Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

meegbear

(25,438 posts)
Tue Feb 14, 2012, 12:06 PM Feb 2012

New Hampshire Republicans Trying to Eliminate Worker Lunch Breaks

New Hampshire Republicans, completely in the pocket of the American Legislative Exchange Council, are now trying to strip workers of their most basic of rights -- including the right to have a lunch break. J.R. Hoell introduced a bill doing away with the lunch requirement:

“This is an unneeded law,” (Republican state Representative Kyle Jones) said. “If I was to deny one of my employees a break, I would be in a very bad position with the company’s human resources representative. If you consider that this is a very easy law to follow in that everyone already does it, then why do we need it? Our constituents have already proven that they have enough common sense to do this on their own.”

The bill’s sponsor, state representative J.R. Hoell, argued that companies failing to provide lunch breaks would be shamed over social media, thus rendering the law unnecessary. “If they are not letting people have lunch, they could put it out though the news media, though social media. I don’t think that abusive behavior would continue, the way communications are today,” he said.


Those arguments aren't just ridiculous in terms of their logic, they've also been proven wrong:

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.


It's unlikely that the bill will past, but it is a clear sign of the willingness of Republicans of late to propose any extreme, anti-worker legislation they like, because they don't fear the reactions of the public any more. Change the Nation is trying to take these Republicans to task and is asking everyone to text LUNCH to 69866, then share the action on Facebook and Twitter (which you can do via their website).

http://crooksandliars.com/kenneth-quinnell/new-hampshire-republicans-trying-
2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
New Hampshire Republicans Trying to Eliminate Worker Lunch Breaks (Original Post) meegbear Feb 2012 OP
"You load 16 tons and whadda you get? Another day older catbyte Feb 2012 #1
Our loonislature can haz many odd bills. Warren Stupidity Feb 2012 #2

catbyte

(34,359 posts)
1. "You load 16 tons and whadda you get? Another day older
Tue Feb 14, 2012, 01:06 PM
Feb 2012

and deeper in debt. St. Peter don't call me cuz I can't gooooooooo; I owe my soul to the Company Store....do do do do do do do do do"

Good old Tennessee Ernie Ford.

Republicans suck.

Diane
Anishinaabe in MI

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
2. Our loonislature can haz many odd bills.
Tue Feb 14, 2012, 01:27 PM
Feb 2012

Perhaps the oddest is the proposal to eliminate judicial review of legislation. The loonislature is proposing to amend the constitution to block the courts from ruling on the constitutionality of legislation. Essentially they are trying to eliminate the impediment of constitutional government from the legislature they dominate. They have also declared that the federal constitution does not supersede state law.

http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2012/01/04/new-hampshire-constitutional-amendment-would-prohibit-all-judicial-review-of-legislation-allow-legislature-to-determine-constitutionality-of-its-own-acts/


To decide upon the legality of claims and conduct made in the course of determining cases in controversy between persons arising under laws previously established is a judicial act. The supreme court shall have final authority on the constitutionality of judicial acts. To make a new general rule of prospective effect for the regulation of new controversies for the general benefit and welfare of the state is a legislative act. The general court shall have final authority on the constitutionality of legislative acts.


("General Court" is the peculiar term used here for our loonislature.)
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»New Hampshire Republicans...