And as we all know, the mere existence of laws are enough to stop bad behavior. That's why murder never happens and drugs don't exist.

Good. Let's strike those laws from the books then. They clearly don't work.

 

[CPA]

"Tonight you in for a real treat. I'm personnaly going to prepare the dinner for you and my Audrey."

The problem with this guy's suggestion is that real people can actually be injured. Sure, "the market" might see those shops closed down in time due to lack of business, but I'm sure that will provide little solace to the people that get sick from poor food preparation practices.



Good. Let's strike those laws from the books then. They clearly don't work.

And yet people still get sick. I know I have and I bet you have. A law like that is worthless.

 

[SMOGZINN]

And yet people still get sick. I know I have and I bet you have. A law like that is worthless.

So if a law is not 100% effective, it is 100% useless? That would mean that we should strike any law from our books that we have ever had to prosecute anyone for. Therefore we should only have laws that no one would ever break, which would of course be useless.

 

[cbrunny]

That's stupid. Regulating a sign that says washing hands is not regulated is STILL regulated. What an idiot.

Should we prevent people from getting sick? Nah, let's encourage them to through negligence!

 

[Brainonska511]

And yet people still get sick. I know I have and I bet you have. A law like that is worthless.

As SMOGZINN said. And if there was no law to break, how could the state legally show that a place is unsafe? The regulations food establishments are supposed to follow provide the legal framework for safe/not safe operation and can be used should people get sick or people are in danger of getting sick (eg: regular health inspections).

 

[theeedude]

And who is going to make sure they post a sign that discloses their policy? Wouldn't be the big bad government, would it?

 

[realibrad]

The market will take care of that.

The likely implication is that nobody would go to that establishment and it would close down.

Here is the problem so far as I can tell. We have a law that says employees mush wash hands. Many assume that because there is a law, it makes a positive difference. There is no real way to tell though. We have a law that does very little, and I would bet is almost never if ever enforced.

Every company would simply say they are for doing it, and never enforce it either. The example is kinda poor.

 

[Newell Steamer]

And as we all know, the mere existence of laws are enough to stop bad behavior. That's why murder never happens and drugs don't exist.

So, let's get rid of cops, prisons and court rooms then! Because they clearly do not deter crime,.. since they are always dealing with crime to begin with,...

:hmm:

Anyway,.. we should just remove all of that nonsense.

And, if people are still committing crime, well then,... that's why Little Baby Jesus invented firearms.

 

[Brainonska511]

The likely implication is that nobody would go to that establishment and it would close down.

Here is the problem so far as I can tell. We have a law that says employees mush wash hands. Many assume that because there is a law, it makes a positive difference. There is no real way to tell though. We have a law that does very little, and I would bet is almost never if ever enforced.

Every company would simply say they are for doing it, and never enforce it either. The example is kinda poor.

Yep, never enforced...
http://www.cu-citizenaccess.org/con...ly-shut-down-after-failing-health-inspections

Home Run Food and Liquor, 1509 E. Washington St., Urbana:
Inspected on Feb. 5 with an adjusted score of 28 and five critical violations including milk, eggs and sour cream out of safe temperatures; no hand washing observed during inspection and no soap available; and no sanitizer was present to sanitize utensils and equipment. Re-inspection within 30 days is required.

http://vegas.eater.com/2014/9/10/6158207/snhd-shuts-down-four-restaurants-across-the-valley

Among the violations, spoiled food, food improperly cooled, food unprotected from potential contamination, ineffective pest control measures and staff not properly washing their hands.

http://www.delawareonline.com/story...nspectors-allow-repeated-violations/19665587/

Problems included storing foods at unsafe temperatures, having no soap at the employee hand-washing sink and no sanitizer in the dishwasher, according to state reports.

 

[realibrad]

Yep, never enforced...
http://www.cu-citizenaccess.org/con...ly-shut-down-after-failing-health-inspections



http://vegas.eater.com/2014/9/10/6158207/snhd-shuts-down-four-restaurants-across-the-valley



http://www.delawareonline.com/story...nspectors-allow-repeated-violations/19665587/

Come now, really? The issue was about washing hands after going to the bathroom, not washing hands in general.

Nobody rational could think that I was making a case for not washing hands, as everyone at this point pretty much knows about germs. The issue that the OP made was about washing hands after going to the bathroom. In none of the links that you listed did I see anything about washing hands in or after going to the bathroom. All the ones I saw were about washing hands at other times. Are you trying to tell me there have been people caught not washing their hands in bathrooms? Because I am pretty sure even health inspectors are not allowed to watch you in the bathroom.

Its pretty clear that you have your ax.

 

[Cr0nJ0b]

Can I ask a very simple question?

Is not the sign at the front of the store “I said: ‘As a matter of fact, I think it’s one that I can [use to] illustrate the point,’” he remarked. “I said: ‘I don’t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as they post a sign that says “We don’t require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restroom,”’” he recalled, as the audience chuckled. “The market will take care of that.’”

Isn't "the sign that says "we don't require employees..." a government policy in itself? So what you are proposing is to replace one policy that clearly and effectively outlines behavior with another sign that outlines a position. Both are big government...but one works and the other does not. People just don't get it.

 

[ElFenix]

Come now, really? The issue was about washing hands after going to the bathroom, not washing hands in general.

Nobody rational could think that I was making a case for not washing hands, as everyone at this point pretty much knows about germs. The issue that the OP made was about washing hands after going to the bathroom. In none of the links that you listed did I see anything about washing hands in or after going to the bathroom. All the ones I saw were about washing hands at other times. Are you trying to tell me there have been people caught not washing their hands in bathrooms? Because I am pretty sure even health inspectors are not allowed to watch you in the bathroom.

Its pretty clear that you have your ax.

take your rekt like a man.

 

[realibrad]

take your rekt like a man.

He posted his links to make it seem like the washing hands after going to the restroom laws were enforced. His links said no such things. What his links did say was that people were caught washing their hands in a vegetable sink, no washing their hands before working with food ect.

Also, what makes you think I am a man? :awe:

 

[ElFenix]

He posted his links to make it seem like the washing hands after going to the restroom laws were enforced. His links said no such things. What his links did say was that people were caught washing their hands in a vegetable sink, no washing their hands before working with food ect.

how do you wash your hands properly after going to the restroom when there's no soap?

Also, what makes you think I am a man? :awe:

there's no girls on the internet

 

[Darwin333]

And as we all know, the mere existence of laws are enough to stop bad behavior. That's why murder never happens and drugs don't exist.

The laws aren't purely meant to prevent it, they are meant to provide a mechanism to punish people that do those things. Regulations work the same way.

20 years ago no one in the roofing industry wore harnesses unless they were on absurdly steep roofs, at least not in the 3 states I worked in. After some high profile falls, they modified a few regs, added some more and had OSHA crack down. Now just about every commercial roofing project you see (obviously other than flat roofs) everyone on the roof with harnesses on.

The fines get progressively larger for repeat violations in a 5 year period, by your 3rd or 4th one they get friggen insane, like $50,000 insane. If that one doesn't put you out of business the next one will. Hell simply not tying off a ladder can cost you damn near $10,000 and assuming the ladder was put up properly is not a huge life threatening safety issue.

The point is, regulations if properly enforced are quite effective at changing behavior. Will it stop all of said behavior, of course not, but it does stop a bunch of it.

 

[Darwin333]

Come now, really? The issue was about washing hands after going to the bathroom, not washing hands in general.

Nobody rational could think that I was making a case for not washing hands, as everyone at this point pretty much knows about germs. The issue that the OP made was about washing hands after going to the bathroom. In none of the links that you listed did I see anything about washing hands in or after going to the bathroom. All the ones I saw were about washing hands at other times. Are you trying to tell me there have been people caught not washing their hands in bathrooms? Because I am pretty sure even health inspectors are not allowed to watch you in the bathroom.

Its pretty clear that you have your ax.

I think that regulation requires them to post a sign in the employees bathroom that they must wash their hands before returning to work.

You wish to replace that with a regulation that requires the employer to post a different sign in a different place, as another poster pointed out, isn't it the same amount of regulation?

 

[realibrad]

I think that regulation requires them to post a sign in the employees bathroom that they must wash their hands before returning to work.

You wish to replace that with a regulation that requires the employer to post a different sign in a different place, as another poster pointed out, isn't it the same amount of regulation?

Somehow, people seem to be missing the part at the end of my post.

Every company would simply say they are for doing it, and never enforce it either. The example is kinda poor.

If the gov makes it a law, its not enforceable. If the establishment makes it a rule, its not enforceable. That is why its a poor example.

The point of the story was that markets can to an extent regulate themselves. If a place had a sign that said they do not require their employees to wash their hands, how many people would visit the place? The regulation would be through market demand. The problem with that view is that there is no real way to verify that the act is happening. The government cant watch you in the bathroom, and the employer can't either. So pushing it off onto the free market will have the same effect, which is pretty much zero.

Man, some people are very quick on this topic. I did not realize hand washing was a hot topic issue.

 

[Brainonska511]

Somehow, people seem to be missing the part at the end of my post.



If the gov makes it a law, its not enforceable. If the establishment makes it a rule, its not enforceable. That is why its a poor example.

The point of the story was that markets can to an extent regulate themselves. If a place had a sign that said they do not require their employees to wash their hands, how many people would visit the place? The regulation would be through market demand. The problem with that view is that there is no real way to verify that the act is happening. The government cant watch you in the bathroom, and the employer can't either. So pushing it off onto the free market will have the same effect, which is pretty much zero.

Man, some people are very quick on this topic. I did not realize hand washing was a hot topic issue.

My point is it is enforceable and it does get enforced through health inspections. Googling restaurant health violation closures and you see this like 'employees not observed washing hands; no soap in bathrooms or at hand washing sinks...'

Obviously, they can't watch every employee every minute, but if a restaurant gets fined enough, it'll sink into their skulls that their employees regularly need to wash their hands and the employer will enforce it.

 

[BoberFett]

So, let's get rid of cops, prisons and court rooms then! Because they clearly do not deter crime,.. since they are always dealing with crime to begin with,...

:hmm:

Anyway,.. we should just remove all of that nonsense.

And, if people are still committing crime, well then,... that's why Little Baby Jesus invented firearms.

That's free market justice right there...



True Government Believers amuse me. They're as deluded as they believe Free Marketers to be. Free Marketers believe the market can fix everything, and True Government Believers believe that laws fix everything. "Without a law people would smear shit on their hands while they make your food!!!"

Yeah. They might. And how does a law stop them?

 

[realibrad]

My point is it is enforceable and it does get enforced through health inspections. Googling restaurant health violation closures and you see this like 'employees not observed washing hands; no soap in bathrooms or at hand washing sinks...'

Obviously, they can't watch every employee every minute, but if a restaurant gets fined enough, it'll sink into their skulls that their employees regularly need to wash their hands and the employer will enforce it.

So again, limited to washing hands after going to the restroom, how would a health inspector or coworker enforce the rule/law?

There are obvious ways of enforcing hand washing outside of the bathroom, but that was not the issue the conservation was talking about. My comment was not about health violations in general, just one very specific situation.

 

[ElFenix]

You've never been in a restroom at the same time as others?

And again, if there's no soap how are employees supposed to wash?

 

[realibrad]

You've never been in a restroom at the same time as others?

And again, if there's no soap how are employees supposed to wash?

As a customer yes. But an employer cannot sit in a bathroom and watch people. I am now laughing at thinking of an employer standing with a clipboard and a whistle.

There is some logic with the no soap. But, if an inspector comes in and does not see soap, he can only do a write up for not having soap. He cannot do a write up for not washing hands, but I think its fair to assume what would be happening.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

And as we all know, the mere existence of laws are enough to stop bad behavior. That's why murder never happens and drugs don't exist.

And employees always wash their hands.