Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    nyc.politics    |    Politics specific to New York City    |    92,003 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 90,459 of 92,003    |
|    Intelligent Party to All    |
|    COVID & Commerce - though it's ludicrous    |
|    03 May 20 12:10:29    |
      XPost: sac.politics, ca.general, alt.california       XPost: ca.politics, ny.politics       From: Intelligent@savetheworldmsn.com              First of all, employee and consumer protections matter.              Regarding complaints about prohibition of commerce; and is regulation of       commerce       not to include *prohibition* of commerce, therefore....              1. Are consumers protected from sale, if they fully know and continue to be       warned       by advisement at the store entrance about COVID.       2. May the employees quit and come back at any time before or after COVID is       over       with no penalty. And are they fully advised as to this right, and continue to       be       warned as to the dangers of working, at the office entrance.       3. Are people in receipt of $2,000-$4,000 per month, so they do not have to       work,       and are only working for extra money. Not because they could otherwise die,       and       can thereby be exploited?!              4. Even if it was 100% allowed, would you really even have your office, store       or       restaurant open given the high risk.              It seems the issue really comes down to employee protections vs. prohibition of       commerce. Prohibition of commerce does NOT seem warranted for consumer       protections given the easy solution of advisement - that is, product labeling,       advertisement, and marketing control. Force advertisement of the restaurant as       assisted suicide for example, but this is ludicrous. Yet that is what that       would       be. Additionally forcing the restaurant to force consumers to wear masks while       inside, to protect both employees and other consumers. Hardeeharharhar I       wonder       how they could eat. Okay I guess that's prohibition, but technically not.        You're       just saying they have to wear the mask, not that they couldn't eat, okay I       guess       that's a deceitful argument. Take-out food answers the issue there anyway.        Then       you could eat it on the beach... oooh except ... (our human rights are not       respected because of no distinction made between commerce and totalitarian       oppression).              Employee and Consumer protections matter!              Regulation of commerce for Consumers, might include:       Consumer Advisement in the form of Product Labeling, Advertisement and       Marketing       Control       Quality Control       Product Bundling       Location of Sale?              General principal of Employee labor law is the work not be unnecessarily       dangerous, injurious, painful, or unsanitary (poisonous). COVID employment is       easily all four. Employing people to commit unnecessary self-harm. Thus only       necessary activities, such as fire fighting, are presently allowed.                     Consider the following black letter advice:              "The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and       among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." - U.S. Constitution,       Article I, Section 8, Clause 3              "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or       prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or       of       the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition       the       Government for a redress of grievances." - U.S. Constitution, 1st Amendment              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca