repubs for the working man

[blacken700]

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/08/421510/new-hampshire-gop-repeal-lunch/

[howardroark]

blacken, what will happen if this law is repealed? Will everyone in NH suddenly become a wage-slave? 

[blacken700]

tell us, what would be the reason for even fucking with it

[howardroark]

tell us, what would be the reason for even fucking with it

1. Regulatory costs imposed on businesses by having this law. More regulatory costs = less profits, less money for wages, less money for hiring new workers
2. The freedom of the employer and the employee to skip a lunch break if they so choose.

I don't see the reason for even creating this law in the first place.

[blacken700]

as you can see not all employers can be as trustworthy as you

Of course, not every employer can be counted to to follow even the easiest of requirements to look after workers’ health and rights. Back in 2005, Walmart was forced to pay $172 million for denying workers their lunch breaks. Pyramid Breweries Inc. settled a case in 2008 for $1.5 million. Just a few months ago, California ordered Embassy Suites to pay workers tens of thousands of dollars for forcing them to skip breaks.

[Fury]

1. Regulatory costs imposed on businesses by having this law. More regulatory costs = less profits, less money for wages, less money for hiring new workers
2. The freedom of the employer and the employee to skip a lunch break if they so choose.

I don't see the reason for even creating this law in the first place.

Far too complex for this jobless degenerate to understand.

Blacken's entire worldview can be summed up in the words "Where my free shit?"

[blacken700]

Far too complex for this jobless degenerate to understand.

Blacken's entire worldview can be summed up in the words "Where my free shit?"

wyfi is back on in the burger king kitchen

[howardroark]

as you can see not all employers can be as trustworthy as you

Of course, not every employer can be counted to to follow even the easiest of requirements to look after workers’ health and rights. Back in 2005, Walmart was forced to pay $172 million for denying workers their lunch breaks. Pyramid Breweries Inc. settled a case in 2008 for $1.5 million. Just a few months ago, California ordered Embassy Suites to pay workers tens of thousands of dollars for forcing them to skip breaks.

And you think that these kinds of regulations have no effects?

Think about it: Why would the employer not allow workers to have breaks? Because they're losing money when the workers take  breaks. More break time = less profits = less money for wages or hiring new workers.

It's as simple as that. If you go hard after employers like this, they'll probably just hire less workers and be less productive. That's worse for both consumers and workers.